# Wealth distribution in the USA



## DanYo

!








!

























































https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Gilbert_(businessman)

dude is buying yahoo
5 17 16


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?g=2&c=bl3


----------



## Oldtool

So, what's your point?
Are you saying the distribution isn't fair? "Golly gee, I don't have as much as him, somebody should "give" me some more!" 
How about the fact that everybody in the USA has the same opportunity to "earn" as much as they want! By earn I mean: come up with an idea that sells and everybody wants it, or use your natural talents to create vast amounts of income, or even take the training necessary to create for yourself a demand for your skills.
How about this novel idea: each individual in this country with the same freedoms to achieve as any others, actually take responsibility for their position in the chart you provide! If you aren't happy with your position, do something about it, but don't think someone owes you anything, because they don't.


----------



## stephan

The issue is that there is a smaller and smaller group of people who have a larger percentage of the wealth in this country. We have a increasing number of people that are either living near poverty or close to it. the middle class is getting smaller. There was a time when the American dream was possible for everyone but thats just not true anymore. Never in this countries history has so few owned so much of wealth in this country.


----------



## americanwoodworker

This argument has always amazed me. We scream about how there is so much inequality in wealth. That most of the money is owned by a small percentage of people. So we try and create equality by creating more taxes. We try to use the Gov-ment to force redistribution. However we never stop to think about how this extreme inequality has come about.

Our Country was never intended to have the federal Gov-ment involved the way it is. When we see an auto company mismanage it's business we use the federal Gov-ment to bail them out. Why? Because we have to save the auto workers and everyone down the line. But wait a minute, If they file for chapter 11 bankruptcy they will be forced to fix their problems. Instead we listen to politicians because we have no clue. We take their word for it and praise them for saving the auto industry by using our money. But wait, who really pays taxes? Poor people? Well yes, sort of. Most pay no Federal income tax. They do pay for SS and Medicare.

So who is next? Rich People? Yup they pay most taxes. GREAT, right? Well sort of. They got rich by selling products. Do you think they are dumb enough to have their wealth taxed away? Nope. What they do is raise the price of their products to offset the taxes they are burdened with. Who is the one that pays the taxes then. Well it's us, the middle class. We buy stuff. As prices get higher we pay more, we have less. So you follow the bread crumbs and you find the middle class is always burdened the most.

This idea that the rich are causing problems is a fallacy. In my opinion. We the people are supposed to be responsible and understand basic economics, history and our Gov-ment. Most of us do not. We hear politicians belch out the words "income inequality" and we follow suit. We start demanding the Gov-ment take away money and give it to us. When it is the Gov-ment causing all the problems.

In other words, who can compete against a company that has the Federal Gov-ment backing them? No one can. How do you know that John across the street has not created the next motor that can run of static electricity and operate a car? You wont cause the Gov-ment took his money and propped up a corporation that would be his competition. The further along we get into our future the more we see Gov-ment getting involved. Until eventually they run everything, and yes it has happened HISTORY repeats itself.

The problem I contend is we the people. We are uneducated sheep. Instead of learning we blame. Instead of leading we follow. When things dont go our way we demand Gov-ment involvement. When that dont work we demand more and more involvement. We name call when someone has a different opinion. The fact is they might be right but we wont know that because we are uneducated.

Follow the crumbs. How do you feel that the new federal healthcare website cost nearly 700 million and does not work? How do you feel that the Senior Vice president of the company that built the website is an old classmate of Michelle Obama? How do you and me compete in a country where the Gov-ment does favors for it's friends or donors? I don't know the answer to that but most of you seem to think it is a workable formula since you keep voting for the yahoos. You are creating the problems.


----------



## BillWhite

Americanwoodworker absolutely took words right outa my mouth. Well said my man.
Where are the common sense-minded people on election day?
Bill


----------



## cmaxnavy

Well said oldtool…

Dan'um: Take a deep breadth and try to swallow this. I note that you have Bill Gates at the top of your list. Rightfully so, he should be. Microsoft gave the world two things:
Microsoft was the first real software company.
Microsoft did put a PC on every desk and in every home. 
At the end of the day, it's that last part that matters. By shifting the value in computing to software, Microsoft commoditized computing hardware and made computing accessible to the masses. *If this isn't one of the most significant events in history, nothing is.*

I could go on but, I think you get the point. When the framers of our much sought after Constitution crafted a nation they understood this . . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men are created equal*, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. They did not say "... all men die equally…" That would be collectivism, otherwise known to the statists amongst us as Communism. I spent 25 years of my life pledging an oath to support and defend our way of life. I don't intend to give that up now. The blank check I wrote to a grateful nation, up to and including my life, is not voided yet! Wake up. I recommend you put your PC to better use.


----------



## cmaxnavy

PS: americanwoodwroker has it exactly right. One more thing - wealthy people have assets. poor people have debts. ask yourself why? perhaps you might come to the same conclusion that I have, they think differently about life and preserving wealth. they delay gratification and put the lion's share effort into hard work and ideas. for sure, the world will always have its poor. maybe a better post would be to share how you're doing your part to lift these poor out of their poverty rather than complain about your own.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*WAFJ!*


----------



## madts

WAFJ? = West African Folk Jazz?


----------



## GFYS

How many jobs did Gandhi create?


----------



## JJohnston

Well, he brought the Indian salt industry back under Indian control.


----------



## DavidBethune

You're gonna pi** Donald off that you didn't mention him.


----------



## KnickKnack

"Focusing on exactly *how* rich the rich are serves merely to distract us from *worrying* about how poor the poor are"


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## HorizontalMike

*Awwwww… CRAP! *

That red dot is San Antonio!


----------



## madts

If I was a 1%' er I would invest a whole lot of money in gun control laws. Try to get rid of them asap. Just remember what happened 200 odd years ago in France. A whole lot of 1% ers lost their heads.


----------



## GFYS

redistribute the work ethic


----------



## HorizontalMike

@madts,
I think the French used an ax, NOT a gun… *;-)*


----------



## madts

Actually the guillotine. Same difference, when your dead your dead. Does not matter whether by axe, by guillotine or by America's beloved gun.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*mics54: "...redistribute the work ethic…"_*

Sorry, but you are WRONG about your assumption about a poor work ethic. Look below and you will notice that the wage value of INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY has nearly DOUBLED since the 1970s while real wages actually declined.

In other words, the American worker is twice as productive as in ~1970 and during that time took the American worker received an 18% pay cut (LESS MONEY).

ORIGINAL SOURCE


----------



## madts

I like your graph Mike. It is true that the worker has taken a major hit in the last 20 years. That money has gone to the CEO and the Stock holders. It should be time to bring in the unions again. That is one way to stop all the moneys going to the upper class.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

*Oldtool *you got the point the distribution isn't fair? you suggest that it is , its a lot of greed here . an old saying'' Don't muzzle an ox while it is threshing grain''.not only do some of the wealthy muzzle this ox but creates and burdens it with debt that it will never get out of . most don't want a hand out but just a fair playing ground ,that's not there and want be .there will always be poor people not be cause they are lazy '' but if you want you can use this as an excuse for looking the other way most do ''some of these wealthy people on the title of this thread give theirs away Bill Gates gives away 48 percent of his wealth ,Buffett gives even more than that just to name a couple that give as in give away to needy i read the love of money is the root of all evil and thought this was a load of crap but after spending many hours with some of these very wealthy people none mentioned here there is something very evil with them to want to make money at any cost to other people


----------



## DanYo

well said eddie


----------



## Oldtool

Dan'um, you still didn't answer my question: what is your point? Until you answer that question, it is not possible to discuss this issue with you. But if your point is that Bill Gates (as an example) has too much, I suggest you convince the vast majority of computer users to stop purchasing Microsoft products. That'll teach him!

H-Mike:
The need for people to be more productive is a fact of life, if you can't do it, someone else will, and maybe even do it better. These are the people striving to achieve what the "1%" have already achieved. Remember, with today's advancements in technology & communications, you are not just competing with your neighbor for work anymore, you're up against millions across the nation and the world. So, if you snooze, you loose. If you are saying the one percent are forcing people to be more productive while reducing their wages, to put it into your words; *Awwwww… CRAP! *Any employee is free to move on anytime they want to or feel they need to. I changed professions 5 times during my working career, for improvement in compensation and an opportunity to gain advancement. If business keeps loosing employees (and valuable experience) because of the treatment of employees (be it wages, working hours, etc.) they'll change, or they'll go out of existence. The business is forced to constantly improve and become more efficient as well as the work force. There are no unwritten laws that say the company can't fail.

madts: 
The stock holders are the people who invest their money in the business, so it can keep producing - AND keep "the others" employed. Why shouldn't they get a return for their investment? Would you willingly give your paycheck to a small business to keep it operating with no returns on your "investment", other than a Thank you? As for the CEO, maybe some are over paid, I'll give you that, but apparently the stockholders (owners) of the company are happy with their performance, or these individuals can be fired just like the employees. 
As for the unions, what would they do? Force payment of higher wages?, maybe, but then the profitability of the entire operation goes down, then you have layoffs, staff reductions, or worse. Unions have had their grasp on American car manufacturing for years, and look what happened to Detroit. Now Chevy, Ford and the others are selling their new cars based upon how "they've improved" the produced. Why didn't they streamline before they went belly up? 
I watched as my father and two brothers, and my neighbor, all lost their jobs in union shops because of this exact scenario. I know how the world runs.


----------



## Oldtool

eddie, if you are following this forum, read my response that follows yours, it'll answer your questions.


----------



## DanYo

not point intended. just an interesting graph… nothing more


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Oldtool your blaming unions for bad decisions that a company has made ,what it sound s like to me , then you didnt take this in to your scenario did you , may be you did but i dont think so .only 7% of the cost of a car is labor ,and maybe you forgot that the last recession that caused it wasn't unions ,you never mentioned that because you are very narrowed minded .or that the stream lining has been going on for year and years i know of well over a 100 thousand that have lost there jobs


----------



## HorizontalMike

*@Oldtool: "...Any employee is free to move on anytime they want to or feel they need to…."*

I guess you are still drinking that "Bootstrap Kool Aid" huh. I bet you still think America has the best healthcare system in the World huh. And I bet you think that CEOs are actually worth $100,000,000/year and actually "work" that hard too, huh.

Funny how the decline in labor unions and their membership, over the last ~40 years, matches THAT SAME DECLINE in overall American workers' wages. Unions busted = lower wages for an entire generation (actually two since a generation is counted as 20yr).


----------



## Bonka

It always seems, to me, that the underlying tone about money and who has it is that there are only so many dollars out there and those who have the most somehow took it from someone else.
Money is infinite. Greed, in reality, is good. When a person wants to make as much money as he can to better his life that is good. Others consider it greed.
The government has no right to tell a company how much to pay or not pay a person. That is up to the company and, if any, the stockholders.
The bad greed I see is in government. It is there right in front of us every day yet nothing is being done about it.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

*Jerry* i tend to agree with you on greed its one of the driving forces to get wealth , it another issue when that greed become to a point of being consumed to get it at any cost then its not greed any longer .and you are right the government dont tell a company what to pay unless you mean the min. wage ,then i dont agree with that either , and stockholder sholdnt have a say either they can buy and sell as they chose .its not who has it but how they get it


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

*Oldtool *i do ask for you to forgive me on the narrow minded comment i was wrong for that ,its a free country and we all have our right to our opinions .we may not agree on it but you can rest assured if one was to tell you not to voice yours i would fight right beside you to defend that right very sorry for the comment it was uncalled for , just got a bit of Irish in me that dont act right some times


----------



## TravisH

I think some choose not to take into account that the worker isn't really any more productive the tools, computers, resources they have to use have made them more productive and we have taken many jobs that once needed skill and made them so that anyone capable of pushing a button can now do the "work" so how much do we pay for a "skill" that almost everyone in the entire world just happens to have?

I have a question… If we were to redistribute all money equally among all Americans does anyone actually believe that everything would be a ok? Too many to be PC, wrap the flag around the average American, etc… face it we aren't all equal. Many of Americans are idiots, many are lazy, many are corrupt, it goes on and on. It wouldn't take long and we would still be in the same situation and without a doubt (some exceptions) the final structure, graphs, etc.. would look the same.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Travis, just who do you think made/makes those "more productive tools" in the first place? I suppose you wouldn't think that "computer skills" are actually a skill at all? Maybe we should require all accountants to work with ONLY a feather quill and an ink well… no calculator, no computer, no paper(another invention)?


----------



## GFYS

unions ruined America, usa does have the best healthcare, I am not wrong about work ethic


----------



## Oldtool

eddie,
No forgiveness necessary, I'm not insulted or offended, besides I've got pretty tough skin. Like you I believe there is two sides to every story, and listening to both is necessary. I didn't express my point very well in that example, I wasn't placing all blame on unions, as I mentioned the companies should have done a better job in the first place, so they wouldn't have to sell the fact they were now improving their product. I think I was still thinking about the fact that companies also need to continuously strive for improvement, else they too fail.

With that in mind, since you are so knowledgeable on the topic *HorizontalMike*, please educate me as to where there is a better health system than that in the US.
While you're at it, what is *WAFJ!*?, and "Bootstrap Kool Aid?, and what the heck does the healthcare system have to do with wealth distribution?
As for the $100M for a CEO, I guess if he's made a company successful for the Board of Directors, the shareholders, and the *many* employees who get regular pay checks because of his decisions, who is to say he's worth less than the professional athlete who gets $60M for playing 16 football games a year for say 6 or 7 years?
As for the union's decline and a paralleled decline in wages, I suppose it was your union rep that gave you that fact. It doesn't matter that US companies are now competing in a world market, and have to be able to produce at lower costs than the overseas manufacturers. Like it or not, America is not the only kid on the block anymore. Other developing countries are producing more and more products, and at lower costs. And guess what, Americans are buying those products.


----------



## Sumdume

Okay, what is the solution to the unequal distribution of wealth?
Should the government be allowed to steal the wealth from the rich and give it to those who do not have as much wealth?
The U.S. government did not bail out the auto industry. The government bailed out the UAW. The Union leaders got millions and the non-union workers lost their pensions.


----------



## madts

The rich have stolen the from the poor. Thats why they are poor. And yes the Government should help distribute the moneys around the Country by the means of taxes etc.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

*Sumdume* the government didnt bail out the union ,union leaders didnt get millions ,im not sure where you got that from ,they did bail out auto industry if you want to call it that but it has been paid back ,and pensions are insured .but let me assure you that pension funds are raided more often than you think ,and cant say the same for the Banks


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

**Oldtool* you are right in this world economy , we are not the only game in town any longer , we were for a while after world war II we were all the others were rebuilding and we flourished well but now its a different playing field. ,some think that wages here is more than other country s but but its way down on the list of wages of other countrys , to point fingers at company CEOs is not right either they have little say they have to make a profit or they will die , just as an example GM they are exporting job out of the country at a large rate , i have talked with them and they don't want to do this but when their competition is going to china ,mexico for cheap labor if they dont then they want make it unions know this its not any thing that can be done ,but when they are given money to move by the government something wrong there , there is something very wrong with ones that loves money and the power that it brings ,its real i have seen it sitting at tables with them across from me ,there are people that have one driving force and it aint you and my welfare or lively hood , they could care less if our children eat , its money that they love ,wealth is a very ,very good thing to have it make life better and provides freedom to do much,weath is not the problem. its wealth that is gotten from ill gotten gain and its a lot of it going on in this world and this country .

ps. 
it may sound as if im talking of the present tense but im not i have been retired for a few years from labor unions so dont think that its now its not just seems like yesterday and the same is still going on


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

mics_54 you can talk all the work ethic you want about union work .you can belive what ever you want but you are wrong ,you shoud go work seven days a week 12 hours a day if thats what you want to do and do it with out any over time or breaks at min wage if you want you can do that its not a law that says you cant


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

To say that every American has the same opportunity to earn as much as they want is a completely ridiculous statement and demonstrates how little you know about the people around you and their life circumstances.

There are millions of people who work their ass off every day and they are paid little to nothing for it. Then all you "small government" crazies get bent up about folks on food stamps and welfare…(likely while you yourself are collecting disability, social security or medicare)...and you never realize that the 'boot straps' billionaires you defend could end the need for social welfare by simply being socially responsible employers. Wal Mart could remove the majority of its workforce from welfare, simply by paying them a living wage and providing health coverage.

You don't like government mandated healthcare? Why aren't you pissed off at the companies that made healthcare unaffordable? Why aren't you pissed off at the work places that do not provide health care or a living wage? THOSE COMPANIES SHOULD BE THE RECIPIENTS OF YOUR DISPLEASURE NOT JUST THE GOVERNMENT.

When profit becomes more important than people WE ALL LOSE!


----------



## americanwoodworker

Just a little education on economics.

Again, I say. The entity that people want to use to redistribute wealth in order to bring about income equality is the very same entity that is creating the problem your trying to fix.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*@madts: "...The rich have stolen the from the poor. Thats why they are poor. And yes the Government should help distribute the moneys around the Country by the means of taxes etc…."*

Indeed! The growing greed of corporations and banks in the past 40 years is quite evident. That theft is in the form of lower wages without ANY benefits, lower interest on savings and higher interest on loans, all with a take it or leave it attitude. The fact that these super rich have their "bought" politicians write laws to allow this to occur, is just as immoral and plain wrong. *Skewed access to money creates inequality* and NOT equality.
THAT leaves most Americans very vulnerable to ANY emergency expenditure.

*Roughly three-quarters of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, with little to no emergency savings, according to a survey released by Bankrate.com Monday.*

Fewer than one in four Americans have enough money in their savings account to cover at least six months of expenses, enough to help cushion the blow of a job loss, medical emergency or some other unexpected event, according to the survey of 1,000 adults. Meanwhile, 50% of those surveyed have less than a three-month cushion and 27% had no savings at all...

Last week, online lender CashNetUSA said 22% of the 1,000 people it recently surveyed had less than $100 in savings to cover an emergency, while 46% had less than $800. After paying debts and taking care of housing, car and child care-related expenses, the respondents said there just isn't enough money left over for saving more...


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

*@ HorizontalMike* i have got in the habit of looking at other wood workers home page when disusing things ,always feel like im snooping but it is what it is  not tring to change subject matter but was looking at your chest ,and its a fine build by the way .but you used some lion head corbels on it ,looked good on the chest ,i went to the web site ,do you remember what section they were listed under ?i may be over looking them but dont see them


----------



## stephan

The term relating to the distribution of wealth is not about taking money from the wealthy its about the fact that it has become necessary to force regulations on the behavior that allowed this to happen and that means the banks and wall street. allowing mergers of companies that 20 years ago would have been illegal. Allowing medical insurance companies to become for profit allowing the investment banks and commercial banks to trade with each other. Not to get to far off topic but as far as the US medical system if anyone that has had to use it without insurance or a poor plan knows how broken it is. We are the only industrialized country in the world where you can lose your house, savings and be in debt for the rest of your life over medical cost, so please don't think we have the best medical coverage in the world. If you don't have a plan and you go to the hospital who do you think pays for it? That would be anyone who does have a plan, The money that doctors and hospital don't get from the patient are paid by you and me those our premiums.


----------



## DrDirt

Part of H-mikes productivity graph really isn't about humans working harder.

A substantial part of the productivity/worker came from automation.

Online banking - lots of transactions are automated with bill pay, direct deposit etc. So tellers are not needed.
NOT that the remaining tellers are working twice as hard.

Similar for manufacturing - as more robotics are used making cars - workers are displaced, not "reallocated" all of the work their now departed colleagues have done.

Computers have eliminated tons of secretaries. Just no need for a "girl friday" anymore - to do typing an filing.

Admittedly there is also a more work being done per person - 
But to say* "the American worker is twice as productive as in ~1970 "* is an oversimplification.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Thanks eddie. Here they are:
http://www.dlawlesshardware.com/lionheadcarg.html

They really do not look like much on the website, so I was taking a chance when I chose them. I originally liked the side profile because they looked like handles. Oh, and a little tip… I ran them all across the jointer to assure they would all mount flat. At least one had a slight twist and needed flattening.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*Dirt: "...Admittedly there is also a more work being done per person -
But to say "the American worker is twice as productive as in ~1970 " is an oversimplification…."*

I agree with the over-simplification, to a point. ACTUALLY those using greater automation have increased productivity MUCH MORE than the graph shows.


----------



## stephan

Unions ruined America really I guess you think it was the generosity of big business that gave you the 40 hour work week or safety on the job the list goes on. Unions had become to powerful but to say they ruined America is just ignorant. Workers and business owners have a symbiotic relationship one needs the other, when one side feels the other is not important thats when you have problems.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

thanks got it book marked


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

stephan, to say Unions ruined America doesn't make a ton of sense. While there are crooked Union leaders (as in any hierarchical system that collects money) Unions themselves have made enormous strides in health and human safety. Go read The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair and you'll get a good picture of life prior to Unions. Look at manufacturing conditions in places like China and you'll start to see why they are necessary.

Of course, manufacturing companies, by and by detest unions and spend lots of money to fight them politically. Folks who walk around weakly denouncing unions are a product of this spending and have clearly not explored the issue worker exploitation.

If corporations worried more about people and a little less about profit, perhaps unions would not be necessary… When profit becomes more important than people, we all lose.


----------



## HorizontalMike

UncannyValleyWoods, I think Stephen was actually agreeing with positions similar to yours. Yeah, his grammar could use some improvement, but the thought behind the answer is in agreement.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

**UncannyValleyWoods* you have said a lot of truth in that they are the products of their spending , never heard it put that way ,really had to think on what you said and it made a lot of sense

*Mike* had to save that one didnt know that either ,


----------



## TravisH

Horizontal Mike I definitely think computer skills are actually a skill set and I believe these individuals were compensated for what they did historically. It is a harder (more competitive) road now as so many possess this skill set no need to pay $$$ for it. The pool of workers has grown exponentially from the "good ol days" to now along with technological advances no longer need a dozen people as we can do it with one of limited skill set. I don't see it as "the man" screwing over the worker. "The man" crushing unions, etc… I think many with "the man" attitude really need to concentrate on themselves being "the man" that really has created the issue.

My point was you have a knack of using data and like to leave out important variables as it lessens the "punch" you are trying to make.

It all boils down to have a unique skill set that is in demand and work hard to maximize your earnings as long term viability in a field is diminishing for most. Have no unique skill sets and you become nothing more than an expendable and easily replaceable variable in the equation. Too many choose paths in life that put them into a pool of a billion other people and in return gives one no ability to ever negotiate for higher wages. Many over evaluate the skill sets they have and most will do nothing to improve them. It was also hard for many to see what the impact world workers would have on their future and the changing face of the population. Now the country is trying to "pay" for this oversight.

I understand it is a horrible feeling to see one become "obsolete" in ones skill. If we are honest many of us see it in our currently fields. A huge influx in Chinese and Indian workers into my field and companies already are turning to these areas for cheap preliminary work and feeding the data through their scientists to make decisions. High rate of poor work is being done but it is getting better as many of these foreign companies hire the top men/women in the field to sit on the board, consult, etc… pay high end to get their companies up to speed and in the end supply a solid product for cheaper than what can be done in the states. Also common for companies to contract this preliminary work out and then take the data and send it to a second high end contractor to weed through it and solve the issues.

One with my skill sets will be worth less in 5, 10, 15 years and in return I should fully expect benefits, salary, and demand for my skill set to reduce. One needs other viable skills or diversify the current skill set to stay relevant or sock as much as possible into retirement options and bow out when the the time comes (my issue is government and and every growing movement of individuals wanting to redistribute what I have earned screws with this).


----------



## bigblockyeti

Sometimes I think it would be more profitable to be poor.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

bigblockyeti….sounds like you've never been poor. The only profit I've encountered in being poor is a healthy understanding that money doesn't buy you happiness….otherwise profit is impossible while heavily laden with student loan debt and barely making it paycheck to paycheck.

To TravisH's comments on skill sets: It's unfortunate that we have found ourselves in a political situation in which billions in subsidies are given to oil companies while school budgets are cut across the country. This is mostly a state by state issue, but the federal government plays a heavy role in financing public education. The fact that the Bush administration actually passed a bill to punish schools that were under performing is unconscionable.

If we want to help people develop skill sets, our schools need to be funded, either by the companies that want a competent work force or by the federal government.


----------



## HorizontalMike

And do NOT forget that corporations have, over time (AKA past ~40yr), progressively removed themselves:


 From paying to train their OWN employees


 From paying for any/all employee healthcare


 From offering any kind/type of job security or retirement benefits. GOP now calls these contractual agreements by the term "entitlements", as if those contractual agreements were some kind evil. IMO, *the only thing evil about it is the corporate wide theft of monie$ set aside to pay those contractual agreements.*

And corporate profits, by and large, are at all time highs. And who is stealing from whom?...


----------



## stephan

Sorry, I am terrible at spelling and grammar [ whats the matter dont i make no good sense ]. But yes I am in agreement with UncannyValleyWoods.


----------



## HorizontalMike

By the way @eddie, I was a proud career member of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) before retiring.


----------



## GFYS

*mics_54 you can talk all the work ethic you want about union work .you can belive what ever you want but you are wrong ,you shoud go work seven days a week 12 hours a day if thats what you want to do and do it with out any over time or breaks at min wage if you want you can do that its not a law that says you cant.*

I do…I am self employed.

Calling union hands workers is a stretch. Private unions do some good. Public union are a total waste as are the entities with whom they collude.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

mics_54 that min wage must be tough there in Alaska ,just picking, i was meaning working for wages for someone else other than your self ,


----------



## HorizontalMike

mics_54,
You are SO full of undocumented opinions, then why can't you even take some time and actually do some woodworking?

You have nothing, NO projects, NO shop, NO reviews. NO blogs, etc. AND YOU HAVE BEEN ON LJs 
FOR *FIVE YEARS!*


----------



## HorizontalMike

Hey @eddie, don't forget that ALL those Alaskans are living off the Government Teat. They don't pay State income taxes, in fact it is the State that PAYS THEM. *Each year they get a check from the socialized profits from the Alaskan Oil Fields.*


----------



## GFYS

by the way since some one brought up employers paying for your healthcare. 
Employers are not your mommy. The fact that individuals do not pay for their own healthcare directly is the largest contributing factor in the 2000% increase in the cost of medical services since 1960s. Having a third party dispense the funds to pay for a given service is the way they hide it. Brilliantly devious! It's almost the same as a public union!!!!! (except public unions don't really provide anything I would call a service)

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba437 for those of you that are inclined to entertain such ideas.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Mike know the AFT well and a great union ,i was a COPE director here and worked with unions down here the teacher s union here are are always the first to get cuts ,a few years back they voted in the lotto here and got it passed telling people that the profits would go to the educators in the state got passed ,never saw a dime it now goes into the general fund ,the teachers here are under paided and we lose a lot of them to other areas in the country and cant blame them ,there are good teacher here that put their heart in to it some just aint in it just for the money.to have a edge on the competition of any thing it has to be a educated work force or we all suffer ,so thank for you service in that trade .


----------



## GFYS

Each year they get a check from the socialized profits from the Alaskan Oil Fields.*

hahah he goes on the attack by criticizing the same type of socialism that he defends. Isn't that consistant with the public union mentality. Now you see why I removed any reference to my person because I know how these people are. We saw how they conducted them selves in the Wisconsin union issues with governor Walker.

hahahaha looks like I hit bone ,eh?


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

mics_54 you must get a lot of breaks on that self employed job


----------



## GFYS

btw mikeypoo…the state doesn't add a dime to the pfd. read a book.
It's a fund co managed by the state and a investment company established to encourage permanent residency in a state where 95% of the state is owned by government and government is the #2 employer. In fact the pfd funds government. I like teaching you people. I just wish you were teachable.

and..for your information I support dissolving the fund.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Hey Mics_54, 
I think it is GREAT that you get a check from the Government of Alaska. But then again *I* support such socialized action with regards to community owned resources.

However, I DO NOT go around claiming to be such a did-it-myself kind of guy, as you do. It must burn your butt to accept such socialized monie$ huh…


----------



## GFYS

*mics_54 you must get a lot of breaks on that self employed job *

LOTS of breaks since Baroke Obankruptcy is in the WH.


----------



## unclebenny

When did this become a political forum? I honestly couldn't care less what your opinion on this is. If Yuk want to argue politics go somewhere else.


----------



## GFYS

Mike you just don't like being corrected. Principles before personalities, my friend.
...and you don't have a clue as to who does and doesn't get what from whom.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

unclebenny i dont know its the coffee lounge , we can talk if we want to , LOL,


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

mics_54 what kind of work do you do not thats its any of my business, just curious


----------



## GFYS

I build stuff.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*"...mics54 what kind of work do you do not thats its any of my business, just curious…"_*

Eddie, looking at his profile, it would be safe to say that it is NOT woodworking. I bet he is a fisherman, especially with all the trolling going on… *;-)*


----------



## GFYS

we are highjacking the thread boys… mr Gandhi isn't getting the troll quota for which he was aiming. 
Eddie since you were civil in your query I shall be also in my answer.
In the last year my projects have included but were not limited to the following.
An outdoor kitchen and pavilion.
An entryway shoe bench.
Shoe cubbies in an entry way.
A screen door
Several planter boxes
A covered deck addition
A garage 
A log/timber table and benches
An entry gable and deck railing for a deck I built last year and a house I built the previous year.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

LOL


----------



## GFYS

amazing eh? busy beaver!


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

mics_54 you should post some of your builds ,we dont all agree on politics and what ever but its what make the world go around ,would love to see entry way shoe bench


----------



## dbray45

Under Ronald Reagan, after he cut taxes, the unemployment went down to 4% or less. If memory serves me right, there were less than 4 million people unemployed in the US - if my numbers are wrong - sorry.

Right now, with all the attack on capitalism, there are over 90 million people not working - 55% of the employable population on federal sustenance (welfare, unemployment, foo stamps, etc…) and growing. The fed is only keeping track of who is on unemployment, not the people that have dropped off and still cannot get a job.

I watched an add for an on-line school - they were bragging that many of their grads got a job in their field of study - within 6 months. How sad!

Regardless of what you think, capitalism works, but only if you keep the government out and you are willing to work. What you do with your life is your business - if you work hard, use your brains, and get off your backside, you should be able to do something with your life - and I work paycheck to paycheck - what IS your point. Who said you are guaranteed anything in life - I never saw that contract.


----------



## GFYS

I might consider it. I need to check to see what happens when I post photos on my home page and if I can load file directly from my pc. I haven't been active on lumberjocks in a LONG time because I was active elsewhere and the photo uploader here was a pita back then. 
It would be ok if some one wishes to view my projects by choosing to go to my page but I don't want to have them presented under the "projects" list on the main page.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

mics_54 Im not that good at posting project so cant really help i just take some pics then use the IMG button to load them ,im stll learning


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

dbray - Sounds like what you're saying is that capitalism works if we just let companies do whatever the hell they want to do. The fact is, most corporations are not socially or environmentally responsible enough to go without regulation. It would be nice if they were. And attempting to link Regan tax cuts with business growth is ridiculous…take an econ class and get back to us on that opinion. The fact is that there are many factors beyond tax rates that grow businesses. Plus, cutting taxes doesn't really help since there is a never ending thirst for profits.

Companies want profits, but most don't want to cover basic expenses, like properly paying their work force. In this world of greed, if you give a corporation an inch, they'll take a mile. Until things change, government is necessary in insuring that we don't return to pre-1920's working conditions and wages.

You know, it's funny that corporations have forgotten that the way to profits is having a well funded middle class to buy your ********************. You want to know why corporations are having a hard time…look at the dwindling middle class and you have your answer.

But, you know…you teatards have bought the "small government" whine hook line and sinker. Tell you what, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you…


----------



## HorizontalMike

*David: "...Under Ronald Reagan, after he cut taxes, the unemployment went down to 4% or less…."*

Sorry but Reagon unemployment was TWICE what you say. This makes Obama look GOOD by comparison.

"...Unemployment went from 7.5 percent in January 1981 up to its peak in November 1982 of 10.8 percent. That month Reagan's tax-cutting, regulation-easing, inflation-fighting policies took hold and sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average on its greatest run ever before finally ending in the Tech Wreck of 2000. Unemployment started declining two months later, almost two full years before Reagan would stand for re-election in November 1984. Unemployment in October 1984 *was down to 7.4 percent*,..."


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

HorizontalMike, I want to hug you.


----------



## GFYS

wow…
Notice how just presenting ideas and opinions brings on personal attacks from the lefties? They sound kinda like Obama calling people terrorists and hostage takers and calling American citizens the enemy rather than convincing people with reasoning and analysis. Makes me wanna be a democrat…how about you?


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

mics_54, I don't think anyone wants you to be a democrat, they would just like you to use a teeny tiny bit of rational thought, instead of parroting ignorant banter that conservative groups spent lots of money to engineer. It's not hard…just use the noodle between your ears and turn off the cable news…


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

And the truly hilarious thing is that there are a multitude of legitimate criticisms that could be levied against the Obama administration…yet all the Teapublicans seem to be able to manage is to drone on and on about the BS that is fed to them through Fox news. I mean really, make some legitimate criticism already…go out and learn the difference between socialism and communism. Hell, research the history of right wing movements. I bet you if did, you would notice that the Nazi Party and modern Nazism are all right wing groups…just like the Teaparty.

If you hate Obama, why not stand up and shout your outrage about education funding, infrastructure projects (or the lack of them). Why not call him out of human rights issues? I mean really, all you teatards ever seem to come up with is "Oh he's a secret Muslim socialist Nazi that wants my guns!" Give me a break.


----------



## GFYS

so objecting to being called names like enemy and hostage taker and terrorist means I hate Obama…OKAY then. You got me there! I repent of all my hating! I won't complain anymore about your loving kindness and reasoning!


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

mics_ you aren't making much sense. I'm not sure about this whole name calling business. If you are referring to constant rhetoric from the republicans, then yes, they do name call quite a bit….I think they've cornered that market…maybe even turned it into an art form. If the Right got it's feelings hurt when B.O. called them out over the shut down, then it just goes to show that those who make up the Tea Party really are hypocrites of the highest order.


----------



## GFYS

you and mike are the only ones calling people names on here and tossing around personal insults. 
you teatards…I know yer really itching to be more descriptive!

By the way…the only way Obama has lowered his unemployment rate is to cause millions of people to leave the workforce completely. Bravo !Kudos Mr Prejudent!


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

You're right mic, I did refer to Tea Party followers as teatards. I'll totally own that. But, I challenge you to prove that characterization false.

Still, I haven't seen you make a legitimate argument to back up your stance whatsoever. I do see quite a lot of blind stabbing in the dark over issues you clearly do not understand, nor have taken the time to investigate.

Here is what I would like to see Republicans do. I would like to see them move away from simply employing obstructionist tactics and rendering debate over moral issues while thumping their Bibles. I would like to see congress evaluate valid, Socio, economic, environmental and budgetary items that should and could be addressed, discuss ideas that can bring about realistic solutions and enact long term solutions to long term problems.

In essence, I would like to see republican representatives do their job. Irrationally baiting the president into these dramatic political pissing matches is not getting the job done. In fact, that sort of behavior is exactly the type of "big government" behavior teaparty republicans love to rag on. They are the problem. But they don't have to be.


----------



## HorizontalMike

mics_54, is it NOT true that you accept *socialized* monies/profit from Alaska Oil Fields each year? That, by definition is being a "Socialist", and thus that makes YOU a "Socialist." I have no problem being a Socialist, yet you want to Demonize the term. Now THAT is name-calling.


----------



## madts

The one reason that the unemployment has not come down is the fact that the teaturds will not fund any stimulus. You know the old adage "You have to spend money to make money." With spending some money to get people employed, everybody would be making money and the US also. Economics 101.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Yes that's it madts, Economics 101…..let's just print money and not worry about the ensuing inflation from doing so.

Why don't we just print a gazillion dollars and give it all out to citizens so everyone can become a millionaire?

Problem solved. Wow that was easy. No more poor. Done.


----------



## GFYS

Mike I thought you were a teacher…post in your next entry the websters dictionary definition of socialism. You are the one demonizing people and making claims about what they are or are not and what they do and don't do when you don't know anything about them. 
You are the one that attacks people personally instead of reinforcing your view on the issues. You are the one that claims to approve of socialism and then attempts to use an example of a state program that you know nothing about to make accusations about people that you also know nothing about. 
The PFD is not government money. I repeat the PFD is NOT government money. I said it several times now. The corpus of this fund came from the oil companies. The state only co manages the fund, which is very successful by the way. It was initially about 750,000 dollars…it was invested and is worth billions now…it funds government and helps citizens of Alaska defray the cost of living in a very small way.
The fund was put in place because land owners do not own the minerals beneath their feet. Gosh I bet you get tired of being corrected by a self made man.


----------



## HorizontalMike

You know mics_54, it IS STILL socialized monie$, so quit denying it. Geez! Get over it already! You ARE receiving socialized monie$! You have been SOCIALIZED!


----------



## DrDirt

Mics - you are banking on a miracle -

There is no interest in learning how the PFD was set up or functions. If they actually bothered to learn about it then they would have to see that it is not socialism… so instead they go on telling the Big Lie - - and figure it will be believed if they just repeat it often enough.

the PFD works more like profit-sharing and is distributed equally - - (Not Each according to need - as the tenet of socialism would demand - equal piece of the pie - birth to death as long as you are a resident).

I had the distinct displeasure of being forced to join a union when I lived in alaska. From 1981-83 I had to join the United Food and Commercial Workers 1496.
At that time the federal minimum wage was 3.85/hour.

I worked at Carrs Grocery #10 (Dimond blvd and Old Seward Highway) for 3.82.

Thank you Union - for Collectively Bargaining a SUB-minimum wage salary for the part time employees working after school jobs.
Learned all I needed to know about what good Unions are.

Unions have driven many of the outsourcing decisions - saying they WON, and the big bosses walk away from the new midwest ghost town they created.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*"...the PFD works more like profit-sharing and is distributed equally…"*

Just what do you think socialism is about then? NOT sharing equally? DOAH!


----------



## GFYS

hahah he thinks a dividend payment from a corporate share is socialist hahahaha


----------



## DrDirt

Sure - in Mikes world all the boards of directors for the Banks and other Fortune 500 companies are all "Socialists" for granting stock options and profit sharing….cough cough…. Nope!


----------



## HorizontalMike

Again… WAFJ!


----------



## GFYS

the pfd is a dividend from the profits earned in an investment portfolio…your JOB was funded by taxation.
Socialism is the Government ownership of production. Read a BOOK.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

*Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.*

And to be real specific. The PFD is a form of Market Socialism:

*Market socialism is a type of economic system where the means of production are either publicly owned or socially owned as cooperatives and operated in a market economy. This differs from non-market socialism in that a market exists for allocating capital goods and the means of production.[1][2] There are many models of market socialism. Depending on the specific model, profits generated by socially-owned firms could be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large by becoming the source of public finance, or could be distributed amongst the population in a social dividend.[3] The term "market socialism" only became widespread during the Socialist calculation debate beginning in the 1920s and 1930s.*


----------



## HorizontalMike

In OTHER WORDs, socialism is NOT just some Democrat/Liberal concoction to undermine the GOP and the American Government. The GOP and ultra-rich have utilized "Socialism" in one form or another for generations,... They just want you to believe that it is a Liberal Devil and nothing else.

BTW, I was raised in a Republican "Christian" based family, but was finally able to overcome it's effects by the time I was maybe 30-years old or so. I will NEVER forget, nor stop resenting, the blinding propaganda that I was force fed for half of my life.


----------



## cutworm

That's why I love data. It looks as if trickle down economics from the 80's isn't working.

Hey it was just a few years back when the icons of capitalism were all begging for a socialistic bailout.


----------



## GFYS

don't post any links there teach we wouldn't wanna be open and transparent would we.

now he blames his parents for what he is…oh my the drama is just mezmerizin! I predict next he'll quote Karl Marx


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

*DrDirt* unions dont set min. wages if they did it would be more , they do lobby congress for it but in the end its up to them ,during the Reagan/ Bush ear check and see how many times it was raised ,and to think that unions are a driving force for out sources has no merit at all ,they were going there any ways and you didn't get any benefit from those low wages that they enjoyed by moving the product prices were the same when you purchased them but someone did and it wasnt me or you .

but i will agree with you on a person being forced to join a union that was wrong always was to me and believe me i have been put through the ringer for my stance on it ,i do have a problem with the right to work law as they call it just a pretty name to disguise its real attempt , it gives no one a right to work it give free loader a free ride in a union shop ,they still are represented by the union thats in the shop just they dont have to pay for it ,you may think well just dont represent them it dont work that way a union is fined thousands of dollors if it dont


----------



## GFYS

that there trikle up poverty is workin real good!
Hey I think Mike is getting it…we all know the gop has become as big of a group of liars as the democrats save a few principled individuals we know in the teaparty. Big Government career politicians are gonna protect their birds nest . They don't give a rip about the middle class or poor people unless its pandering for votes. Y'all know that's true.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

My god mics_54…your derp is registering on the USGS earthquake map.


----------



## GFYS

translated…gosh I can't bully mics_54 like I am used to doing with other people!


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

you know i dont care much for the party system , really have a strong dislike for Democrats ,dont have any balls,care even less for Republican talk about a moral bankrupt bunch they lie nearly as good as Democrats even less for tea baggery s a bunch of damn idiots and even less than these idiots the supreme court i very seriously doubt they could pour piss out of a boot with the direction wrote on the sole of it .


----------



## DrDirt

eddie -
Point is there was a federal minimum wage - and it was HIGHER than what the union contract paid.

That is a magical point - when you sign a collective bargaining agreement - that overrules federal minimum wage guidelines.

So the union "FOUGHT" to have our wages be less than federal minimum.

So they did Squat for th workers but did ensure that the grocer is a CLOSED SHOP, and that all dues were collected as payroll deductions.

By the way the 40 hour work week was started by Henry Ford (evil corporation) in May 1926 before the UAW ever existed. the Unions pushed to Nationalize a 40 hour week but Ford did it for his employees first, and without a union. He even paid nearly twice the prevailing wage, because he believed in a strong middle class, that should be able to afford the products produced.
the 40 hour National standard wasn't adopted until 12 years later in 1938 under FDR.

I like the Socialism definition from UncannyValleywoods
"Market socialism is a type of economic system where the* means of production *are either publicly owned or socially owned as cooperatives and operated in a market economy."

IN alaska the Means of production and distribution are privately owned.
The oil exploration and drilling is done by the "usual Suspects" BP, Exxon, SHell etc.
The State has NO "Means of Production"

Folks liking to beat this horse typically add "Quasi" to the front and say something is quasi-socialism so that they can apply a *blind broad brush* to make a claim that is in fact actually a lie. WHile being able to backpedal and say "I never said it was EXACTLY socialism but just kinda sorta maybe (for the sake of my argument) similar.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

dr dirt you are full of it , why do you lie


----------



## GFYS

dang eddie you hate everybody!!!!


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Actually, some of what Dr. Dirt says is right. There have been some major incidents of corruption and mis-application of collective bargaining agreements.

Just like anything, once you get money and greedy folks involved, any system is ripe for error. The social welfare aspects of unionization are great if applied properly and without corruption. This has been done and will continue to be done as long as unions are legally allowed to exist.

Either way, it doesn't negate the fact that if corporations were socially responsible to begin with, we would have no need for labor unions. I'm telling you, when profit becomes more important than people, we all lose!


----------



## HorizontalMike

*UncannyValleyWoods: "...Either way, it doesn't negate the fact that if corporations were socially responsible to begin with, we would have no need for labor unions. I'm telling you, when profit becomes more important than people, we all lose!..."*

Boy isn't THAT the truth! The way that corporations ignored the benefits of productivity provided by the 40-hour work week is full of worker exploitation.

The link bellow contains entire article.
.
.
"Passion," De-Unionization, and the End of the 40-Hour Week

How did this knowledge, which was so deeply embedded in three generations of American business management that it was utterly taken for granted, come to be so lost to us now? There are probably several answers to that, but there are three factors in particular that stand out.

The first is the emergence of Silicon Valley as an economic powerhouse in the late 1970s. Since WWII, the valley had attracted a unique breed of worker - scientists and technologists who carried with them a singular passion for research and innovation. Asperger's Syndrome wasn't named and identified until 1994, but by the 1950s, the defense industries in California's Santa Clara Valley were already drawing in brilliant young men and women who fit the profile: single-minded, socially awkward, emotionally detached and blessed (or cursed) with a singular, unique, laser-like focus on some particular area of obsessive interest. For these people, work wasn't just work; it was their life's passion, and they devoted every waking hour to it, usually to the exclusion of non-work relationships, exercise, sleep, food and sometimes even personal care. The popular stereotype of the geek was born in some real truths about the specific kinds of people who were drawn to tech in those early years.

The culture that grew up in the valley over the next few decades reflected and valorized the peculiarities of what Lockheed's company psychologists were calling by the late '50s "the sci-tech personality." Companies broadened their working hours, so programmers who came in at noon and worked through till midnight could make their own schedules. Dress codes were loosened; personal eccentricities were celebrated. HP famously brought in breakfast every morning so its engineers would remember to eat. The local 24-hour supermarket carried microchips alongside the potato chips, so techies working in their garages could stop in at 2am for snacks and parts.

And then, in the early '80s, Tom Peters came along, and promoted the Silicon Valley work ethic to the rest of the country in the name of "excellence." He extolled tech giants like HP and Apple for the "passion" of their workers, and told old-industry employers that they could move into the new age by seeking out and rewarding that kind of passion in their employees, too. Though Peters didn't advocate this explicitly, it was implicitly understood that to "passionate" people, 40-hour weeks were old-fashioned and boring. In the new workplace, people would find their ultimate meaning and happiness in the sheer unrivaled joy of work. They wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

There were two problems with this. The first is that this "passion" ideal didn't recognize that the vast majority of people have legitimate physical, emotional and psychological needs - things like sleep, exercise, relaxation and the maintenance of strong family and social support bonds - that these engineers didn't have to nearly the same degree. The second was that most managers, lacking windows into their workers' souls, decided to cut corners and measure passion with one easy-to-chart metric: "willingness to spend your entire life at the office." (It was about this time, with gourmet company cafeterias and in-house fitness centers and on-site child care sprouting up in high-tech campuses all over town, that I realized if a company is working that hard to make the workplace feel like home, it's a strong suggestion that their employees risk sanction if they ever attempt to visit their actual homes again.)

*These were the early morning-in-America Reagan years. The unions - for 150 years, the guardians of the 40-hour week - were falling under a conservative onslaught; and in their place, the new cult of the entrepreneur was ascendant.* All the old paternalistic contracts between employers and employees were torn up. Where companies once hoped to hire people young and nurture their careers through to a pensioned retirement - a lifelong relationship that required managers to take the long view about how to keep their workforces sustainably healthy and happy - young Gen Xers were being given a 401k and told to expect to change jobs every three to five years. Even while employers were demanding new levels of "passion" and commitment, they were also abdicating their old obligation to look after the long-term well-being of their employees.


----------



## RockyTopScott

If you really believe what you say then you should rid yourself of any pension, 401k, 403b, securities or any other investments that have any relationship with an evil corporation of any kind.

You should only purchase goods from locally owned cooperatives, exclusively. Eliminate any and all profit opportunity for corporations.

Prove you are all in. Take action. Show those evil corporations who is boss. Make them suffer.

Surely this will teach them what is important.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

And bank at credit unions, RockyTop.

A truth to keep in mind: A liberal's disdain for corporate greed is only matched by a conservative's distrust of unrestrained government.


----------



## DrDirt

This was on O'reilley last night - so I dove deeper- The AP and ABC news also covered it.

People who wonder why Unions are falling out of favor - The only time the general public hears about a union is around protections of public sector unions….occasionally there is a strike at a factory somwhere, but mostly is is teacher strikes - or state house protests like wisconsin.

However people do become passionate about their children…. thus:

There is a House bill that dictates that teachers and staff working with elementary and secondary students CANNOT have been *convicted* as Child Molesters .
Seem sort of a no-brainer.. In most states a registered sex offender cannot live NEAR a school nevermind work in one. BUT:

In steps the NEA and AFT to say - Just because "Mr Johnson" likes to force himself on unsuspecting 3rd graders shouldn't interfere with them securing a union contract to be a teacher or administrator.

-------------------
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/house-bill-makes-schools-check-sex-offenders-20650235

Public schools would be barred from employing teachers and other workers convicted of sexual offenses against children or other violent crimes under a bill the House approved Tuesday.

The measure would require school systems to check state and federal criminal records for employees with unsupervised access to elementary and secondary school students, and for people seeking those jobs. Workers refusing to submit to the checks would not be allowed to have school positions.

A 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of Congress, cited one estimate that there are 620,000 convicted sex offenders in the U.S.

It also found that state laws on the employment of sex offenders in schools vary. Some require less stringent background checks than others, and they differ on how people with past convictions are treated, such as whether they are fired or lose their teaching license.

*The bill has run into objections from major teachers' unions like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. In letters to lawmakers, their criticisms included concerns that the measure might jeopardize workers' protections under union contracts.*

In addition, the NEA wrote that criminal background checks "often have a huge, *racially disparate impact*" - a reference to critics' complaints that minorities make up a disproportionately high proportion of people convicted of crimes.-
------------------

So Unions will support expelling kids for making a "gun" out of a pop-tart… but a child rapist teacher is A-ok. And such lasw are somehow racist.


----------



## d_striker

Americanwoodworker pretty much summed it up.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

RockyTop-I'm curious why you think that wanting corporations to treat humans like humans is a good reason to give up on having companies or spending money with companies and banks….

Look, massive corporate entities will always exist (barring the End of the World). I think everyone is assured of that. But we don't have to be cool with companies buying our government, squandering our investments, treating people like dirt, failing to invest in social programs that would stimulate a workforce, creating massive income gaps and avoiding paying taxes.

There are companies that exist which are responsible. There are companies who actively give back to communities, that invest in outreach education, that pay living wages and provide benefits. There are companies that do not send money to offshore tax havens or spend billions of dollars to influence campaigns. There are companies that actively strive to achieve better regulatory goals than the minimum standards offered by regulators like the EPA. There are responsible companies out there.

What needs to happen is for people to put their concerns in the right place. Instead of being angry at our current president for attempting to augment the reality of medical insurance in the country, why don't you get pissed off at the industry that has thrived off of inflated health care costs? Why aren't you mad at the congressional members who've been bought by lobbyists of said health care companies to assure them an operating environment that is massively profitable, but terrible for the patients?

You whine on and on about the need for less regulation and less government, but in the end, if you achieve this, you will only find yourself buggered up the arse with little or no lubrication. Vampire corporations only want one thing and that is ALL YOUR MONEY.

There are good companies, good investment banks and socially responsible investors. We should be rewarding those people and punishing those who see only dollar signs when they look at the American public. When profit becomes more important than people, we all lose.


----------



## GFYS

corporations are supposed to take care of shareholders….when you go union…you chose! Live with it.

Unions don't care about me.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

And let's step back for a moment and think about our priorities. A little propaganda for the late night crowd.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

mics-54: So as long as the share-holders are cool, screw everyone else.. Have I got that right?


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

mics_54: It's also worth pointing out that typically, majority shareholders (i.e. the ones who make the real money) are typically a small group of people if not one individual. The small percentage that is traded on the open market does grant the right to have a say in the management of a corporation.

And the 14% a year most of the corporations in a America pay in taxes does not include taxes on money hidden offshore or the subsidies many companies receive from the Government. What's another word for subsidies…hmmm….welfare! 

Also consider this; when large stock holders want to keep their money somewhere safe, do you think they just go to a bank and deposit it in cash? In fact, most billionaires and multi-billion dollar companies keep a certain percentage of their holdings in the form of Treasury Bonds, AKA T-Bills. A Treasury Bond is literally an IOU from the U.S. Government promising to pay you back at phenomenal interest. Generally there's nothing wrong with this practice. It is the backbone and foundation of our economic currency system. The trouble is that the Tea Party movement has gotten so ampted up about cutting funding to social welfare programs and cutting spending that they are quickly undermining the very economic systems they campaigned so hard to defend. Ultimately shutting down the government and pushing it to economic ruin would have had a drastic impact on the Treasury Bond market, throwing it and the dollar into chaos.

Now, frankly, folks like to back people into corners of political extremes. I for one have always seen myself as a centrist. And though I don't hold the current corporate model of accountability in high regard and I don't see global capitalism in it's current incarnation working very well for most folks, I certainly do no advocate for total economic suicide as many Republicans blindly committed themselves to.

If I were you would I take assessment of your understanding of life in America. I would go out and see the impact runaway profit has had on our culture. You say you're a wood worker. Would you not like to live in a world where your craft actually has an opportunity to flourish in the market place? Wouldn't you like to work, knowing that you had affordable health care for your family? Wouldn't you like that opportunity to make your own life in your own way without being constantly saddled with deeper and deeper debt? Perhaps you were born independently wealthy. If so, congratulations. In the mean time, the rest of us will be out here, hoping culture shifts enough to regard the quality of life by the measure of kindness, craft and companionship rather than an never ending pursuit of money and crap.

It's the sort of thing a good minister might tell you. Jesus didn't have a damned nice thing to say about money. Certainly it is something that holds societies together, but it doesn't have to be the central aim. We can make other people our goal. We can do the right thing. We can do the right thing and still have a world full of amazing experiences and amazing toys and cars and cities and jobs.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## RockyTopScott

Uncanny, I think you missed the entire point of my post #121.


----------



## GFYS

call the whaaambulance…hep bammy hep me

thanks but I'll stick with trickle down..none of you po socialists ever gave me a paycheck. All you ever do is take my money, make it harder for me to make a living and whine.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Quite possibly Rocky…it was late and I was quite drunk.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Quite an honest confession Uncanny. Very well done sir.


----------



## Sumdume

Eddie, I respectfully disagree. The President did bailout the Unions. The non-union workers lost their company pensions and were forced into the government guaranteed retirement system. The benefits provided under the government guaranteed system meant that these workers lost a great deal. The Union pensions were not reduced to the extent that the non-union pensions were.
You asked where I get my information. Mostly, I get it by reading the paper and watching the news. Although I do get some on-line. Here is some information from an article that might interest you. 
"President Obama touts the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler as one of the signature successes of his administration. He argues that the estimated $23 billion the taxpayers lost was worth paying to avoid massive job losses. However, our research finds that the president could have both kept the auto makers running and avoided losing money. 
The preferential treatment given to the United Auto Workers accounts for the American taxpayers' entire losses from the bailout. Had the UAW received normal treatment in standard bankruptcy proceedings, the Treasury would have recouped its entire investment. Three irregularities in the bankruptcy case resulted in a windfall to the UAW." You can read the entire article here.
Your statement that the Union leaders did not make millions is silly. The Union leaders make millions each year by taxing the membership. They call these taxes dues. But they are in effect taxes. What do the members get from the dues? Not nearly as much as the Union leaders get. The leadership gets 6 figure paychecks and lucrative benefits. The membership gets a pittance in return. The UAW leadership is only interested increasing membership so it can tax more people. They do not give a tinkers damn about the membership.


----------



## Sumdume

The term relating to the distribution of wealth is not about taking money from the wealthy its about the fact that it has become necessary to force regulations on the behavior that allowed this to happen and that means the banks and wall street.
This one of the silliest statements I have read on LJ. It is right up their with "the rich are stealing from the poor".
You cannot redistribute wealth unless you take wealth from those who have it and give it to those who do not have it. 
What will happen once you redistribute the wealth? Many if not most of the formerly impoverished individuals will make the same decisions and the wealth will find it's way back to the pockets of the evil rich.
The owners of Walmart or other big businesses do not cause poverty. Their workers chose to be employed by Walmart. If people refused to take the low paying jobs Walmart would be forced to raise wages. Walmart does not exist because of the low wages paid to employees. Walmart exist because people want to buy stuff as cheaply as possible so they can have more money to spend on beer, cigarettes and other luxury items. The American consumer's insatiable desire for cheap stuff has resulted in many jobs being exported over seas.


----------



## Sumdume

It is amusing to read about the Tea Party shutting down the government. The Tea Party did not shut down the government. Barack Obama shut down the government. He and Harry Reid agreed to shut down the government in July in an attempt to make Republicans look bad. 
Do your own research if you do not believe me. While you are doing that ask yourself this question. 
When did the government order the barricades and signs used to close the monuments? They did not have barricades prior to the shutdown because the Memorials were never shut down. That means they must have been ordered specifically for the shutdown. Given the snails pace of the government procurement system they would have to have been ordered week or months before the shutdown.
The Tea Party is convenient scape goat for the most corrupt administration in history.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

*Sumdume * respectfully you belive what you want to ,what you need to do is get your facts straight,how much did they lose , it was paid back , some thing the banks have not done but not a word about that ,what was done was he stopped the auto industry from going bankrupt but then you think that's a bad deal ,the hourly work force had its pension and the GM had theirs ,i do agree with you that the money used should of been used for the manangers too , 
i know what you read wheres the money , its not there to be found because there was not millions that you say ,wheres it at , how do you lose something that was paid back ahead of time at that , no you are believing what you want not facts .i know how much they make and these benefits your way out there ,and UAW membership has lost a few 100 thousands members in the last 20 years , you need to stop watching FOX new and reading all these lies they own your mind but you are wondering how dose he know thats my news channel ,, dues you talk about do you know how much they are , do you know what the union dose ,i know you dont and can under stand that you think it just all free, its not and it cost .

*Walmart exist because people want to buy stuff as cheaply as possible so they can have more money to spend on beer, cigarettes and other luxury items. The American consumer's insatiable desire for cheap stuff has resulted in many jobs being exported over seas.*

read what you said 
by the way Walmart employees 1 persent on the worker in this country , you figure it out , 25 present make 25 thousands dollors a year ans a few of them more ,how many dose that leave , you and i are supporting them they cant afford to survive on they money they are paid , food stamps and welfare that me and you pay help are the way stay afloat. you go see how much Walmart make in a year just in profit ,

no you have been hood winked ,you need to hang in there with your tea party , they are self serving idiots , i do agree with you on the shut down it wasnt them it was congress , we have the best money can buy


----------



## DrDirt

So Eddie -
WHat has been the democrats answers.

Housing projects… that are then torn down as dens of crime and drugs.

99 weeks unemployment? Really? 2 years?

Remove Clintons work requirements to receive welfare

Expansion of food stamps by 71% in the past 5 years.

The bankruptcy of the cities.
-City of Detroit
-City of San Bernardino, Calif.
-Town of Mammoth Lakes, Calf. (Dismissed)
-City of Stockton, Calif.
-Jefferson County, Ala.
-City of Harrisburg, Pa. (Dismissed)
-City of Central Falls, R.I.
-Boise County, Idaho (Dismissed)

The U.S. government has booked a loss of $9.7 billion on the nearly $50 billion bailout of U.S. automaker General Motors Co, according to a quarterly report to Congress on Tuesday (October 29th) so much for the government recovering that.

And just what was so awesome that we GAVE Chrysler to Fiat.

It is funny to see the true believers that think that Barry and his chicago buddies actually give a rat's behind about people.
If that were really true - the housing bailout would have been people not the banks, and SHOVEL READY would not just be for cronies and campaign donors.

Barry's crony deals would make the board of directors at Halliburton blush.

Don't forget in 2016 that Hillary was corporate counsel for Walmart, to crush unions. from 1986 to 1992 when Bill was elected president.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/hillary-clinton-wal-mart


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

hey DrDirt
you must be another Fox news person, sorry couldnt help my self ,you can do better than this. dig some more i know your smarter than this ,


----------



## DrDirt

Really - Fox news… that is your claim… " Honest things are awesome" no job losses - Healtcare rollout is going well.
Nobody is being forced to part time work - - - it is all a conspiracy of Fox.
Eventually you will argue with a set of facts, and not just claim source bias.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-29/u-s-has-lost-9-7-billion-so-far-on-gm-bailout-sigtarp-reports.html

So the Bankruptcy of Detroit is a Fox News Lie? 
In other posts you seem to actually use facts. this is sad.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

DrDirt sorry i made lite of it,just that when you accused me of being a Democrat it hurt my feeling ,you know they could sell there stock and could they not ? 
, 
you are right Walmart has been at this a long time , i noticed that you linked Hillary to walmart and crushing Unions all in the same sentence like that was her function there, no you dont like labor unions that easy to see ,

i apologize for my comment of FOX news just they lie so much ,to be honest with you i dont watch the news at all its not just FOX they all have their agenda just they are the worst

i got a plan cut out all welfare , SS, unemployment , all social programs , you would find that this Debt would still be there

do you know where the bankrupcy laws come from ? its a interesting study

as far as facts its getting harder and harder it find them ,


----------



## oldnovice

*Smitty_Cabinetshop*, Although I am not making a comment about the topic, I really what you said!

_*"A liberal's disdain for corporate greed is only matched by a conservative's distrust of unrestrained government."*_

IMO, that abut sums up both side of all comments made in this forum!


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

i think he may be right ,outa here


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Here, thanks Novice.


----------



## RockyTopScott

I hope that everyone realizes they (both sides of the aisle) are stealing from us.


----------



## DrDirt

The last 5 comments are probably the best on this thread in weeks.

+1 oldnovice


----------



## oldnovice

*RockyTopScott*, speaks another *TRUTH* we must come to realize!


----------



## Oldtool

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/?partner=yahootix

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2013/11/04/2015-will-be-even-worse-for-obamacare-than-its-2014-rollout-as-a-result-of-new-yokes-that-the-white-house-saddles-onto-participating-insurers/?partner=yahootix

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/obamacare-paper-phone-web-apps-stuck-in-the-same-queue-memos-note/


----------



## TaybulSawz

I work, I earn what I make. I give to those who need IF they are trying. That covers it. Government was never intended to provide WELFARE for an American. Hand UP not Hand OUT. No Republican No Democrat JUST AMERICAN! Do What's Right!!! Bailout…Wrong!!! Welfare and not look for a job…WRONG!!!!


----------



## oldnovice

*+1 TaybulSawz*


----------



## RockyTopScott

*+2 TaybulSawz*


----------



## HorizontalMike

Right! NO Bailout for the banksters! NO bailouts for GM or Chrysler! NO bailouts for the Hedge Fundsters! NO Bailout for Haliburton, Black Water, etc!


----------



## RockyTopScott

NO Bailout for unions, NO bailouts for Detroit, NO more Solyndra, NO more electric cars, etc.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Funny thing is that Detroit had a 70% funding for their pension liabilities, one of the highest in the nation… Hmm…

That is, until the crooks and scammers were able to divert contractual promises, or actually AFTER the crooks had their go at them….


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Rocky, what's your beef with electric cars (besides the fact that we aren't recharging them with 100% solar energy) ?


----------



## RockyTopScott

Uncanny, no beef with electric cars, I just don't want tax dollars wasted on them.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Ahh yes… I feel the same way about tax subsidies for oil companies. But I do believe that in order to create a viable alternative energy market, the subsidies being given to oil, gas and coal companies should be diverted to alternative energy companies. I don't see why Republicans hate that idea…they are all for tax cuts. My guess is that most politicians have their hands in the pockets of oil, gas and coal and are afraid of being taken off the tate. The funny thing is that I'm sure there's just as much corruption for politicians to leach off in the alternative energy realm as there is in the conventional energy realm.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*"...The funny thing is that I'm sure there's just as much corruption for politicians to leach off in the alternative energy realm as there is in the conventional energy realm…."

Oh crap! You don't really expect those CONservatives to learn something like that, THAT FAST do ya'? Why do you think they keep trying to kill any education funding…


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Mike, I feel like in dealing with Conservatives, I must play the role of the fine grit sand paper. I'm never very effective at grinding ideas into closed minds, so I just try to gently sand away the burrs at the surface.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Yup. The CONservative Right, Supporters of "Right-To-Life, The-Death-Penalty, and the Perpetual-War-Making-Machine… Them be plenty of "burrs" to gently sand away. You might also need some 40-grit, IMO… *;-)*


----------



## RockyTopScott

The government should not be using tax dollars as a stimulus in the marketplace helping to determine winners and losers.

I am all for solar energy..looking at it now as an alternate along with geothermal. There has to be value in making the decision though. Where I live the cost of the various fuel types is very reasonable. The older I get the less time I have to experience an ROI that makes sense.

If the price point for electric cars stirs demand, then so be it. Let the consumer decide, not the government.


----------



## oldnovice

OK with everything since post #152 however, the farm subsidy is about to run out and if it does not get extended we, U&I, are going to see some dramatic price increases for our food dollar. I DO NOT want all of these subsidies go to the BIG FARM COMPANIES but to the *family famers*.

I lived in the midwest until 16 years ago, and knowing some of these family farmers, I know they work as hard as anyone for their payday, and they have to deal with many things beyond their control!


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Ignore one party rule in our nation's failing / crime ridden cities at your own risk. Detroit, Philly, Chicago, East St. Louis, etc. etc. Lack of competition leads to complacency and corruption. Government, no matter how pervasive and omipresent, cannot replace market forces' ability to improve efficiency, reduce cost and improve product quality.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

But Rocky, weren't you advocating lower taxes earlier? All a government tax subsidy is is a fancy tax break. Corporations use them to cover some of the cost of doing business, and the poor uses them to buy groceries and obtain affordable housing. Either way it's a tax cut. Republicans go on and on about tax cuts don't they?

The part we can both be upset about is the part where the waning middle class makes up the difference for the subsidies of the rich and the poor.

And, can't we both agree that businesses should have a tax rate equal to or slightly greater than the average American's tax rate?


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Tax subsidy or tax cut depends on taxable income. Corporations with taxable income quality for tax breaks because the federal government decided a long time ago that the tax code presents a political venue for social engineering.

It shouldn't be used at all for that purpose.

The tax code should be flat, a small (7% or so) percentage of total income, rich or poor or corporation. Regardless of mortgages, marital status, investment, etc. Put tens of thousands of corporate lawyers and lobbyists out of business tomorrow, and put those brilliant minds to use in R&D, manufacturing, education, you name it.


----------



## RockyTopScott

*But Rocky, weren't you advocating lower taxes earlier? All a government tax subsidy is is a fancy tax break.*

Not even close Uncanny. Tax subsidies transfer money from one tax entity to another. I say lower the tax burden for everyone.

I am close to the thought that Smitty has tendered above. I would like to see simply a personal exemption for adults and children with a flat tax above that for all sources of income. I can't say what % would be applicable but certainly we need a balanced budget amendment passed and ratified to give the "adults" in Washington some boundaries.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*The Disappearing Family Farm*
Subsidies can lead to chronic overproduction and dumping of surpluses on the global market, which often forces smaller, non-competitive producers out of business. The abandoned land is then swallowed by larger conglomerate farms.

In the agricultural industry, certain products can be produced cheaply in large quantities, stored over long periods, and shipped easily. These items must be heavily subsidized to keep prices artificially low on the world market. Yet subsidies-money paid to industries to produce goods more cheaply for a nation so that it can better compete in the global market-can harm the family farm.

"Since 1970, [U.S.] farm subsidies have totaled $578 billion, according to the Historical Tables of the U.S. budget…Roughly 90 percent of commodity payments go to farmers raising grains and oilseeds (wheat, corn, sorghum, soybeans), cotton and rice; they represent about a fifth of farm cash receipts," a Newsweek article stated.

Giant agribusinesses are an additional factor. Even though 90 percent of all farms are still owned by families or individuals, more and more farms are becoming "corporations."

"Not everybody is thrilled by Wall Street's hayride, however. At a World Bank gathering in Washington last month critics addressed the implications of the trend, calling it a modern-day land rush. They worry in particular about what they label an unfair transfer of valuable land and water resources from the poor to the wealthy."


----------



## RockyTopScott

So these farm subsidies are aiding in determining losers and winner? I am shocked.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Yep, just more corporate welfare.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Something you and I can agree on. Let consumers decide who wins and who loses, we will be better off for it in the long run.

Support you local economy.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

I think it's funny when people advocate for a flat tax. It seems like the idea, to most people, sounds like such a simple, fair solution that they just run with the idea without considering how ridiculous it is. The flat tax is an even better way to widen the wealth gap. It's no wonder millionaires and billionaires love the idea of the flat tax, it's perfect for them.

The contention that a flat tax would be simpler because it involves only a single rate is flatly wrong. The complexity of the current system has nothing to do with its multiple income brackets.

The much more serious concern is that a flat tax would reinforce the trends toward greater income inequality that have been seen over the last several decades. The top 1 percent of income recipients in the United States earned 275 percent more in 2007 than they did in 1979, adjusted for inflation, a period when the earnings of middle-income households grew by less than 40 percent. A flat tax would increase inequality by substantially reducing rates on the most prosperous households, while increasing them on low- and middle-income households.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Hey! Let's just make that FLAT TAX rate just what it is for the middle class, *33% on all income*. And that includes investment income, deferred income, alternate forms of income such as stocks and/or real property, credit, etc.!

I can hear that car with the FLAT tire coming at me already! But, but, but, but, but, but, but,...


----------



## oldnovice

*UncannyValleyWoods* I agree with 90% of you comments but a cut off level can help the lower income levels achieve some level of equality, i.e. *less that $200,000 pays NO TAX*! Since a flat tax does not allow deductions an income cannot be adjusted down to below that threshold to get to the no tax level!

It would also help a lot of small businesses with all the IRS paper work and reports required!


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

That's a good point oldnovice.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

It's funny how some run with the 'ridiculous' label and drone on with bold text and disprectful labels, fanning flames of class warfare and pandering to the poor in an effort to curry favor for non-solutions to avoid considering positions that don't match their own entrenched doom-and-gloom world view.

The simple fact is the tax code should not attempt to redress income inquality. Taxes should not be punitive, but should fund goverment. Why is it so that taxes must be progressive? A millionaire in annual income would pay $70,000 in taxes under a 7% solution, of course, more that current tax law (and loopholes) currently (legally) require. That is a step forward. The percentage would be open to debate of course, but should be revenue nuetral. Upper, middle and lower income households should all endorse the idea of reduced tax (the poor already paying no tax).

Sales tax in my state is essentially 7.25 percent, give or take local add-ons, and there is no 'you're poor, you're exempt from sales tax' cards to produce. Yet there is no outcry for a progressive sales tax to replace what is more repressive than the flat tax idea.

Oh, and I read family farms (90% of the farms in the US) that produce goods cheaply need subsidies to keep prices of those cheaply produced goods low on the world market. Sounds like someone needs to define "cheaply."


----------



## HorizontalMike

If EVERYONE has to start today with ZERO resource$$$ as in NO savings… nothing, then a flat tax might work for awhile.

But the rich have already gamed the previous tax system loopholes and are NOT starting on an even playing field as the already poor.


----------



## RockyTopScott

So when someone files their taxes and is within the legal confines of tax laws enacted by congress and signed by the president, they are GAMING the system?


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

That's a start, anyway.

The concept of leveling some kind of playing field as a precondition makes it a non-starter, though. Bill Gates has nothing to attone for, nor does Steve Wozniak or Al Gore or Warren Buffet or Mark Zuckerberg. Get everyone paying now, if they're not poor. Corporations too. Remove the tax code as a social engineering tool and let people invest, spend, donate, etc. as they see fit. All while funding government to do it's necessary functions. And if majorities wish to expand social programs, fine, but use legislation and targeted programs and not cow-tow to special interests looking to protect their piece of the "I don't want to pay taxes" pie.


----------



## RockyTopScott

The problem Smitty is one of government's "necessary functions", according to them, is buying votes. It is all a fraud.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

I really do believe that the tax code is perhaps the biggest 'trough' to be found in government. Granting exemptions to industries, activities, behavior, etc. is big business, and it will continue through any kind of term limits or campaign finance reform that may be tried. To paraphrase Pres. Clinton, without directing at anyone on this forum BTW, "It's the tax code, stupid."


----------



## HorizontalMike

On that we agree.


----------



## oldnovice

*+1 Smitty_Cabinetshop … "It's the tax code, stupid."*


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Smitty_Cabinetshop im not stupid


----------



## RockyTopScott

Huh?


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Didn't say you were, Eddie. It was a paraphrase of Clinton's approach to his re-election platform. See above, not directed at anyone on this forum.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

+ 2 for Smitty.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

So, I'm not sure I've ever summed up my expectations for this nation succinctly, so here they are. Right, left or center, I can't imagine ration, good hearted folks disagreeing with me on these points.

1. *Social Welfare* - First, when I say welfare, I'm talking about the act not the program. In a nation as prosperous as ours, I do not think anyone can provide a valid excuse for any child, man or women going hungry. You can drone on and on about boot straps and self reliance, but I choose not to judge. If an individual is hungry, there should be an established means to provide sustenance to that individual despite the decisions that may or may not have brought them to be hungry.

In a nation as prosperous as ours, there is no excuse for homelessness to exist. I feel that this issue often goes hand in hand with mental health. Reliable shelter should exist for everyone.

2. *Laws* - We have to stop believing that we can cure problems by criminalizing them. The root of most non-violent crime comes from other social issues not being addressed, be it drug use, petty theft etc.. You want government out of your life? You want freedom? Then stop believing that filling prisons and black balling those with criminal records solves problems. Stop believing that further criminalization of activity is a solution. Stop believing that incarceration solves, prevents or rehabilitates crimes and criminals.

3. *Taxes* - Taxes run our government, provide defense (not offense) and create infrastructure used by the free market. The free market wouldn't exist without government, a safe and secure nation and infrastructure. The tax code should be fair and not punitive, but individuals and corporations should pay fairly and completely and should realize that paying their fair share is not a punitive act.

4. *Business* - If corporations want to be considered as individuals, they should be held accountable as individuals are. That means, if they hurt people, hurt the environment, lie, cheat or steal, they should be held to the same standards as you or I. Special privilege to the elite must end.

5. *Military and Defense* - I live in a military household. I have high regard for the military and the defense industry, but I believe that if we are going to call it a defense industry, we should mean it. Fighting never ending wars is not good for anyone and does more to create enemies than it does to protect us from them.

6. *Social Issues* - Learn to be offended and move on. Bibles have no place in creating law, executing laws, rendering health care services etc.. We all need to grow thicker skin and learn to accept the difference in decisions we all exert. Keep your Bibles, live by them if you choose, but keep them to yourself and out of my bedroom, off my dinner plate, out of my peace pipe, out of our schools and government facilities….or else, we should just start taxing churches.

*steps off soap box*


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Smitty_Cabinetshop sorry i was at the wrong forum it was another one they said i was stupid ,but then sometimes i am


----------



## oldnovice

*UncannyValleyWoods*, very good rational points!

I want to add some more to two of your points!

Particularly about the "war on drugs" which has been going on for about 20 years and is a waste of resources besides imprisoning many who were involved with some minor aspects of drugs. Start with the approaches in Switzerland, Netherlands,and other European countries where education and rehabilitation aimed at improving public health of the entire country. Legalization can also be a source of tax revenue and possibly eliminate the illegal trafficking which can do more harm to the drug cartels than any "war"! Just think about about how may DEA agents have been killed and how many could be working in other facets of crime!


I am by nature a dove but that comes from believing in a strong, overpowering, and defensive military that no one wants to mess with!


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

I couldn't agree with you more, *oldnovice*.


----------



## HorizontalMike

+10 and +10 for the both of you!


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

very well said UncannyValleyWoods and oldnovice could not agree more


----------



## RockyTopScott

So should thieves go unpunished?


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Scott they need to be in jail ,but then the white house and congress and supreme court would be empty but im sure we could find some more thieves out there to take their place


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Rocky, punishment is a very vague word. I believe there is a difference in someone holding up a gas station and someone raiding retirement funds or defrauding investors or tax payers.

The way we punish someone holding up a gas station and the way we punish "white collar" theft are remarkably different. I advocate a strong and reasonable judiciary that can assess the merits and means of each type of crime. And I advocate a correction system that does not perpetuate or encourage the recidivism of petty criminals and a correction system that is punitive to white collar criminals.

How do we do this? I don't have an answer. I'd like to think we can start with compassion and see where it leads us. Who should we have more disdain for as a society, a poor man who struggles with the lowness of his station in life and decides to rob a convenience store of $500 or an exceptionally wealthy man who's greed urges him to steel from and defraud hundreds or thousands of people out of millions of dollars?

Putting poor people through the criminal justice system only makes it more and more impossible for those people to live a normal, socially acceptable life. I believe that when someone commits a petty crime, then we have an obligation as a society to reach out a hand and attempt to address the catalysts for those actions.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Here's a good example of the pitfalls of "vengeance justice".

It's like the Buddha said, If you go looking for revenge, dig two graves.

*Witness' sister helps free man convicted in 1979 killing

By Ashley Powers

November 7, 2013, 9:11 p.m.

In 1979, Brenda Anderson testified that a young man with whom she had gone to high school shot her elderly neighbor to death.

Thirty-four years later, Anderson's sister Sharon took the stand and said the account, which helped send the young man to prison, was a lie.

On Thursday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge sided with Sharon Anderson and threw out the conviction of Kash Delano Register, who maintained his innocence during more than three decades as inmate No. C11693.

Judge Katherine Mader's ruling eviscerated the case against Register, 53, who was convicted mainly on eyewitness testimony that his attorneys say was false. They also said police and prosecutors suppressed evidence that would have helped Register's defense, accusations that Mader found credible.

When Mader announced her decision, Register puckered his face as if holding back tears, dropped his head to the table and trembled. His mother, Wilma, heaved with sobs.

"Thank you Lord Jesus for giving me my child back," she cried, as she hugged attorneys from Loyola Law School's Project for the Innocent who represented her son.

Register's attorneys expect him to be released soon. Los Angeles County prosecutors said they would decide by next month whether to appeal her decision or retry him.

Prosecutors had argued that about 12:30 p.m. on April 6, 1979, Register shot Jack Sasson five times in the carport of his West Los Angeles home. Sasson, 78, died three weeks later.

At trial, the physical evidence against Register was scant, court papers said. None of the seven fingerprints found on Sasson's car matched Register's. Police never recovered the murder weapon.

They did seize a pair of pinstriped pants from Register's closet, which had a speck of blood smaller than a pencil eraser. But it was of little value - the blood type, O, matched Sasson and Register.

Instead, the prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony, notably that of Brenda Anderson. Then 19, Anderson said she was at home when she heard gunfire, looked out the window and saw an African American man sprinting from the Sassons' carport, court papers said. She identified him as Register, though Register's girlfriend testified that he was with her at the time of the shooting.

Register was convicted and sentenced to 27 years to life in prison. Each time he appeared before the parole board, he refused to admit guilt.

"It appears that the only reason that I have been consistently denied parole is because I have maintained my innocence," he once told the board, court papers said.

Register might have remained behind bars, his attorneys said, if not for a stroke of luck. In late 2011, another of Brenda Anderson's sisters, Sheila Vanderkam, found a website that locates convicted felons. "I typed in the name Kash Register out of curiosity," she said in a declaration, "and learned, to my horror, that Mr. Register was still in prison."

When Vanderkam tracked down Register's attorney, she shared some astonishing news. Brenda Anderson's account was a lie, Vanderkam said, something she and Sharon Anderson had tried to tell police in 1979.

According to Vanderkam, at the time of the shooting, her sisters had just hidden a package of Avon products they had stolen from a neighbor. Sharon Anderson said they heard gunfire, but weren't close enough to get a good look at the shooter.

Vanderkam worked at the same LAPD station as the detectives investigating the shooting. She said she tried to tell one of them that Brenda Anderson had lied.

"The detective placed his finger over his mouth (like a shush sound) and just stared at me," she said in her declaration. "He made it very clear to me, without actually saying anything, that I was to stay out of it."

Sharon Anderson also told police that they had they wrong man, she said in court papers. After the shooting, police showed her six photographs, including one of Register.

"Your sister, Brenda Anderson, said it's him - this one, right here," Sharon Anderson recalled them saying, according to court papers.

She said she replied: "Well, it's not the same guy I seen."

Police threatened to lock her up for the stolen Avon package, she said. She didn't waver.

Police and prosecutors never disclosed what Sharon Anderson said to the defense, Register's attorneys said. She did not testify during his trial.

But during a hearing last month, she told her story - sometimes through tears - in Mader's courtroom. Mader said she found Sharon Anderson more credible than Brenda Anderson, who repeatedly changed her account.

She also refused to be sworn in at the hearing or to spell her name, said Lara Bazelon, Project for the Innocent director. At one point, she bared her teeth. A prosecutor called her "one of the worst witnesses I've ever seen," though he argued that didn't mean she was dishonest in 1979.

But in Mader's view, Brenda Anderson seemed to recant what she said at that long-ago trial. When asked in court last month whether Register had been the shooter, she replied: "It may or may not have been that person."*


----------



## RockyTopScott

Oh Eddie…you made me chuckle man.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

UncannyValleyWoods there a lot of people in jail and im glad they are there ,and ones that commit violent crimes like murder and raping women and kids ,they need to kill them and send them to God , but the only thing wrong there is so much need for a fare Justice system there are to many in there that dont belong there also ,


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Dude, I'm with you on locking up violent criminals. However, it seems to me, that if you want to live according to Jesus' message, we must treat those prisoners compassionately despite the severity of their crime. One day, they will go to God on their own and according to many's belief structure, those individuals will be judged by the almighty God. It is our duty to set the human example and show a measure of love even for the most condemned.

I'm not saying that we need to buy them chocolate or send them to Disney Land once a year, I'm just saying that we should not commit crimes against criminals that are as haneous and violent as the crimes they are accused of committing.

The way we treat our prisoners is a measure of us as a people and a nation. Crimes hurt people, I believe all parties involved. But the way to peace and recovery from a criminal act is through compassionate forgiveness and not a turn to the DarkSide. Remember, the Emperor wanted Luke to give in to his hate, for it would turn him to the Darkside forever.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

UncannyValleyWoods we will all go to God in our own accord ,and will all stand at judgement , just saying ,that the punishment needs to be carried out , its says dont murder and killing someone that has broken the law to that point kill em and send them to the JUDGE , that isnt a crime or murder , you know it say do these things and it will stop happening .

got to love star wars , they are bring another one out in 2014 ,i think somebody bought up Lucus rights and are going to start a new series


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

I just don't think, in the case of the existence of the almighty, that humans have any role in deciding when or how to send people to Him. Despite what many believe, I don't think that humans act as the hand of God. We may act as the eyes and ears, but I do not think it is our place to actively and punitively send folks to meet Him. We are just too fallible.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*Geez!* (and that is a hangover from my Republican upbringing)! Will you folks knock off with all the religious myths already! We are ALREADY living in Hell on Earth, and neither of you realize nor acknowledge that fact!

And besides! WHICH god are you referring to? What about those of us WITHOUT the need for religious crutches? You DO KNOW that the only reason for the christian christmas is to compete with the Winter Solstice Festivals of the Druids, don't you? AND easter was timed for the annual Spring Renewal (AKA Vernal Equinox) Festivals. Oh crap, and then we have Halloween, currently being deluged with christian party-goers claiming it is all hallows eve, or some such crap, all trying to replace the Harvest Festival of Autumnal Equinox.

Gee… See a pattern here?... (redundant, no response needed as the answer is a resounding YES). And THE MOST PREDATORY religion is… yeah, THAT one.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Many words of wisdom:


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Mike, I'm trying to appease the existence of those with strong religious beliefs, within my hypothetical statements. Someone makes an argument based on Christianity, I feel the need to hold them to their system of beliefs and demonstrate how their actions are contrary. I haven't even begun to bust out my own spiritual philosophy. I doubt folks could handle it's lack of an all knowing grandpa in the sky. Here's a taste:


----------



## Kryptic

the american way

aint fair for some

lots of fun for others


----------



## HorizontalMike

*UncannyValleyWoods: "... I doubt folks could handle it's lack of an all knowing grandpa in the sky…."*

I know, but the *"Debill"* made me do it… *;-)*

And I haven't EVEN started talkin' 'bout 'dat "Merckin Holiday da' 4th o' July!, 'jew know… "Merika, gawd and de' Apple Pie!... that lands very near the Summer Solstice. How convenient… huh.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

The Debill made me do it the first time, the second I did it on my own.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

UncannyValleyWoods thats fine with me i just dont see it that way ,but if some body was to break in my house or threaten my family or myself life im sending them to meet their maker,


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

UncannyValleyWoods why you blaming the Debll you know you did it both times lol


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

LOL! Yeah eddie, I did. But your mom said thanks, for what it's worth. ;-)


----------



## HorizontalMike

Just remember @eddie, that when those folks who broke into your house and raped YOUR daughter, you WILL be required to bring that rape pregnancy to term and deliver that RAPE baby, all because of someone ELSE'S purported religious beliefs, NOT yours. Thank the GOP for THAT one. Smaller government my Arse…


----------



## RockyTopScott

I will pray for you Mike and ask others to so so as well. Your soul is not lost yet.

[edited by moderator. Note: please respect members' right to privacy re: location]


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Scott tell them to pray for me too , i know a few Baptist and we are friends and they pray for me all the time i do know a few them they're ok dont bother me . Mike i dont relly see a threat just because he asked you to church , i been to a lot of Baptist services they didnt hurt but caused me to miss the NO Saints game once


----------



## RockyTopScott

Hey Eddie , I used to live near NOLA…. We are Saints fans. God Bless You Man.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Maybe a visit to tha Monastery near you would help too Michael.


----------



## MsDebbieP

be respectful, people …


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Sorry MsDebbieP we just get carried aways sometimes we will be


----------



## RockyTopScott

Name calling is never the right thing Mike.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Nor are threats Scott. Just actually get out into a woodshop or go to your local WoodCraft *and learn some woodworking* already. You still have all ZEROs after FIVE YEARS on LJs when it comes to any woodworking. Why is that Scott?
.
.
.
.
Interesting definition… Hmm…:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

In Internet slang, a *troll* (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally3[4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response5 or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]


----------



## RockyTopScott

You may not have it in your area Mike, but we have wireless internet where I live.

My iPad or laptop easily go to the shop in the basement and I can stay connected…........I am there right now as I type this…....unbelievable technology.

Hugs and prayers.


----------



## MsDebbieP

back to woodworking!!


----------



## americanwoodworker

*"all because of someone ELSE'S purported religious beliefs, NOT yours. "*

Mike, thats the underlying issue is'nt it? It always comes down to someone else trying to force their ways on others. You dont like that particular one so you scream at religious people for trying to force it on you. However you probly like wealth redistribution and scream at others for not following you're views. Likewise the other side screams at you for forcing you're beliefs on them. Both sides want bigger Gov'ment. They just want their version of a bigger Gov'ment.

This is why I lean toward the tea party. They believe in a constitutional Gov'ment. To those who let politicians and media think for them that means they want smaller Gov'ment. When that is not the case. If people have actually read the Constitution and studied it you would know that this means a Gov'ment that is as big as you want it to be so long as it does not violate your basic human rights. However it is the Federal Gov'ment that is limited. You're STATE Gov'ment is not.

This is why I dont understand why people hate the Constitution so much. If you want socialized medicine then move to a state that believes in it. Or move out of the state if you dont like it. Either way you can move away from someone else telling you how to live. Currently everything is going through the Federal Gov'ment and when that happens no one can get away from it. Someone else forces their views on you and you cant escape it. Why wouldn't you want to follow the Constitution? You want a liberal utopia that still has to follow a persons basic human rights then you can have that.

Michigan has a very good Liberal Utopia. Those people in Michigan like higher regualtions, taxes etc. All the while their basic human rights are protected by the Constitution. Unfortunately for them it aint working so they are moving away. Which is how it should be. If the people wont change their Gov'ment then move to a state that operates correctly. This will force Michigans to move more moderately in order to bring people back.

What is so wrong this scenario? Except that socialism cannot live without Capitalism. Which is why everything is so centralized because California can suck off other States in order for them to continually survive without changing.

By the way the Dems. also use Religion to Justify their beliefs. I remember when Nancy Pelosi used the Methodist church to justify Obamacare. Which didnt bother us when Mass. did it but now that the Federal Gov'ment did it none of us can escape it. I looked it up myself on her claims and needles to say I am no longer a member of the Methodist Church.

*Remember, Your right to be you includes my right to be free from you. *


----------



## RockyTopScott

Prepare to be bullied americanwoodworker. Look for bold, all caps and probably a mention of Godwin's law.

It will happen. Wait…........


----------



## HorizontalMike

*"...Remember, Your right to be you includes my right to be free from you. ..."*

Then why don't you exercise that right instead of coming here to have a personal go at me? Be gone, as you so blatantly described that right above, just go…


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

"The so called tolerant lefties are only tolerant if you submit."

Boy, howdy, ain't that the truth way too often around here.


----------



## oldnovice

*Hey you guys, enough is enough!*

We should be able to discuss any topics like civilized lumberjocks and not get into locker room behaviour!


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Everyone calm down and have some dip.

P.S. It's really funny when people, un-ironically fail to spell out 'Government' correctly.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Wow Scott, you are openly verbally assaulting MsDebbie, one of LJ's moderators.

IMO, that is NOT a very intelligent thing to do. Just saying…

Perhaps you are hoping that it will just get deleted/modified like the other posts of yours above, that have been deleted/modified, and that you will look squeaky clean again, huh.


----------



## madts

Try the fava bean dip from Bobs Red Mill. Absolute killer. Just cook the beans 1 hour instead of 1.5 hours.


----------



## MsDebbieP

Not that I need to explain myself, but ... the buddy list is not just for "being buddies". The "buddy list" is a notification system for the site and there are many ways and reasons to use it.

As part of the LumberJock team I try my best to respond to and resolve issues, questions, and concerns brought to my attention. Before deleting the location that you posted I went to the profile page to see if it had been shared - and, as it was not posted there, I responded accordingly.

As always my goal is for members to "play nice".

So now …. back to woodworking, please, everyone!


----------



## americanwoodworker

I have read and re-read my post and have to say this is the first time I have ever encountered a person becoming personally offended when I pretty much agree with them.

*"We should be able to discuss any topics like civilized lumberjocks and not get into locker room behaviour!"*

Oldnovice, Thats what I thought could happen. Unfortunately that may never occur if we dont stop making it a personal goal to be offended. Once I find that a person resorts to that tactic I always end the conversation since nothing constructive can be achieved after that point has been reached.

May everyone live long happy free lives.


----------



## RockyTopScott

MsDebbie,

I said in my post above "his location exist in a link HE placed in HIS profile" That statement is 100% true.

Here is the LINK

Then you click on http://www.horizontalheavens.com/local_links.htm

Then click on Weather.

I have said nothing that was not 100% factual and not in the public domain. I have screen shots if you would like further evidence that what I said is an absolute 100% fact.

I hope the truth still matters.

RTS


----------



## DKV

Wow, religion, politics And assault in the same thread. How fun… Where's the sex?


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

those are some good beans madts ,where did you get em amazon


----------



## madts

Yes Eddie Amazon was the place I got them. Cant find them in local stores.


----------



## DanYo

Please tone it down some.

I'm not taking sides and everyone is welcome to your opinions,

I like reading everything, but i do not want my thread locked out because folks are calling out an others opinion and attacking it.









Dan'um Style


----------



## madts

Deek! sex will come later, just trust me.


----------



## DKV

Madts, let us hope so. So boring without sex. Anyone watching Masters and Johnson on Showtime?


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

got to go LSU and Bama , if your for Bama Leave


----------



## HorizontalMike

It's OK @eddie, ATM and "Johnnie Football" ruled again tonight, over Miss. State.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Also noted that Auburn blew out Tennessee Volunteers today 55-23. That was even worse than ATM beating Miss State 51-41. But like Miss State, Tenn is not even rated this year, but getting beat by more than double with the winner topping 50 points… Geez…

Auburn was elated!









However, Tennessee fans were not so happy for sure.









Anyway, you can see where MY loyalty resides, both for college and pro football… **


----------



## Sumdume

Eddie,
GM has paid back some of the money loaned to them. However, they have not paid the government back in full. Read this article was posted on September 15, 2013. 
A breakdown of GM's repayment to date
Of that $49.5 billion that was lent to GM, the U.S. Treasury has so far recovered about $35.4 billion. Here's how it breaks down:
•GM paid back $6.7 billion in cash, the last of which was paid in April 2010. That was when then-CEO Ed Whitacre declared in TV ads that GM's debt had been "paid in full." (I bet he wishes now that he hadn't said that.)
•$13 billion via GM's IPO, back in 2010. GM didn't actually get any money from its own IPO - it was done primarily in order to let the government sell off part of its holdings. The Treasury Department sold about 45% of its total GM stock holdings in the IPO.
•The U.S. received another $2.1 billion when GM bought back some preferred stock from the Treasury in late 2010.
•The U.S. got another $5.5 billion when GM bought back 200 million shares of its stock from the Treasury last December. At the time, GM and the Treasury agreed that Treasury would sell its remaining holdings gradually, on the open market.
•Treasury has received about $8.1 billion from its sales of GM stock on the open market since the beginning of 2013.
That leaves about $14.1 billion of the $49.5 billion loan still unpaid, and the Treasury Department with about 113 million shares of GM stock left to sell.
To break even, Treasury would have to get about $125 per share for its remaining shares. But GM's stock is currently trading around $36. At current prices, the Treasury's remaining stock is worth a little over $4 billion.
Your statement that the President bailed out the U.S. Auto industry is not correct. Only GM and Chrysler received money from the government. Ford did not receive any money. The foreign owned auto companies did not receive any money. That means that millions of autos would have been produced in the U.S. if the President had not bailed out the UAW.
The President interfered with the bankruptcy proceedings and insisted that the UAW get preferential treatment. You might find this article.
Among the union giveaways:
• $21 billion more for the UAW retiree benefit trust fund than it would have received had it been treated like other unsecured creditors.
• Another $1 billion to restore pensions for UAW retirees at GM's defunct Delphi subsidiary.
• And the UAW didn't have to make wage concessions that a normal bankruptcy proceeding would have required. Cost to taxpayers: $4 billion.
"Had the administration required the UAW to accept standard bankruptcy concessions," they concluded, "the government could have executed the bailout at no net cost to taxpayers." 
Obama's former car czar, Ron Bloom, wasn't kidding when he said of the bailout: "I did this all for the unions."
You can spin it any way you want but the facts show the union was the beneficiary of the bailout. Basically, the President bought union votes with your money.


----------



## Sumdume

Eddie, Thanks for telling me that I am dumber than dirt. 
I have worked in a union shop. I understand what unions have done to improve the conditions for the workers. Unions have done a great deal to improve the quality of life of the workers. This includes improving safety and forcing employers to pay higher wages. 
However, those improvements came decades ago. What do unions have to contribute now? If the unions had value the workers would fighting to unionize all of the jobs in the U.S. 
Currently the unions exist to serve the leadership and not the membership. The only reason they care about the workers is so they can tax them. The leaders get to tax every dollar of the wages earned by the workers. Where do the taxes go? It goes to support the fat cats who are pocketing huge amounts of money as they act like they care. The money also goes to support corrupt politicians. 
The unions are big businesses just like the companies that employ the workers. Neither can be trusted.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Sumdume i do apologize for telling you you were dumb as dirt that was wrong on my part must of got caught up in the moment , very sorry for that its not my first time to let my mouth over load my mind in a discussion of politocs or religion , but you would be wrong to think that Obama bought the union vote .do you think the unions would support somebody else like a Republican on the union busting strategy they live by, did you know why the pension fund was not fully funded in the first place ,yes you are right Obama did stop that fund from being raided by stock holder of varying options that it was versifier in ,as he did with the bank and they still hold stock in the company of GM ,which isnt paid back yet as in yet and i dont know if the stock will get back to 125 or not but have seen it there before , that stock has been divided in half a few times to keep it low. no bankruptcy was a win for Wall Street only hate to see them have to lose some money ,yes he did save the pension fund and my hats off to him for it ,sorry if you have a problem with that,i dont but then it was my pension that was saved not the investor of wall street that had made billions and billions form that money over the years and i didnt have a problem with them making it either ,i dont really care how much they make ,by the way GM had used the pension money before and had paid it back more than once ,i have read all those give me a break ,you say the foreign auto industry didnt receive any money , , they are subsidized by there governments already and then given more when they get here ,they are very much , you bring up Delphi as a subsidiary yet they worked for GM there time with them was still GM time not Delphi a parts manufature that GM was getting out of and did and the Union knew this ,thats what they thought was best for their interest nothing the union can do about it ,didnt agree with it but its their company and they did try to allow as many as they coud be given retirement s that had the time , instead of just puting them on the streets after 30 years of making them money some managers are not heartless as some would project them .Unions are big buness you say well you are right there and hope they stay there

_ * Currently the unions exist to serve the leadership and not the membership. The only reason they care about the workers is so they can tax them. The leaders get to tax every dollar of the wages earned by the workers. Where do dumb as dirt the taxes go? It goes to support the fat cats who are pocketing huge amounts of money as they act like they care. The money also goes to support corrupt politicians..*_

i do have to say that this statement here is not as dumb as dirt as dirt has a lot of properties in it that with out we could not live as in grow things to eat and live on so i dont want to get this mixed up with dirt more like stones or rock that would be my best comparison to something no use in insulting dirt here . the Unions and there leader are by far from being without faults and a long ways from being perfect in this world ,the union wants to tax people come on ,get out of here ,fat cats are you serious i think you are as thats the only reason some one would say that i know them and if you think they are your wrong , the union isnt about any one person its leadership is elected by it members they have been voted in and out of their rolls many times as we both know their are some that do get to thinking of them selfs only,their agenda is is not their own but of its members, what you dont see is that a union is not a person but a cause for a voice in the political arena for some social justice ,ones like you that done see and think it all fat cat s and lets bust them up and strip them down dont get it you will have a hard time getting rid of a cause like the unions ,you may think that they arnt needed and are self serving , keep on believing that its a free country i dont see it your way ,
that to say the union was wrong for supporting a president or supporting one that saved its pension fund and millions of jobs from being stripped away would be dumb as rocks it would be like me saying LSU lost to Alabama because they had bad teacher in that school or some lam excuess to make me feel better no thay just got their ass kicked by a better team that day nothing else .


----------



## HorizontalMike

*RockyTopScott: "...I said in my post above "his location exist in a link HE placed in HIS profile" That statement is 100% true.
Here is the LINK
Then you click on http:/ /www.horizontalheavens.com/local links. htm
Then click on Weather.
I have said nothing that was not 100% factual and not in the public domain. I have screen shots if you would like further evidence that what I said is an absolute 100% fact.
I hope the truth still matters.
RTS…"*

Scott, I never gave you permission to data mine my identity. HOWEVER, YOU have openly asked me to identify YOU. See below








And your OLD Avatar-Still a Tenn Volunteer









Using ONLY your OPEN PUBLICALLY DISPLAYED user name (RockyTopScott) and your avatar (Tennessee Volunteers), I opened a window and entered same.

 Then, on the first page, I clicked on VolNation - View Profile: rockytopscott and there you are.
 Under the contact Info tab, I clicked on http://www.scottmoore.net/ and THERE'S YOUR PUBLIC WEBPAGE of everything you chose to share.
 Under YOUR public webpage, you can find any and all information, including YOUR weather station, location, images, woodworking projects, etc.

*DO Remember Scott, YOU SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME TO DO THIS, AND YOU GAVE ME PERMISSION TO DO THIS ON LJs.* In your words quoted (see above), "...I'll give you 3 months…". It didn't even take 3 minutes, much less 3 months.

Remember ALSO, *I never gave you such permission* with MY information. So why did YOU do this to me multiple times?


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Sumdume never ever tell a woman she has to much Jewelry


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

mike for a few year i study the star and had a 8 inch mead and 6 '' refartor by celestron , it was some thing i got into during a study of different languages , as you know ,which by the looking at your site you have a deeper under standing of the stars and constellations than i do , i always had a hard time with some of it as my education isnt that rounded as some in that field of higher education as some here , i was tring to find why all the star no matter of their original language that they were named in had the same meaning , not like todays different languages , even though some are Arabic or Greek or Hebrew or calde, they still mean the same in the study of stars and their history's , im i wrong on this or did i just not dig enough , i still love astronomy but had to sell my telescopes due to a bad poker game ,LOL but plan on getting another one day soon as the wood working addiction is over


----------



## HorizontalMike

@eddie,
Even though there have always been different cultures with different languages, they did "trade" with one another and travel far distances in order to trade. The stars were the original "maps" if you will, even before written languages. Being able to describe directions, using the stars, and clusters/shapes of stars as a reference, allowed different cultures to interact and further the trading business over those large distances.

I am sure others will have a variety of opinions on this, but what I shared above is how I understand how different cultures had so many similarities in their interpretation of the night sky. Thank you for asking.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Mike thats what i came away with , they all must of spoke the same language at one time or at least it seems


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Scott you know Tenns , they really got beat and by little ole Auburn. sorry couldnt help myself  you know you should post some of your builds on here they look great and even though we tend to get on some of these threads and talk pollitics and what ever and call each other names and get so mad we can trow our planes at the wall ,we are all just wood workers here with diffrent points of views ,i my self didnt have no one to teach me this craft and do use this site for learning as there are many Masters of this craft here . i looked at some of your builds they are good very good you shold post some of them , ones like me are very thinkful for those that do as this is first a wood working site these side treads are good too i like to talk and read other points and learn from them but even then we will never agree with each other all the time thats ok ,if we ever do a gree on every thing we are in trouble , post some of your work like that table thats one that could help someone or some of the other you have built , as far as politic and religion people will always have their own and its not a problem just a view that has two or more points always ,we need some both to stay a float those that are greedy are needed as its not bad to be greedy it what makes a profit for companys i didnt say that loves money so much as to macke it at whom ever exspance , they are needed to keep ones that are to soft and can go to far with out any restraints and reward those that are just lazy we need all sorts to make it . but by the the way did i mention that Tenn got its ass beat LOL just couldnt help my self the SEC is hard enough to win in


----------



## HorizontalMike

Hey @eddie,
Did you notice that Scott is not replying here and has created an LJ specific Forum Topic about me? He knows that that will eventually be deleted since creating threads specifically about others is not allowed on LJs. Scott is well practiced at trolling, in that he will get specific posts deleted, and think his history is then squeaky clean again.

He even created a "new" profile this morning, trying to deflect attention. Not bad, after all it appears Scott IS a software programmer, Internet Security Systems engineer and could easily do this.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## HorizontalMike

OK Dan… +10 *;-)*


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

It's not Obama's wealth he's wanting to spread, but the wealth that has been earned by others, by legal and ethical means. Spare the generalizations of 'big corporations,' and 'corporate greed,' 'big pharmaceutical companies,' etc. etc. I do not agree with the inference that the rich are rich due simply to greed any more than turning the tables to assert the poor are greedy to attain wealth through political means.


----------



## RockyTopScott

According to FactCheck.org the number of people living in poverty has gone up substantially under the current regime.

"The number of persons living in poverty also worsened again in 2012, according to the most recent Census figures. As of last year, 46,496,000 persons lived in households with income below the official poverty line, *an increase of nearly 6.7 million since 2008* and 249,000 since 2011."


----------



## HorizontalMike

*SC: "...It's not Obama's wealth he's wanting to spread, but the wealth that has been earned by others, by legal and ethical means…."*

Yeah, like Enron, Goldman Saks, Bank of America Foreclosure Scandal, AOL, Duke Energy, Freddie Mac, Halliburton, KMart, Merill Lynch, WorldCom, Nortel, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Xerox, Lockeed Corporation, Waste Managment, etc. 
A more complete list *HERE* and these are JUST accounting scandals.

And *HERE* is a list of just RECENT illegal banking scandels.

And to put this into perspective,...look at these

 Bernie Madoff Scandal cost us $64.8 BILLION.
 LIBOR derivatives Scandal involves about $350 TRILLION with a *"T"*

Bottom line Smitty, is that I cannot support the assertion that these super rich earned their $$$$ "... by legal and ethical means…."


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

These companies / entities are subject to the Justice Department and prosecution. What other monies are supposed to come to the poor, then? The cartoon doesn't limit scope to illegal funds, just slams the wealthy because they are. Still an assertion that is way too broad.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*"...These companies / entities are subject to the Justice Department and prosecution…."*

And with the amounts of $$$ each of these super rich entities are "acquiring", they own the very politicians(both parties) that make/change/enforce those laws.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

There's no concurrence just because the term 'super rich' is used. It should not be a derogatory term to be super rich. To be criminal is, to be lazy is, to be mean is. To be rich, no. To be poor, no.

Generosity, empathy, empowerment and integrity; those are words I'd rather value.


----------



## R_Stad

Not sure if this has been shared already or not. This is George Carlin not trying to be funny. It is 3 minutes long. I think he makes some very valid points. I don't think the real battle is conservative vs. liberal, or Republican vs. Democrat, but the rich and powerful against everyone else. If your instinctive response is "class warfare" tell me who is winning.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Isn't THAT the truth Rod! Thanks for the video.

*SC: "...Generosity, empathy, empowerment and integrity; those are words I'd rather value…."*

SC, I agree that that is what I'd rather value also, BUT (and it's a big one) that is not how the game is being played in this country. Sure, there will be a thoughtful example (tidbit) thrown at us once in a while to enforce the "keep-the-faith" attitude that keeps us indentured, but that is about it. and THAT is my opinion.


----------



## bbrewer

Is this coming soon to the US? A good example of how socialists run their countries. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/09/venezuela-seizes-stores/3486581/


----------



## Sumdume

Eddie, go ahead, tell me again how those who had invested in GM stock deserved to have their money stolen!
I am a middle class taxpayer. My retirement investments suffered because President Obama changed the rules and gave the unions preferential treatment. Now, I have to pay more in taxes to pay for the bailout the President gave the union. Yeah, everyone who was invested in GM was crook! Give me a break and quit telling me fairy tales.
The President did need to buy the votes in the union states. In some case he needed those votes for his re-election. In other cases he had to buy the votes to protect his minions in the democrat party. 
GM and Chrysler would have existed after bankruptcy. They would have re-organized and continued to build autos. In addition, many of the Wall Street investors and people who had GM or Chrysler stock in their investment accounts would have lost money. In a regular bankruptcy the President would not have given a large part of the company to the unions. 
The bottom line is the President gave the UAW a break and the investor (including myself) and the taxpayers have to pay for it.


----------



## Sumdume

Eddie, Can the UAW represent the workers now that the union owns a huge block of GM stock?


----------



## HorizontalMike

Yup, just another GOP slug…
 
*The theft of the American pension *

"... Why should people who didn't lose their pensions care about this?
These were not gratuities. This was not something the company decided they would give you if they felt like it. This was something that was earned, that was deferred. The pattern after the Second World War was that as companies were growing quickly, they didn't have a lot of cash. So the deal was, they gave workers less pay then in exchange for pay later, and they called it a pension. If you worked for x number of years, you'd get your pay back. Same thing with healthcare…."


----------



## americanwoodworker

Why do people who hate the rich so much continue to buy their products?

After all our capitalist system is a free voluntary exchange system. Nobody forces you to buy anything. Thus far anyway. Except for healthcare but that was the fault of socialism not capitalism.

Why do people who hate the rich so much continue to vote for those politicians who take our hard earned money and give it to them?

After all our political system is a free voluntary voting system. Thus far.

Sounds to me like you are the problem.

Disclaimer: The word "you" is used generically and is not directly pointed at anyone specific.

Also, I'm offended. Don't know why but it just seams to be popular to be offended.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Sumdume just remember i still love you


----------



## Sumdume

Eddie, that's nice. However, it does not make the information I posted any less true.
Will you answer the question I asked in #268?
I do not see how the union can represent the workers fairly now that they are owners. It appears that there is a conflict of interest.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

*RockyTop: According to FactCheck.org the number of people living in poverty has gone up substantially under the current regime.*

Rocky, let's break that down just a bit, and examine how much power the President really has. So far, Obama has had a Dem controlled congress two out of five years. In the time that congress has been led by the right, they've essentially done little to nothing. In fact, they have been obstructionists to the nth degree. Aside from some stern words, the occasional executive order and ultimate control over the military, the prez really can't do much else. He can appoint folks to positions (which congress blocks over and over, wasting tax payer money while the dems try to ratify new department heads).... It's been a total sh*t show. Seems to me that any failings in economic growth rest solely on the shoulders of the Republican led congress.

In fact, you might say that it's incredible what the prez has been able to accomplish in spite of never ending roadblocks.

I'm not a huge fan of Al Sharpton or MSNBC, but here is Newt admitting to the GOP policy of obstructionism I just described.


----------



## oldnovice

Based on purely statistics, probability suggests that there are just as many illegal/unethical people and companies on both ends of the poor/rich spectrum.

However, the indiscretions at the low end of the spectrum may involve small sums and as a result will probably have a lower number of victims, while the indiscretions at the other end of the spectrum typically involve sums from millions to billions and have an much larger number of victims which is why we hear more about them and are more likely to be effected by them!


----------



## RockyTopScott

Uncanny, the GOP has not obstructed the printing of money and the delivery of it to the friends of the POTUS.  This goes on unimpeded.

These "stimulus"efforts have not helped the working poor.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Sumdume why cant a union represent them ,there are many companys that have board members that are union representatives , ,some of them want the input from there labor force in decisions being made you see it only as an adversary . unions are very aware of a companys need for profit to stay well, there are many areas where there is agreement , yes and there are areas of conflict of interest regardless of what the supreme court ruled that corporations are people , they aren't. many countrys already have labors voice in there board room , take Germany for instance its the norm there and quit successful auto industry too , i think they are years ahead on labor relations, just my opinion, they learnt there lession when Hilter outlawed unions on his first day in his rise to power,Japan and almost all of Europe, all these auto industrys are very productive and build quality auto and they all pay a lot more a hour and have better benifits than the US auto industry and some of them are subsidized by there government ,i my self dont agree with that to me seems to give them a unfare edge in the maket place here in this country that we dont have there , i often tell ones that im decussing with hay OK i still love ya just to keep thing in the proper reception for my self nothing personal just a habit , but for me i will always be my brothers keeper and i know you need all types to keep it together ,there will always be areas of conflict and compromise in any relationship.


----------



## casual1carpenter

Sumdume, In your #272 you proposed a question and a statement that "I do not see how the union can represent the workers fairly now that they are owners. It appears that there is a conflict of interest." 
I do not feel that the union being "owners" as you put it is a conflict of interest any more that a family business is a conflict of interest for the family. Unless it is some sort of tax write off thing which I do not understand a business exists to produce and sell product or services at profit. If the businesses that employed me do not exist it follows that my jobs with them will also not exist. Just like the extremely rich ( and others) I would like to make a bit more money from time to time. Cost of living marches upward as the clock and calendar turns not to mention some of the nice things that make life more enjoyable. The unions exist not to cripple and destroy their work environment but to push for fair and equal treatment of their members and a reasonable pay which is a fair share of the profits. The union exists in a symbiotic relationship with the businesses it serves while the investor is often more parasitic. The unions would not even be in existence if not for the need to balance the parasitic greed of some companies and owners. Parts of the country are noticeably non-union, perhaps they are treated better there or they have succumbed to propaganda. In either case I hope it works for them. My union took it's share of dues, both monthly and weekly pay based "field dues". Perhaps a portion of those funds were misused as some here have stated but they provided me a reasonable living wage and benefits through out my working years and so far into my retirement.
If you ask me who I worked for I would tell you that I work for my local / union currently at a specific company. The union is or should be about the membership at large and not the narrow minded approach of all about me. It would be nice if the union of states and their respective citizen members also looked towards the union of states and members welfare instead of following the all about me greed philosophy.


----------



## americanwoodworker

LOL DKV! Thx for bringing humor in.

How bout this one. "Keep your hands off my body and your laws out of my bedroom. But I want Gov-ment to pay for my condoms, birth control and abortions!"

I know, I know…" Keep your Gov-ment hands off my medicare!". I have heard that one to. Hence the problem with both sides. Everyone wants bigger Gov'ment. They just want their version of bigger gov'ment.


----------



## HorizontalMike

FWIW, union "membership" is at a low not seen in ~70 years! With such a declining membership and influence, how is it that "the unions" are the harbinger of this ill economy at this time? Remember that corporate "greed" and "profits" are at ALL TIME HIGHS.

Who woulda' 'thunk… Hmm…


----------



## RockyTopScott

*@Americanwoodworker*

"Everyone wants bigger Gov'ment. They just want their version of bigger gov'ment."

Then EVERYONE must be fired!


----------



## americanwoodworker

Rocky it's like I said before when I seemed to offend someone. If you want a bigger gov'ment but you want your version of it then go back to the Constitution which allows for it. Every part of our country has different morals. But we all have one thing in common and that is basic human rights.

California hates rich people and big business so they tax it. Michigan wants union owned business so they use Gov'ment to take them over. Kansas and Nebraska likes Gov'ment subsidized farming. You see every single part of our country has a different set of Gov'ment standards. Each one wants their own version of Gov'ment. The Constitution puts limits on the Federal Gov'ment but gives each State the authority to create the Gov'ment they wish to have based on their standards. It is so simple a concept that I dont understand why people hate the Constitution so much. It gives everyone what they want.

Disclaimer: The word "you" is used generically and is not pointing to anyone specifically.

I'm offended.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

americanwoodworker looking at post #274 just wondering what part of big gov'ment shes wants and she must be from Texas


----------



## RockyTopScott

Eddie = Bad Boy


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Scott i know i just couldn't help myself ,


----------



## RockyTopScott

Americanwoodworker, the problem is the socialist loath the Constitution…they see it as an obstacle to their agenda. They want their form of big government for EVERYONE.

I am all for state's rights and limited federal power, but that has been usurped by the inside the beltway crowd.

As far as California goes, they are going to screw themselves and drive away their revenue base and then expect the rest of us to bail them out.

Where I live we have responsible politicians (both sides) that keep us out of hot water. LINK

Corporate taxes went up due to our ability to recruit new businesses into Tennessee.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

not only did corporate taxes go up in Tenn. so did union worker thats one of the few states that had a increase in union membership, they will say that its has only a small percentage of union membership but lots of other company pay union scale wages there


----------



## DKV

We could be living here…


----------



## DKV

Union worker…


----------



## RockyTopScott




----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## DKV

Our next president?


----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## RockyTopScott

Is that Hillary's head on Jennifer Flowers body?


----------



## DrDirt

*Who missed the celebration this morning?...*


----------



## Tennessee

Well, this thread is pretty far off the rails, having read the last 50 or so responses, may as well put in my two cents, cause that's about all I got left! Ha!

Without going back in time, (pre 2008) and rehashing all that caused the crash of 2008, let me just say that it happened.
Since then:
Bush put in a huge stimulus when his people told him that without a huge influx of cash, the economy would break down totally.
Lehman Brothers went down, taking along with it so many mutual funds and retirement plans people still don't know how much simply disappeared.
Obama came to power, and put in another stimulus, which did essentially nothing.
GM and Chrysler were bailed out. If anyone ever thought the US Gov would get all that money back, they were dreaming. Same with the green industry, and the huge porkbarrel lists that seem to come out of congress and the senate every year. 
Ben Bernanke decided that the economy needed more stimulus, and started inserting billions into the economy, monitoring only inflation rates as a gauge of how much to put into the economy monthly. It continues to this day, mostly ignoring inflation now, as our stock market seems to react with giant losses every time they even hint at stopping the influx of printed money. I believe the current rate is $32Billion monthly. Since most people are now depending on 401K and fund plans for some sort of retirement, any downward trend of the market is seen as more important than inflation. So now, a gallon of milk is $3.75, gas is $3.25, and no one's wages are rising.

Manufacturing, Service and other big companies, along with all banks and fund houses, look at all of this with a jaundiced eye. Their answer is to simply keep as much of this new found "stimulus" wealth on the sidelines as possible as a hedge against the inevitable, another crash. 
Even gold and silver, usual hedges against inflation and sound investments, have been belittled as the huge influx of money enters the economy and keeps on doing so. The dollar still rules, but not in the proper way. Instead of people using it, people are putting it away and off the playing field.
Companies and banks of all types just keep hedging and collecting money as fast as they can get it. Most companies are NOT expanding services, rather just bloating their bank accounts. THEY ARE SCARED…

This causes people to not have jobs. The government, in their infinite wisdom, wants to help these people, since they vote, so now we have 48 million + on food stamps. As unemployment runs out, many are jumping over to SS disability as a last hedge against living on the sidewalk. Bankruptcy is also a popular option, depending on which state you live in. The government has loosened the rules on both to allow last ditchers to live on. Some abuse is frowned on, but the majority of people who apply get in.

We have reached a point in this country, that unless we speak up in mass, reduce the amount of money in circulation, make it more opportunistic for companies to invest rather than hedge, we will probably cease to exist as a world economic power within a decade. Some economists say we actually need chaos and insurrection, an actual "do-over", to bring us back to the freedom and responsibility we knew once before.

So forget the union influence and all the other stuff. Think the END of Democracy as we know it, unless we are willing to be fiscally responsible once again. Fiscal responsibility is what brought us to power, and the lack of fiscal responsibility is what will end this country as we know it. 
Heck, you can go back to Nixon taking us off the gold standard, if you really want to think about the very first step that started us down this road to ruin.
I pray for my children and grandchildren, and also Thank God that I am not 30 again…


----------



## DKV

Tea party progression…


----------



## dbray45

So Mike, if it were not for those evil corporations, where would you work?

A government job? The government takes its money from the people and those evil corporations.

So what happens when the government takes so much money that the people cannot feed themselves and the companies go bankrupt - kind of like now - where 53% of the population are getting welfare, food stamps, unemployment, and the government is bailing out major corporations like General Motors - and while they are at it, shutting down 1200 dealerships that paid to be dealers, and putting about a million people out of work - just because the owners of those dealers were Republican? And this is right? You are for this? At the same time you are vilifying the parties that are being put down because of their politics?

I am not seeing your point of view - you need to explain this to me how this works. How is this helping us? Because the government wants to take the money from someone that has a good work ethic, used their brain and made some money and then give it to someone that feels that everybody owes them everything that they want - just because - and you agree to this mindset?

You do realize that this is contrary to everything this country was based upon and is exactly what the framers of the Constitution were trying to prevent from happening, don't you?


----------



## RockyTopScott

*@Tennessee* "Some economists say we actually need chaos and insurrection"

My fear is the economists will get what they want.


----------



## DKV

America's priorities…


----------



## RockyTopScott

dbray45, all socialist are against the Constitution and what the country was based upon.

You have to understand HMike's position…he worked for the national park service and then was a school teacher/administrator so he most likely got his paycheck from the taxpayer's pocket most of his life.

He believes the taxpayer should have paid for his salary, his retirement, his education and healthcare then and now. It is not like in the real world where you have to produce more to make more…you know take risk and achieve.. It is simply taking more from taxpayers and giving it to others.


----------



## dbray45

Yes, but I want Mike's interpretation. I want to hear from him and how he thinks this should work.

Without those evil companies hoarding away all of the money, etc…


----------



## dbray45

Am I to understand that the guy pushing the broom should be paid the same as the guy (or gal whichever floats your boat) that spent 12 years in college - and is designing the new whatever, and the same as the guy that has 4 -6 years in college - that fixes the computers in the datacenter, and the same as the doctor that has 8-16 years in college - that fixes the guy's leg that is pushing a broom and falls down the steps?

If this is so, why should any of those people, other than the guy pushing the broom, put themselves through that? To be paid the same and work 60-80 hours a week - because those kinds of jobs require that?

Some of the highest paid salaries are not the CEOs and the like, they are commission paid sales people. The harder they work, the more they make - and you feel that they should give this money away?

I gotta hear this from you Mike.


----------



## dbray45

Oh and BTW - I work for a school system - I fix the computers, storage and fibre in the datacenter. I also had a computer business for 13 years - so what? A paycheck is a paycheck - somebody has to pay for it and the money has to come from someplace.

I haven't had a real raise in 5 years - our tax rates are so high that businesses are leaving, people are getting unemployed and people are not paying their taxes. So we should give them money - where the hell from?

Bring in the companies, hire the people, lets get the ball rolling - oh that's right, we can't have those evil companies here, let's have a minimum wage of $14.00 an hour - no let's make it 20. And when the milk price is $18.00 a gallon, everybody will be in poverty. If you are paying a minimum wage to someone working on a farm, milking cows and their wage is $20.00 an hour, your food is going to be expensive -

Then it will be those evil farmers - shut them all down now, while we still can!


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)




----------



## RockyTopScott

I am with you Eddie. let the market decide winners and losers.


----------



## Tennessee

You're right, Scott. We might actually see total chaos.
I think we will see some rioting for sure, either when possibly a conservative government is put in and starts eliminating entitlements, or we just keep on like now, printing money and finally getting downgraded by world markets until we look like Greece. Either way, at some point in the future you can easily visualize mobs in the streets.

In fairness to Mike, in the Park Service he kept things going we all expect to be open every day.
As a member of the teaching world, he provided a service we all want improved, constantly, I might add. So politicians throw money at it constantly, and his salary and benefits over time went up. The state governments and other politicians signed the agreements, Mike just worked within them. They PROMISED him. Is that his fault for working in that system, and educating our young? His union was smart enough to represent him, the school systems were dumb enough to let them. 
I don't blame Mike, rather he simply took what was offered, and his organizations and unions fought to keep it. If I had taught in public school, rather than work in manufacturing, I would have done the same thing.


----------



## madts

You guys do not know what socialism is. You are living in your American world, where the least radical party, the Democrats, are way to the right of any Fascist party in Europe. I know that you guys like your guns and do not like to pay taxes. But sooner or later you are going to have to pay the piper unless you want to live in a country like the middle east, or China, where bribes etc. are rampant.


----------



## RockyTopScott

dbray45, please don't misunderstand my comments. I am not implying that working for the government or schools in any capacity (except maybe IRS agent) is a dishonorable thing. My best advocates in high school were teachers.

All I am saying is that if I chose to be a teacher or park ranger or a policeman or fireman or whatever, I should not be envious of others that achieve more and expect an equal outcome for myself based on my choices.

I don't see the CEO or surgeon who make 7 figures as taking away a piece of my pie. I make and bake my own pie and whatever I choose it to be is what it will be.


----------



## dbray45

Madts -
Yes, I do know what socialism is. I know what fascism is. I have seen it in more than one country. I have seen the hate it breeds, the hurt, the suffering, just to name a few. I have spoken with someone that went through the Nazi prison camps at length. What man is capable of - can be a terrible thing.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

dbray45 you sure your not talking about Republicans there LOL just picking


----------



## HorizontalMike

*Scott: "...All I am saying is that if I chose to be a teacher or park ranger or a policeman or fireman or whatever, I should not be envious of others that achieve more and expect an equal outcome for myself based on my choices…."*

You are nuts! if you think public sector employees (fire, police, teacher, etc.) should take a subservient role to ANY private sector employee. Public Service employees entered into contractual agreements to receive lower wages/salary IN EXCHANGE for delayed compensation in the form of payed retirement, lifetime health care, etc.

And NOW corporate GOP is now trying to demonize those contractual arrangements as "entitlements" that are not deserved and continually tries to raid those retirement and health care FUNDs by purportedly *borrowing* from them via local governments and then FAILS to repay said "loans". You should have been in Texas when Rick Perry (GOP Governor) tried to demand access to the Texas Teachers Retirement Fund! All Hell broke loose.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)




----------



## RockyTopScott

The word I used was envious, not subservient Mike. Read it again, this time slowly so that full comprehension sets in.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)




----------



## RockyTopScott

So Eddie, studying pig poop is a public service?

The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure and a $1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion. LINK


----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## HorizontalMike

*YOUR TYPICAL GOP CAPITALIST TO AMERICA:*


----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Scott they have wasted a lot of money on poop thats for sure , but its a needed service cut the poop and clean up the air


----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## RockyTopScott

I am not doing without bacon Eddie.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

you got to cut the Bacon ,its that or cut the cheese ,but i would take em up on that grant for the study of exotic dancer


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Mike we got the best that money can buy


----------



## DrDirt




----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

DrDirt i tend to agree with Thomas Sowell ,thou i get called names sometimes but greed is needed to keep companys going ,it the fine line where it crosses over to the love of money where the agreement ends ,by the way i missed the Bob Seager band in New Orleans last year and im blaming it on Friedrich Von Hayek with that name he had someting to do with it


----------



## DrDirt

But Eddie - - - that is Friedrich --not Selma Hayek 

Selma could affect my plans too!! from the Wild wild west!


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

forget Bob Seager im going to see Selma Hayek its a beautiful thing indeed


----------



## DrDirt




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

cant be all bad he kept the three legged dog


----------



## DKV




----------



## DKV




----------



## DKV




----------



## DanYo




----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

wheres that liquor store at LOL


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Dan thats those rich folks over on the north side


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)




----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)




----------



## DanYo




----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Let's see… Raiding pensions = Corporate Greed. So tell me, is Social Security fully funded, or did the Corporations get that, too? Oh, waitaminute! It was The Biggest Corporation that did that: The US Government.

Yet that Govt is still worthy of all the love and trust a liberal can muster. Beyond the pale of reason…


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

hay Smitty_Cabinetshop it should be non profit ,but we both know thats not the way it is


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

*Tennessee: Well, this thread is pretty far off the rails, having read the last 50 or so responses, may as well put in my two cents, cause that's about all I got left! Ha!

Without going back in time, (pre 2008) and rehashing all that caused the crash of 2008, let me just say that it happened.
Since then:
Bush put in a huge stimulus when his people told him that without a huge influx of cash, the economy would break down totally.
Lehman Brothers went down, taking along with it so many mutual funds and retirement plans people still don't know how much simply disappeared.
Obama came to power, and put in another stimulus, which did essentially nothing.
GM and Chrysler were bailed out. If anyone ever thought the US Gov would get all that money back, they were dreaming. Same with the green industry, and the huge porkbarrel lists that seem to come out of congress and the senate every year.
Ben Bernanke decided that the economy needed more stimulus, and started inserting billions into the economy, monitoring only inflation rates as a gauge of how much to put into the economy monthly. It continues to this day, mostly ignoring inflation now, as our stock market seems to react with giant losses every time they even hint at stopping the influx of printed money. I believe the current rate is $32Billion monthly. Since most people are now depending on 401K and fund plans for some sort of retirement, any downward trend of the market is seen as more important than inflation. So now, a gallon of milk is $3.75, gas is $3.25, and no one's wages are rising.

Manufacturing, Service and other big companies, along with all banks and fund houses, look at all of this with a jaundiced eye. Their answer is to simply keep as much of this new found "stimulus" wealth on the sidelines as possible as a hedge against the inevitable, another crash.
Even gold and silver, usual hedges against inflation and sound investments, have been belittled as the huge influx of money enters the economy and keeps on doing so. The dollar still rules, but not in the proper way. Instead of people using it, people are putting it away and off the playing field.
Companies and banks of all types just keep hedging and collecting money as fast as they can get it. Most companies are NOT expanding services, rather just bloating their bank accounts. THEY ARE SCARED…

This causes people to not have jobs. The government, in their infinite wisdom, wants to help these people, since they vote, so now we have 48 million + on food stamps. As unemployment runs out, many are jumping over to SS disability as a last hedge against living on the sidewalk. Bankruptcy is also a popular option, depending on which state you live in. The government has loosened the rules on both to allow last ditchers to live on. Some abuse is frowned on, but the majority of people who apply get in.

We have reached a point in this country, that unless we speak up in mass, reduce the amount of money in circulation, make it more opportunistic for companies to invest rather than hedge, we will probably cease to exist as a world economic power within a decade. Some economists say we actually need chaos and insurrection, an actual "do-over", to bring us back to the freedom and responsibility we knew once before.*










* Tennessee: So forget the union influence and all the other stuff. Think the END of Democracy as we know it, unless we are willing to be fiscally responsible once again. Fiscal responsibility is what brought us to power, and the lack of fiscal responsibility is what will end this country as we know it.
Heck, you can go back to Nixon taking us off the gold standard, if you really want to think about the very first step that started us down this road to ruin.
I pray for my children and grandchildren, and also Thank God that I am not 30 again…*









You had to bring the gold standard into it eh… You know, folks just lose all credibility when they mention the gold standard… It's a clear demonstration that they truly do not understand the econonomic theories our system is based on… Not to defend the economic theories our system is based on, don't get me wrong….I think it's FOOBAR.

*dbray: Am I to understand that the guy pushing the broom should be paid the same as the guy (or gal whichever floats your boat) that spent 12 years in college - and is designing the new whatever, and the same as the guy that has 4 -6 years in college - that fixes the computers in the datacenter, and the same as the doctor that has 8-16 years in college - that fixes the guy's leg that is pushing a broom and falls down the steps?*

Dude, not as much but you know, enough so that he doesn't have to rely on government programs to close his ever widening income gap.


----------



## oldnovice

From what I can glean from *ALL* above is that *WE* are tired of greed, corporate or otherwise, and that none of *US* really want to redistribute the wealth of those that have earned it legally and ethically.

However, this greed is not limited to corporations or individuals but also infests our government when those, in whatever seats of power, line their pockets from special interest groups while passing/modifying laws that are not for the *greater good.* The general public is typically represented by a special interest group, after all that is why we vote to put our interests in the seats of congress but once the election wooing is gone we are forgotten.

*And, IMO, that is one of the main reasons we are so dissatisfied with our current regime!*


----------



## DKV

Recorded human history, approximately 6000 years, has shown a few things to be true.
1. The more intelligent will rule over the less intelligent.
2. The less intelligent will always harbor resentment against the more intelligent.
3. Based on 6000 years of numbers 1 and 2 being true there is no reason to believe the next 6000 will be different. Wealth will always belong to the more intelligent. If you don't like your place in life then you should have had different parents.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Oldnovice you are dead on. Very well stated.


----------



## Tennessee

Uncanny, I think it is actually FUBAR, mainly a military term used to describe something that is so bad, it is beyond all repair. I used it a lot in when I was in the US Navy. Still use it today.
Thanks for agreeing with 90% of my little tirade, save for my comments on the gold standard.
But…
As far as the gold standard, I understand the disadvantages.
It limits some economic growth as populations grow, since the government is limited in how much money it can put into circulation since the currency is tied to the gold standard. 
It is often cited by stimulus economists that the Great Depression was prolonged by the government's limitation in printing money and putting it into circulation, so-called "priming the pump". I would argue that the last two-three stimuli in recent times were also aimed at "priming the pump", and look where we stand. Multiple economists say it was actually WWII that brought us out of the Great Depression, not anything that Washington did.
It is unequal by country based on how much gold any given country would hold at any period of time. Granted, but there are multiple tiers and styles of gold standards, not a firm attachment to 99% pure. We've been on everything from a Spanish silver bullion coin to 99% pure until we finally eliminated it. There is no reason to include some sort of pricing tier system for countries to allow for their precious stocks to count against their money supply. Unfortunately, I have to humbly agree that greed would rein on any system such as this, so gold is probably the only reasonable commodity we could lean on.

Truth is, inflation and national debt would have never happened if we had some kind of brake on how much money could be put into the supply, based on a precious commodity. Deflation would have resulted in good times, forcing prices down rather than up. People who we now think are poor might not, if pricing and wages were forced to match due to a standard of some sort.

We've not seen any wage increases in over a decade, yet the amount of money in the supply has grown by billions per month for years. THERE IS MORE MONEY IN THE US SUPPLY NOW THAN AT ANY TIME IN OUR HISTORY, YET THE AMOUNT OF POOR IS ALSO AT THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE WE'VE EVER SEEN. To me, that proves that "priming the pump" does not work and never will.

I would humbly submit that this current situation is worse than holding the line on inflation, pricing, and keeping the dollar the strongest currency in the world, rather than where we are today.
It's just an opinion, of course…as is just about this entire thread. I think it's time to cut some wood…


----------



## dbray45

You know its a funny thing - even the federal govt understands the corporate ethics - they create GSEs or Government Sponsored Enterprises.

During the Bailout, Freddie Mac and Fannie May had tremendous loses - because the fed (starting with Clinton) told the banks to reduce the requirement to make loans to almost a point that if you were breathing, you were good - in spite of the banking industry telling the administration that this was a really bad idea (but it generated votes). - Bush did not change this policy either.

Well, Freddie (and I think Fannie ) have now paid all of the money that the borrowed in dividends, 70+ billion - even under the tightened requirements. Is the govt cutting them lose from the conservatorship, I doubt it, they just received a serious quarterly check (dividend) of 33 billion, that I am told doesn't come off the principal loan. Could it be that they are not going to cut them lose because they see a cash cow - from an evil corporation?


----------



## DKV

What happened to love thy brother and forgiveness? The Jesus is watching…


----------



## DanYo




----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)




----------



## DanYo




----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## DKV

I still say we send HM to PRK…


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## elduque

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that blue-collar work just don't pay much any more.
I am a mechanic at an aircraft engine overhaul facility(FAA repair station). Believe it or not, overhauling jet and turbo-prop engines does require some skill in a number of disciplines. You might think that type of work commands a pretty good wage. But it ain't that pretty, and it ain't that good. My observation over the past 20 years in the civilian workforce has been this: Every year the company sets a new record for annual profit. The folks on the north side of the glass cut themselves fat bonus checks. The cost of living goes up 7%. The guys on the floor get 2% raise, leaving them 5% less well off than the year before.

It has become difficult to attract young folks into the trades. High schools are doing away with their welding,machining, and mechanic courses,closing the shops, and auctioning off the equipment. Why? Lack of interest? Why lack of interest? Are kids thinking "Hell, my dad was a welder at Honeywell for 25 years. Then they closed the plant and shipped his job the the Czech Republic. Now he works for $12/hour through the temp service. Guess I'll do something else."

We just hired a new young man. Joined the Navy right out of High School. Got out after 4 years, went back to rural Ohio, and landed a job at Honda R&D. He shows up here in Phoenix, and the company snapped him up.
He tells me this, and I have to ask "Why in the hell would you leave a job in research and developement at a major corporation like Honda??" 
His reply, "Well I was just a temp." For how long? 1 year! So I asked him "How long do you have to work there to be full time?" "I really don't know. I knew guys who had been there 6 years who were still temps. That's why I left and came to Phoenix." 
Seems to me like most companies today treat employees pretty shabbily.


----------



## HorizontalMike

This research pretty much sums up the reasons for the unequal distribution of Wealth in America. NOT MY WORDS, but I do support the findings:

*UNION DECLINE AND RISING U.S. WAGE INEQUALITY*
by Bruce Western, Harvard University, and Jake Rosenfeld, University of Washington

The wages and salaries earned by America's workers have become much more unequal over the past four decades. Compensation has spread out - with top employees getting much more and lowest-paid workers getting relatively less. During the same decades, membership in labor unions in the private sector of the economy also plummeted. The drop was especially dramatic for working men. In 1973, more than a third of private-sector male workers were members of unions, but that plummeted to less than ten percent in 2007. Unions went from being a major influence on the working lives of ordinary workers to just barely hanging on in a few industries and regions.
Did the decline in America's private-sector unions help to cause the rise in wage inequality? Or did these two trends just coincidentally unfold together? Scholars debate the many market factors that may have spurred rising wage inequality - including technological changes, an increasing demand for highly skilled workers, the need for employers to pay a premium to attract college graduates, and the role of free trade and increased immigration in lowering wages for the least skilled. Until now, union decline has been assigned only a modest role in explaining increased wage inequality - partly because the full picture of what unions do has not been brought into sharp focus.
We take a fresh look in research that makes two innovative moves:

 First, we go beyond considering just what unions do about the wages of their own members. We also look at how the wages of all workers in an industry or region are affected when unions have a strong presence in those sectors.
 Second, we use advanced statistical techniques to pin down the combined effects of unionization plus education and other factors considered important in the marketplace for workers. Analyzing shifts in workers' individual educational qualifications alongside the strength of unions allows us to compare the relative strength of these two key factors in accounting for rising wage inequality in recent times.

*Pinning Down the Trends*
The private sector of the U.S. economy accounts for about 85 percent of all nonfarm employment. From 1973 to 2007, wage inequality for full-time male workers increased by forty percent (going from .25 to .35 on a scale where lower numbers indicate greater equality or evenness in wages) and women's wage inequality went up by fifty percent (going from .20 to .30 on that same scale). Gaps in wages have been driven at different times by movements at the bottom and top of the compensation hierarchy. During the 1970s and 1980s, wages fell for the
lowest paid workers. After that, increases in wages for the highest-paid employees accounted for overall growth in wage inequality.
Rising wage inequality was accompanied by falling rates of unionization. Union enrollment fell for men from 35 percent of private-sector workers in 1973 to 8 percent by 2007. Among women workers in the private sector, rates fell from 16 percent unionized in 1973 to 4 percent in 2007. The declines in unionization were especially sharp from in the 1970s and 1980s - the same period when wages went down for workers at the bottom, especially for men.

*How Do Unions Influence Wages?*
Previous research has documented two ways in which unions equalize wages for their members. First, unions pull up the wages for their least well-paid members compared to others. Second, union leaders use collective bargaining to try to get the same compensation for all members who do the same type of work and have similar skills and experience. Consequently, union contracts promote equal wages across firms and industries.
But taking account of what unions directly do for members is not enough. In the real world, strong unions influence the economic and moral climate for all workers and employers. When unions enroll a large fraction of all the workers in an industry or region, they influence what employers and workers think is right, and they affect the balance of leverage. Unionized workplaces can be attractive, prompting all employers to match wages to attract or hold good employees. And if union organizers are on the horizon, nonunionized firms may improve wages to forestall the possibility that their own employees will vote for unions. In this research we take advantage of variations in union strength across industries and regions to investigate such spillover effects.

*The Bottom Line: Union Decline Spurs Wage Gaps for All*
More pay for college-educated people and the decline of labor unions have worked together to spur wage gaps since the 1970s. Together, these key factors account for about three-quarters of the rise in private sector wage inequality among men, and two-thirds of the rise for women. Our research teases out the relative effects and explains how union decline has mattered.

 The educational compensation gap accounts for about a third of the increased wage inequality for men and about two-fifths of the increased wage inequality for women.
 Declining unionization was associated with about a third of the increase in wage inequality for men from 1973 to 2007 and about a fifth of the increase for women. For male workers, therefore, the impact of declining unions has been roughly equal to the impact of the growing wage gap between college and high school-educated workers.
 Union decline powerfully affected wage inequality among nonunion workers in highly unionized regions and industries. When unions went into a tailspin, the entire surrounding labor market was affected. Worker leverage suffered and prevailing wages faltered. Pay at work grew more unequal for union members and nonunionized workers alike.

Read more in Bruce Western and Jake Rosenfeld, "Unions, Norms, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality."
American Sociological Review 76, no. 4 (2011): 513-537.
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org March 2012


----------



## madts

Just take a look at this.
http://upworthy.com/2-monkeys-were-paid-unequally-see-what-happens-next-sc4-3a?g=2


----------



## madts

I was not comparing HMike to anything. I was tring to show that can happpen in a society, then most of the people are very dissatisfied with the rich. That's why you all have guns, right. Some call it revolution.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

@ elduque: Dude, I could not have said it better myself. You just hit the nail on the head.


----------



## RockyTopScott

The rich don't have guns?


----------



## madts

They are only 1%. That means 99 guns against one rich guy. Figure the odds.


----------



## dakremer

HMike has an opinion on everything! What doesn't this man know, is what I'd like to know!!! WOW! Super impressed


----------



## madts

The guy is a school teacher. He is supposed to know every thing. The sign of a good scholar.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Why does he not know that socialism fails?


----------



## madts

Socialism as you know it is alive and well in Europe. Not known as socialism but liberalism.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Alive and failing


----------



## madts

And apparently is the USA. The only ones that are doing well, kinda are the Chinese. Communists you know, kinda socialist.


----------



## RockyTopScott

You think the Chinese people doing well under socialism/communism?

Give me a break.


----------



## madts

You think that the people in the USA are doing well?


----------



## RockyTopScott

Not since January 2009, no.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Hey madsts! Don't forget socialism for the RICH, capitalism for the rest. *"d"*oug and Scott don't read so well and need reminders…


----------



## madts

HMike. I do understand that.
Topscott do you think that workers and the middleclass were doing better during Bushybabys 8 years of war.


----------



## RockyTopScott

W is not a conservative. I do not like many of the programs he implemented. I know I was doing much better and I am middle class.

I would have preferred he simply eviscerated terrorist with a single deployment rather than all of those years of war. More Americans have been killed at war under 5 years of the current POTUS than under W so at least he was a better Commander in Chief.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Obama got Osama! *The only thing "W" was, was a deserter and war profiteer.*


----------



## madts

You give the current PONTUS 7 years of stupid war had to clean up and you call him names? Rocky you realy need to get a grip on what is really going on. Republicans make wars to incease production during down times, so that they can look good. Democrats have to clean up the mess and in that way do not get anything done for the good of the Country.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Tell that to the parents of the dead soldiers Madts. The current POTUS said he would end the war, yet more deaths and counting. He had both chambers of Congress when elected yet he did nothing.

You will always have the right to speak your mind and I will decide thru my rights whether to agree or not.

I will never choose socialism over freedom, as long as I have a breath left.


----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## madts

I agree with you HMike.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*Scott: "...I will never choose socialism over freedom, as long as I have a breath left…."*


----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## RockyTopScott

Mike. I DO NOT believe in corporate welfare. Compete on the merits of your business acumen. Seems like your buddy OBAMA gave GE a ton of cash IIRC.


----------



## DanYo

Ethnocentrism … is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture. Ethnocentric individuals judge other groups relative to their own ethnic group or culture, especially with concern for language, behavior, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and subdivisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity. Ethnocentrism may be overt or subtle, and while it is considered a natural proclivity of human psychology, it has developed a generally negative connotation.


----------



## DKV




----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## HorizontalMike




----------



## DKV

HMike, the answer lies with post 348. Republican, Democrat, man, woman, Christian, Muslim, union, nonunion…it doesn't much matter. The most intelligent are the most rich and most powerful. No amount of whining and wishing will ever change that fact. Accept your place in life and get on with it…life that is.


----------



## DanYo

How does ethnocentrism relate to the distribution of wealth?

...
The word ethnocentrism means tendency to view one's own ethnic group as superior to others, giving preference according to ethnic background . So if I am wealthy I will try to distribute my wealth or share my wealth or offer ways to enhance my/our wealth only to my ethnic group and not to others. i.e. there will be no distribution of wealth except to my own group. This is how I see the relationship between the two terms.


----------



## Woodchucker44

People in general learn how do things from others. If someone has a better way to do something, then it is wise to change to his or her methods.
Countries cam learn and change their ways in a similar fashion as people can do. 
One example is Japan's health care. I can say, "I like it". 
I am interested how some of our Europeancountries handle health care too. But that will happen on another day.
Japan's HC: 
The health care system in Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations, prenatal care and infectious disease control, with the patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance programme administered by local governments. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage. Hospitals, by law, must be run as non-profit and be managed by physicians. For-profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals. Clinics must be owned and operated by physicians.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Woodchucker, I'm glad you brought that up.

One argument I hear quite often is that government provided healthcare is an affront to capitalism. The ironic thing is that the wheels of capitalism very clearly tromp on folks in ways they don't typically consider.

Take this example, in Mississippi, a republican legislator, years and years ago, passed a law that required any a special certificate in order for a hospital or medical provider to give medical scans (MRI's CT-scans etc). This law benefited the one company that ran the majority of the hospitals in the state, but disallowed any other company from coming in and setting up scanning facility. The result is a relative corner on the market and the ability to set prices as high as they like. Now, there is no competition within the medical market in the state, and the providers have coordinated with insurance companies to set prices at an agreeable maximum. In the end, the patient loses and a ton of pockets are lined with cash (politicians included)... Oh and to make it better, the state runs what is essentially a back alley auction every few years, for a handful of companies to bid on the rights to these certificates…only they give out no more than a handful, and typically the ruling company buys the majority of the certificates available. Its essentially the same system NYC uses to give out Taxi License Coins.

So, the state facilitates the monopolization and price fixing of a company and the residents, are clueless, but stuck with huge medical bills…. All the while the residents are foaming at the mouth to curse Obama and his "Socialized Medicine". Parts of Obamacare will make practices like these more difficult if not totally illegal… So for the politicians profiting off the current situation, it's in their best interest to make certain things remain as they are.

Oh and let's not forget the incarcerated, former governor of Alabama, who used to run one of the biggest healthcare firms in the regions "Healthsouth"... That's a load of corruption on the court record.


----------



## HorizontalMike

This whole issue about attacking "Obamacare" is the Right Wing GOP attempt to take the heat off of THEMSELVES, in order to hide the fact at how badly the GOP Party has self-destructed under Boehner and McConnell. They are hoping like 'hail that they can distract America once again and get the lackeys of the rich (GOP) elected into power.


----------



## americanwoodworker

*"The ironic thing is that the wheels of capitalism very clearly tromp on folks in ways they don't typically consider."*

Uncanny your example is not true free market Capitalism. As I continue to read most of you dont seem to even know what Capitalism is. What you guys blame today and call capitalism is by definition what is called CRONY CAPITALISM.

Here is a definition for you… "A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. ""*Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law*"", the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives."

I think most Americans have a problem with this form of Government including most in this discussion. Again, if we moved back to the Constitution we would not have this problem. No where in the Constitution does the Federal Gov-ment have the authority to give grants, tax incentives or any other incentives to ANYBODY. However most will never get passed the left vs right mentality and therefore you will continue to get what you have been getting.

Disclaimer: The word YOU does not necessarily point to one individual. Print in bold is not considered yelling but is used as form to make something standout.

I'm offended.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*americanwoodworker: "...What you guys blame today and call capitalism is by definition what is called CRONY CAPITALISM…."*

It is the GOP that claims that "CRONY CAPITALISM" is *ONLY* "Capitalism", singularly. Those of us on the Left clearly see that what he have in place is *Crony Capitalism*. An example would be the "No Bid" contracts awarded Halliburton under the Bush Cheney WH.
.
.
.
For Example:
*Brief history of Haliburton:*

1. Early 1990s. Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, gives contracts to Halliburton to rebuild facilities in Kuwait that had been destroyed in the first Persian Gulf war.

2. Early 1990 to 1993. Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, commissions Halliburton to do a classified (secret) study concerning replacing the U.S. military's logistics by work done by private companies. Halliburton says, yes, a company can do the work. In August 1992, with essentially no bidding, Halliburton is selected by the US Army Corps of Engineers to do all work needed to support the military for the next five years! Thereafter, Halliburton (or its subsidiary KBR) and its military logistics business escalated rapidly. In the ten years thereafter revenues totaled $2.5 billion.

3. 1995-2000. Cheney is CEO of Halliburton. Under Cheney, Halliburton increases its offshore tax havens from 9 to 44, cutting its taxes from $302 million in 1998 to an $85 million refund in 1999. That's almost $400 million they took from taxpayers in one year.

4. During Cheney's tenure at Haliburton, Halliburton did business with countries like Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Nigeria even though the US had imposed strict sanctions on them. They skirted sanctions, and they lobbied against sanctions. Some of this business was illegal, and Halliburton was fined for it.

5. Spring 2000. Cheney heads Bush's Vice-Presidential Search committee-while continuing as CEO of Halliburton. He ends up picking himself as Vice President.

6. July 2000. Cheney is asked whether Halliburton or its subsidaries were trying to do business with Iraq. He says no; he had a firm policy that they wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even if it was legal. This was a blatant lie: subsidiaries sold over $73 million in oil-production parts to Iraq.

7. 2000. As CEO of Halliburton, Cheney clears $20 million in one year, after taxes.

8. July 2000. Cheney's severance package from Halliburton (as CEO) is far and above what other company officers got when they left-some say it is as high as $62 million in stocks and stock options.

9. December 2001. KBR (Halliburton subsidiary) is granted an open-ended contract for Army troops supply and Navy construction, wherever U.S. troops go, for the next 10 years (so far, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Yemen, Iraq). This unique contract has no ceiling on cost. KBR is reimbursed for every dollar spent plus a base fee of 1 percent, which guarantees profit. Plus, they can get a bonus as a percentage of company costs.

10. January 2003. Bush sends a letter to Congress exercising his authority, as president, to waive section 9007, thus removing sanctions and allowing assistance to oil-rich Azerbaijan (see point 4). This administration invites the head of Azerbaijan to the White House, even though this person was the main reason for earlier sanctions against Azerbaijan. Reason? Azerbaijan has oil.

11. September 2003. Cheney states that when he became Vice President, he severed all ties with Halliburton, as required by law. This was a lie. Government accounting offices said that the compensation he continues to receive is a conflict of interest.

12. Dec 2003. Halliburton, without competitive bidding, is given a contract to restore the Iraqi oil sector. It is billed initially as a contract for putting out oil-well fires, something in which Halliburton has little expertise. It turns out that the contract is really for the full restoration of the oil business in Iraq. It is kept secret because of the "emergency conditions". It is one of the highest military logistics contracts in history.

13. June 2004. Cheney has said all along that he had no contact with government officials who coordinated Halliburtons many contracts with the military. A March 2003 Pentagon email refutes this claim. It says that action on a no-bid Halliburton contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. This has to do with a no-bid contract given to Halliburton for rebuilding Iraq.

14. August 2004. The SEC (Security Exchange Comission) levies a fine of $7.5 million on Halliburton for illegal accounting changes in 1998, when Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. Some people think that politics may have shielded Cheney and others from being held more accountable.


----------



## dbray45

Mike -

I respectfully disagree with a few things. Unions are a management tool to lump employees into a large group and the individual is lost. I am part of a union (not by choice) and in their bylaws and contracts, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that they are there to help the people that pay their wages, the working folks. In fact, in the first or second page of the contract, they clearly state that their sole mission is to grow - the union. Within our organization, per the union's help, employees can self promote themselves 3 or 4 pay grades to new jobs after taking a couple of tests and until a new and better job comes, they may actually get paid the higher pay grade (I don't know). There are two problems with this, 1) they have no experience and you are basing their value on an open book test, and 2) those of us that have the education and/or experience have put many years into this and to see someone take a test an be qualified to do my job - at the same pay, is not right.*

I am totally not pro union. I don't think that in this day and age the unions should be required, desired, and useful. But maybe they are - in my organization, a better union local would be a good thing - the current one leaves a lot to be desired (SEIU).

As far a the pay differential - there is a big difference. A lot of this happened when globalization took place. People are willing to pay top dollar for someone that can help an organization grow in the world markets - because all those international companies are coming here and taking away our jobs, our sales, our quality, and our money at the request of our government - our companies pay much higher taxes and fees than companies selling here and many are subsidized by their parent governments. There is no balance and to add more taxes and fees to our companies, will put us out of business - think Detroit (and their arrogance compounded things).

Add to the fact that we have had a tremendous growth in all levels of immigration legal and otherwise, highly skilled to every trade imaginable, there is a huge difference. I have had many situations where I had 5-20 years experience over another candidate and lost the job because I WAS NOT a foreign national but a born US citizen - and they were not nearly as qualified.

We need to bolster our corporate base, bring manufacturing back to this country and do it cost effectively and get our people back to work. Are these people going to make $100,000 a year - no! Will they make a good living and get health care - probably. Will they have the opportunity to further themselves - yes!

In a pro-corporate environment, if you are not happy where you are, you can start your own business and be a Bill Gates - or better. In a country where companies are evil and should all be shut down, the options are not there. With all the people that are unemployed, why are these people not going out and starting their own companies and trying to grow - because the government will tax and regulate you to death and shut you down.

So why bother - get paid unemployment and other subsidies that the working people cannot pay for - there are more people getting govt subsides than there are paying for them!

One final note - the small businesses have always employed more people than large corporations - the problem is that nobody notices when a company that employs 20 people goes out of business - or 3,000 small businesses go out of business putting 60,000 out of work. It gets in the news when Lockheed lays off 4,000 people. It also doesn't make the news that when Lockheed lays off 4,000 people the several hundred small businesses that support Lockheed are laying off 15,000 or more people because they are scaling back or shutting down.

It is not just the Democrats - many of the Republicans are equally at fault. We should clean up both houses and the executive office. Just my 2 cents


----------



## dbray45

Note * The idea that an employee is a number and their values is a test score - takes away the entire value structure that this country was based upon. It should be the values and merits of the person - not race, religion, color, and an open book test score.


----------



## dbray45

Mike - your last-

The railroads at the turn of the century (1900s) - most of Congress were major share holders and as a result, the railroads could run their main lines anywhere they wanted and do whatever they wanted.

This is not new - But - these were US companies - including Halliburton, Obama went OUT of the country - definitely a no no!


----------



## dbray45

Mike - your not talking to me any more????


----------



## DrDirt

Funny to listen to Mike complain that Halliburton getting contracts for oilspill clean-up of Kuwait is Crony Capitalisy - Yet - we pumped up CGI a Foreign company to set up Obamacare exchanges.

All because the VP at CGI was buddies with Michelle Obama, and the CEO is an Obama campaign bundler… Hmmm CEO of a FOREIGN OWNED COMPANY - - gets the US healtcare website contract - under a Nobid decision?.

*Daily Caller*
First Lady Michelle Obama's Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website.

Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of '85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.

George Schindler, the president for U.S. and Canada of the Canadian-based CGI Group, CGI Federal's parent company, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract.

As reported by the Washington Examiner in early October, *the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed only CGI's bid for the Obamacare account*. CGI was one of 16 companies qualified under the Bush administration to provide certain tech services to the federal government. 
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/michelle-obamas-princeton-classmate-is-executive-at-company-that-built-obamacare-website/#ixzz2l11H2zyw

Here is something though that the USUALLY, well read compadre won't be able to answer.

What *US company *BESIDES Halliburton, could have/should have been contracted for the *Oil Well fires *in Kuwait? 
This isn't a question of whether the CEO is a nice guy, or what the Bush involvment/comittment is. But when the fires were burning - - *Who SHOULD have been called….?*

Or do those facts - just mess up your evil corporation/Cheney is Darth Vader storyline? While Barry only poops skittles and sprinkle Unicorn tears upon the barren plains.


----------



## stefang

We need people with excess wealth to invest in order to keep the economy going. Communist nations theoretically had a more even distribution of wealth and look what it got them.


----------



## DrDirt

*7. 2000. As CEO of Halliburton, Cheney clears $20 million in one year, after taxes.

8. July 2000. Cheney's severance package from Halliburton (as CEO) is far and above what other company officers got when they left-some say it is as high as $62 million in stocks and stock options.*

Sounds like ol Dick got screwed compared to the new Apple CEO.
When Apple announced that Tim Cook got* $378 million worth of stock *when he became CEO in 2011, commentators quickly took shots at him, reminding us that Steve Jobs, by contrast, made just $1 a year.


----------



## dbray45

I also remember the Cheney, when asked about Halliburton in the gulf and it contracts, reminded the press person that Halliburton was taking a huge daily loss for all of those fires and he would gladly award the contract to any company that could and would do it.

There were no takers over the 4 or 5 years.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

*americanwoodworker: Uncanny your example is not true free market Capitalism. As I continue to read most of you dont seem to even know what Capitalism is. What you guys blame today and call capitalism is by definition what is called CRONY CAPITALISM.*

Dude, it doesn't matter whether or not that is true free market capitalism (that was kinda my point to begin with) the fact of the matter is that it's the kind of capitalism republicans love. It's slash and burn capitalism and it's just as bad as fascist socialism…or fascist anyism. LOL


----------



## DrDirt




----------



## americanwoodworker

Mike I could give you tons of examples from Obama and the left doing crony capitalism. I dont care about left or right. The fact is that we dont have pure capitalism and havent had it since early 1900's. So to keep blaming capitalism and republicans is unfair and not factually correct. Both sides in Washington think the same way. Obama was running around taking credit for the auto bailout which was done under Bush. Why? because Unions liked it and big business liked it. Both the dems and repubs got votes from their base for doing the exact same thing.

Uncanny you to fall for the same exact thing. It is not just what Republicans like. The Dems. are doing the exact same thing. But you dont notice because as long as the dems. do it then it is somehow no longer Crony. People are to caught up in the whole left vs. Right, Dems vs. Repubs mentality.

The same scenario goes for Unions. I dont mind Unions. As long as they are restricted to the private market. In the private sector when they misbehave the company goes out of business and they lose their jobs. In the Government when they misbehave your taxes get raised. Just like Crony Capitalism. When Businesses misbehave your taxes go up.

The point is both sides do it but just tell you it's okay because they are fixing the other sides mistakes.

Disclaimer: the word "You" may or may not be directed at one person in particular.

I am offended.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

american, I think if you read previous posts, you will find my derision for Dem's is quite present. The only reason I mentioned republicans in that case was because I was referencing a program in Mississippi where the state legislature is overwhelmingly republican.

Also, americanwoodworker, I can't really take arguments seriously from folks who don't know the difference between "to" "too" and "two". ;-)


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## HorizontalMike

*americanwoodworker: "...Obama was running around taking credit for the auto bailout which was done under Bush…"*

Why do you feel the need to LIE about this?

 
*The Unpopular, Successful Auto Bailout*
In late 2008, Chrysler and General Motors told America that they were in danger of folding. George W. Bush agreed to a temporary bailout,* but handed the auto companies' long-term future over to his successor, President-Elect Barack Obama. *Obama then shepherded a comprehensive bailout of the two companies that allowed them to stay in business but imposed numerous conditions that, it was hoped, would secure their viability and allow the companies to eventually return to profitability…

If you're a conservative, on the other hand, the auto bailout was part of Obama's government power grab. Eager to amass power and increase the federal government's control of the economy, he took the opportunity to take over the auto industry, serving his thirst for centralized control…

But it's hard to imagine that Republicans are going to want to talk much about how they preferred to see Chrysler and GM liquidated. Nevertheless, if you forced them to, I'm sure they could come up with reasons why the turnaround in the industry proves nothing, and the bailout was still a bad idea…


----------



## americanwoodworker

No worries uncanny. I dont claim to be an expert on proper sentence structure especially when writing in a forum where people use terms like LOL, LMAO, IMHO or WAFJ.

Mike You are absolutely hopeless. Here you go Bush announces $17.4 billion auto bailout or here...OBAMA FACT CHECK: IS ONLY BUSH RESPONSIBLE FOR BAILOUTS AND IS GM REALLY 'NUMBER ONE'?

I dont care how many times they were bailed out. The point is that both sides like Crony Capitalism. You are trying to say say that it's republicans and big business that like crony Capitalism and not Unions and Democrats. I give you an example of Obama participating in Crony Capitalism and you turn a blind eye and decide to nit pick in order to keep from addressing the real issue. You like Crony Capitalism as long as it is for YOUR cause. You like big business as long as it is for YOUR side. You are hopeless. You are too partisan.

Go ahead and get offended like you did on a previous post when I pretty much agreed with you. I dont get offended. I am not a professional victim. Above all else man..Smile


----------



## HorizontalMike

americanwoodworker,
Below, pretty much sums it up for me.

*V…YOUR source…V*
TheBlaze (formerly titled GBTV) is a libertarian conservative news, information, and entertainment television network (and affiliated properties) founded by talk radio personality Glenn Beck.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Would you say the NEWYORKER is a libertarian/conservative publication Mike?

We should not use taxpayer money to bail out mismanaged enterprises. If they are not smart enough to succeed, than let them fail.


----------



## oldnovice

The major problem with NOT bailing out a corporation; the employees that will lose their job through no faullt of their own will be very costly to the economy, and the individual workers, than a bailout!


----------



## RockyTopScott

Unless you work for yourself and depend upon yourself solely, then there is always a risk of your employer failing.

I have experienced this first hand and it was not really the fault of management per se.

If we continue to bail out poorly managed companies then they will not learn to take responsibility. The government should stop deciding, thru legislation or bailouts, which industries win and which lose. I am talking about both sides of the congressional aisle.

They won't do it because the companies and unions continue to fuel the political contributions and the average Joe citizen's voice is muffled until it does not exist.


----------



## DrDirt

Old Novice - I was OK with the job losses that would have ocurred on Wall Street.

The traders and sharks at Lehman and AIG should be doing time, not collecting government backed bonuses.

The ills of the system is when government starts picking winners and losers for things"too big to fail"

What did the 1979 Chrysler bailout accomplish? They got cash, fleet government contracts, yet they still make some of the worst cars in america. Remember the K-cars. In the end - it just delayed the inevitable, then they were bought by Daimler… then spun back off.. now they are Fiat.

In the end it was just short term delay in the demise of a grossly mismanaged company filled with flops.

The Dodge Pick-up is nice… but in the US Auto companies, Light Duty Trucks was never an issue.

I would buy a Kia before a Chrysler.


----------



## oldnovice

*DrDirt* I agree wholeheartedly with the Wall Street sharks being put away and should have gotten fined not bonuses.

I don't agree with you comments on Chrysler as I, and many in my family, have driven their cars and vans for over 20 years and IMO they are as good as any U.S. in the same price/size category. The last Intrepid I owned had over 200K miles on it before it was totaled in an accident.

The purchase of Chrysler by Daimler was a mistake as shown by many instances that the German CEOs cannot run U.S. companies. One other fine example was Leo Apotheker trying to run Hewlett-Packard as he didn't last for a whole year. The German management mindset it too authoritarian when compared to U.S. CEOs.


----------



## DKV

Now this is the way to form a union. Mike, you can head it up. Power to the people.


----------



## americanwoodworker

Mike I can see the discussion has surpassed your ability to think beyond partisan politics. Good Talking to ya.

Old Novice the problem with what you are saying is that you assume no one would buy up that corporation. It would be bought up and yes some would lose jobs but a company like GM would not just vanish. Gm would be taken over by another company.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*americanwoodworker: "...Mike I can see the discussion has surpassed your ability to think beyond partisan politics. Good Talking to ya…."*

Good. You gone yet.


----------



## DrDirt

Novice - American hit on whay I clumsily was getting to.

Sorry I don't like chrysler cars. I am a Ford guy + a GM SUV.
I think GM- chevy Cruz and Ford Focus and Fiesta are wayyyyyy better cars than the new dodge dart.

I am not sure that it is the Germans that were the problem vs. the Detroit group middle management lifestyle and corruption. 
That detroit itself is bankrupt supports the fact that parts of Michigan have simply rotted.

But under the bush/obama bail out - they were sold/given to Fiat.

I think chrysler could have been sold without the tens of billions in bailout money from the government first.

We spent a buttload of money to "Save the US company" only to sell it to the Italians to run. For the same ending we could have let them go int receivership in 2008 - with no net difference in job losses.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## DKV

Now that is funny. Both sides are true and very accurate. Red right to the point and blue confused…


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## DrDirt

Example of Union Greed…. 90% of bennies paid and a "PALTRY" 14.5% raise, is just not enough!


----------



## oldnovice

*DrDirt*, that is as bad as the BART, Bay Area Rapid Transit, strike in San Francisco as the number are identical with paid benefits and raises you listed. They went on strike and caused a lot of turmoil along with lost business hours for those dependent on BART, and yet had pre-strike benefits that are the some of *best in the country*!

*The riding public is outraged to a point that they are calling for the legislature to pass laws against transit worker strikes!*

Although I am retired and do not need BART, I can empathize with those that do and consider the strike as holding the *public as hostage* as opposed to the management of some company. Essentially making the public take sides with the union and against the management board to get the strike resolved.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## DKV

Bullcrap


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

DKV, private prisons do generate roughly 30 - 40 thousand dollars per prisoner and they receive subsidies to cover costs on top of that.

The majority of prisoners in the U.S are minorities.

These private jails make more per prisoner when they are able to cut back on meals (either quality or quantity), guards and general facility upkeep. They've profitized the prison system.

In Mississippi, probation officers are given cash bonuses for every individual they return to jail. These bonuses are paid from the prison system to the municipalities.

So, taking all that into account, where's the bullcrap?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The US has more people in jail than in school. Jails costs more than schools!


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Doesn't make much sense, does it Topamax?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Not unless you are a CEO looking at your bottom line and nothing else in this world matters. Their mothers must be proud!


----------



## HorizontalMike

Exactly!


----------



## RockyTopScott

Any of you guys have room at your house for a few murderes and rapist? What?, I thought you cared about these prisoners.

Nothing but fools.


----------



## madts

Rocky, you sure are lowering the bar.


----------



## PittsburghTim

Well, if too many minorities are in jail, maybe they should not commit so many crimes. They commit them at higher rates than whites.

If any of you think that either party help/protects the common man, you are wrong. The right lines their pockets with corporate money and convinces the middle class that the boogey man is ruining their life. The left line their pockets with money from many of the same corporations and get some from the unions as well. They convince the lower class that rich people keep them down. While this may be partly true, most poor people view the shrinking middle class as rich when the real power people have wealth that is unimaginable. Between this and sports (professional and some college athletes are the modern day equivalent of gladiators), most people will never see through the fog.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Ding, ding!... We have a winner!


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

The right lines their pockets with corporate money and convinces the middle class that the boogey man is ruining their life.

That's winning analysis?

Wow.


----------



## RockyTopScott

People are in prison because they committed crimes and were found guilty. Not because some corporation made them a victim for revenue.

That proposition is just idiotic.


----------



## HorizontalMike

"*"Cash for Kids: Firms Behind Juvenile Prison Bribes Reach $2.5 Million Settlement in Civil Suit*http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/23/cash_for_kids_firms_behind_juvenile
"...the latest news in the so-called "kids-for-cash" scandal in Pennsylvania, in which judges took money in exchange for sending juvenile offenders to for-profit youth jails. ..."


----------



## PittsburghTim

Smitty,

If you cannot understand the metaphor, I am sorry.

A bogeyman (also spelled bogieman, or boogeyman) is a mythical creature in many cultures used by adults to frighten children into compliant behaviour.

The right uses many groups (gun control lobby, welfare recipients, poor people, gays, ...) to scare people into thinking only they can save them from the boogeyman. The left does its share of this too. They will say the right wants to starve the poor, or feed the poor ground up puppies and senior citizens.

Most poeple are fooled by this or are too busy slopping down a Milwaukee's Best while watching some ex gladiator blather endlessly about miscreants paid obscene amounts of money to play a game.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*Judge who accepted private-prison bribes to send black kids to jail sentenced to 28 years*

"...In 2009, I wrote about Judge Mark A. Ciavarella, one of two Pennsylvania judges who was paid bribes by a private prison contractor to send black children to prison and keep the for-profit prisons full. Ciavarella, who once sent an African-American child to jail for three months for posting negative comments about her assistant principal on MySpace, has been sentenced to 28 years in prison. He was convicted of racketeering, and has been stripped of his state pension.

But after a federal investigation, it was discovered that Ciavarella and his colleague, Judge Michael Conahan, received more than $2.6 million from privately run youth centers owned by PA Child Care. In 2011, Ciavarella was convicted of racketeering and sentenced to 28 years in prison. He was also forced to pay $1 million in restitution.

Once Ciavarella was convicted, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court tossed out 4,000 convictions issued by the judge.

Ciavarella appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to have his 28-year sentence overturned. On July 25, the court denied his request. ..."


----------



## RockyTopScott

Your copy and paste story ratio relative to the overall picture is pathetic.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## RockyTopScott

What a very stupid statement from the other 98% website.

Of course that is true, in Iran and China they execute criminals in public.

Alot more cost effective approach.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

*PittsburgTim: Well, if too many minorities are in jail, maybe they should not commit so many crimes. They commit them at higher rates than whites.*

So, it's really difficult for me not to point out all of the inherent racism in that statement, but I'm gonna give it a whirl.

First, by your rational, minorities have a higher incarceration rate simply because minorities commit more crimes than whites. *slaps forehead* That's a tired old misconception…in fact, that's one of the many rationals used by the Nazis…and since the far right isn't all the different from Nazi Germany, I'm not all that surprised.

But here's the real rub. The far right goes on and on about poor folks leaching off the system. Those poor folks who happen to be majority minority. And what do we know about most criminals? Well, statistically we know that they come from backgrounds of little education and extreme poverty.

And since the Right and the Left have effectively dismantled our education system, is it any surprise crime rates amongst the poor are so high?

This is an age old case of treating the symptom and not the disease and here in America, we treat the symptom by co modifying prisoners.

You want people off welfare? You want less crime? Then FUND EDUCATION TO THE MAX!

Oh and for your reading pleasure, here is some niffty information about the history of the Right Wing politics.

The term "right wing" has been used to refer to a number of different political positions through history. The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution (1789-99), and referred to where politicians sat in the French parliament; those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Ancien Régime.[12][13][14][15] The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the Left, and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.[16] The use of the expression la droite (the right) became prominent in France after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when le droit was applied to describe the Ultra-royalists.[17] In English-speaking countries it was not until the 20th century that people applied the terms "right" and "left" to their own politics.

The Right has gone through five distinct historical stages: (i) the reactionary right, which sought a return to aristocracy and established religion; (ii) the moderate right, who sought limited government and distrusted intellectuals; (iii) the radical right, who favored a romantic and aggressive nationalism; (iv) the extreme right, who proposed anti-immigration policies and implicit racism; and (v) the neo-liberal right, who sought to combine a belief in a market economy and economic deregulation with the traditional Right-wing beliefs in patriotism, élitism, and law and order.

The 'reactionary right' looks toward the past and is "aristocratic, religious and authoritarian".[29]

The 'moderate right' is typified by the writings of Edmund Burke. It is tolerant of change, provided it is gradual, and accepts some aspects of liberalism, including the rule of law and capitalism, although it sees radical laissez-faire and individualism as harmful to society. Often it promotes nationalism and social welfare policies.[30]

The 'radical right' is a term developed after the Second World War to describe groups as different as McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, Thatcherism, the Republikaner Party in West Germany, and so on. Eatwell stresses that this use has "major typological problems" and that the term "has also been applied to clearly democratic developments." [31] It includes right-wing populism and various other subtypes.
*
The 'extreme right' has four traits according to Roger Eatwell: "1)anti-democracy; 2) nationalism; 3) racism; 4) the strong state". He adds that violence is now dropped as a characteristic.*


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Earl Sampson has been stopped and questioned by Miami Gardens police 258 times in four years.

He's been searched more than 100 times. And arrested and jailed 56 times.

Despite his long rap sheet, Sampson, 28, has never been convicted of anything more serious than possession of marijuana.

Miami Gardens police have arrested Sampson 62 times for one offense: trespassing.

Almost every citation was issued at the same place: the 207 Quickstop, a convenience store on 207th Street in Miami Gardens.

But Sampson isn't loitering. He works as a clerk at the Quickstop.

So how can he be trespassing when he works there?

It's a question the store's owner, Alex Saleh, 36, has been asking for more than a year as he watched Sampson, his other employees and his customers, day after day, being stopped and frisked by Miami Gardens police. *Most of them, like Sampson, are poor and black.*

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/21/v-fullstory/3769823/in-miami-gardens-store-video-catches.html#storylink=cpy


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The drunks in the gov't declared war on drugs that put most of the pot smokers in jail. Prohibition worked so good in the early 20th century, it created the mob. In the late 20th century, the war on drugs created the Mexican and Colombian cartels that have more power and fire power than their gov'ts. You would have thought the first lesson would have a made the second a "No Brainer".


----------



## DrDirt

Sorry the stats are the stats - you can ATTEMPT to just say "that is racist" 
however the fact is that a MINORITY of the population commits a MAJORITY of the crime.

There is certainly room to debate the constitutionality and effectiveness of stop and frisk - and other policies, however that doesnt change who the perps and victims are.

In NEW YORK CITY

"*Last year, 97% of all shooting victims were black or Hispanic and reside in low-income neighborhoods*," Kelly recently said as he lashed out against Judge Shira Scheindlin's decision that stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional and appointed a monitor to oversee the program - a reform put on hold after the city appealed. "There were more stops with suspicious activity in neighborhoods with higher crime because that's where the crime is."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/blacks-70-shooting-suspects-2013-nypd-article-1.1522917#ixzz2lO4VuisU


----------



## PittsburghTim

Uncanny, doubling the funding for education would not get these people of of welfare. You are dreaming if you think it will. It's funny, but I was able to get a fine education in the small parish school to which I went. Everything was run on a shoestring budget, but there was discipline, an expectation for respectful behavior, and the staff cared deeply for us. More importantly, those same thing came from my parents as well. If you cannot change the attitudes and environment from which these poor children come, no amount of money will make a perceptable change in the results.

My father was born in 1928 and was raised in the shadows of the great steel mills of Pittsbugh during the Great Depression. While he lived with very little and with those in a similar lot, he was not surrounded by crime. This vision of the "noble" poor is not at all common these days.

I don't think you can break the cycle of poverty/crime without a true change in the moral fiber of all people. I wish someone knew how.


----------



## madts

Tim, I think that it all starts with schooling. You have lots of people of color living in ghettos without any future because all funding has been cut by sequester and other great ideas by the geezers in office. Also remember that during the depression there was a lot of crime and a lot of it very violent. Bonny and Clide come to mind.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Hey PittsburghTim, my mom was born and raised in Washington, PA.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It started to decline in the 1980s when Mom was forced into the work place to maintain the middle class. That effort is failing now. Middle class is in seriousness decline. We now have the first generation since WWII losing hope of advancing up the socio-economic ladder. 1/2 the baby boomers will never retire and most of their kids will not. The back lash may very well be socialist candidates succeeding at the polls. That was the great fear in the 30s. One was elected to the city council in Seattle this month. I seriously doubt if there will be a different result as the US reverts to the oppression of the peons we saw in the 19th century with workers doing 12 hrs/ 7 day weeks living in company housing ans shopping in the company store.


----------



## DrDirt

madts - under sequester funding still went up.

it is the usual politicians screaming about "slashing cuts" when someone says you will get a 5% increase instead of 7%.

There were no cuts - - beyond that there have been ghettos since the 20's it is not some new phenomena.

We started a "war on poverty" in 1965 and there is a higher percentage of poverty now than in the 60's
which covers many partys coming and going from power.

A lot of the crime around the depression was more prohibition related.

Now the "great game of the ghettos" is the knockout game - -

Roving Gangs attacking bystanders. THAT is a new concept.
We have real crime issues in this country. When I visit Europe, Munich, Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris - there are many districts - but nowhere you really fear for your safety, as you go to your hotels with a suitcase - or walk around town.

Try that in Chicago, New York, Baltimore, DC, Philly….there are no shortage of places a white male shouldn't dare be walking alone.









Or Motorcycle Gangs closing roads and drag you and your family out of your car…. Our cities are getting more like bananna republics.









These ills are pretty far from school funding. Hell - the police (off duty) took part in the motocycle gang beatdown!

Good to see in Michigan - a would be victim SHOT the punk.
New version fo Knock-out, is to come up behind someone and use a Taser. His Taser didn't work, so the guy pulled out his Glock and shot him.


----------



## madts

DrDirt. When you go to Europe you are going to "socialist countries" with lots of history. These guys pay ******************** loads of taxes and have very little discrimination. Free schooling and also free medical. In fact if you get hurt there you get medical gratis. Now let me ask you why you would want to go to a socialist country. Is it because you feel save, or something else?

"socialist countries" in Europe are very liberal and not socialistic at all. They just tend to care for all the inhabitants.


----------



## DrDirt

Visiting someplace is not the same as wanting to live there.

I have visited venezuela as well, and have an AFS student from Argentina 2 years ago.

I have no plans of moving there.

I don't conflate the ideas. Schooling here is free through high school.
You aren't getting stabbed by kids that couldn't afford tuition at Yale.

There are poor slums in europe as well, and bario districts.

When I travel on business - I have not felt unsafe to go out to dinner on foot.

Brazil and Argentina and Venezuela are also socialist - have socialized medicine and "Free College"

However the "Safety" I observed in Europe is definitely NOT present in Latin America. Therefore Safety and Socialism are UNRELATED.


----------



## patcollins

I hear more money for education will keep people out of jails, but when so many waste the opportunity they are given does it make sense to give them more education when they wouldn't even go to 8th grade math class?

A large number of people can be given every opportunity in the world and will simply waste it, they would rather play X-Box, drink beer, smoke crack etc.

I look back on some of the people I went to high school with, the ones I know that are in menial jobs wasted the free education provided to them by the state, would offering them more have mattered?


----------



## madts

DrDirt. What I was tring to tell you is that most of Europe is not socialist.


----------



## DrDirt

But you are saying the High taxes+free school+ government healtcare = safe and civilized society.

Parts of Europe are changing - as more muslims move in that no longer share the sense of community, and sacrifice - and do not assililate.

However, children are raised in predominantly 2 parent families. While birth rates are declining, you don't have the explosion of single parent households we have.

I tend to agree with Bill O'reilly, but I think a lot of the black crime is due to a non-existant family providing guidance - rather than caused by what the per pupil spending or whether the 12.7:1 student teacher ratio is too high in the Bronx.

http://high-schools.com/schools/12212/banana-kelly-high-school.html

So we will see if in the coming years with the middle east and african immigration - whether that level of "non-discrimination' and peace will remain in western europe.


----------



## madts

DrDirt. It seams to me you need to find a country to live in where you do not pay taxes, there is no crime, no blacks and hispanics, and where every body makes much money. Problem will be who picks up the garbage and does the lawn. And when you get sick fly top Europe because no Doctor will survive in that kind of environment.


----------



## DrDirt

No - - point is Amsterdam is not SAFER than New York City due to higher taxation.

Sure there has been a developed social compact since Reconstruction following WW2, however school spending in western europe is between 1/2-2/3 what it is in the USA per pupil. Yet our kids are dumber - and more violent.

You don't hear about math teachers raped and stabbed to death by their 14 year old pupils in middle school - on the other side of the pond.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/danvers-teen-raped-killed-24-year-old-teacher-prosecutors-article-1.1525067
Maybe if we had given him an extra 50 bucks he would have gotten a Nobel Prize … right?

The only answer the libs and teachers unions offer is "We need more money" and "its for the children"

the EU 27 is 6900 dollars, while the USA is 11,500
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tps00067&plugin=1

If as you prescrib - - it is ONLY about money - We should already be "best of the best" .... but we are NOT.

Your idea that if we only raised taxes more - - everyone would gather round and sing cum bay yah, and Dogs and Cats would live in harmony - - resembles no place on earth, other than a star trek convention.

A little wisdom everyone knows as common sense, that has escaped you - - like some great secret… "money is not the answer"

All while I suspect you live in a gated community that is Stunningly monochromatic.


----------



## madts

DR.Dirt. No it is about caring. Caring for your neighbor. Caring about the environment. It is all about caring. Not about being greedy and selfish. Did you donate to the poor people in the Philippines?. Be honest now.


----------



## DrDirt

*I believe: Incidents like this*









*
Are more related to this*


















*Than lack of school funding. and certainly not due to FEDERAL sequester*


----------



## HorizontalMike

Dirt,
You did notice that the "INCIDENT" upon which you accuse single parent families causing, *happened in CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA* right? You know, one of those North Eastern affluent States, I might add….

Psst!... your bias is showing…


----------



## madts

DR.Dirt. Did you donate to the poor people in the Philippines?


----------



## DrDirt

Wow - I've really heard it all now - - You want to raise my taxes because you are so Caring.

I think that societal problems are due to the breakdown of the family.

You think that = selfish and greedy (and racist of course!).

Got it!


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

*madts: DR.Dirt. No it is about caring. Caring for your neighbor. Caring about the environment. It is all about caring. Not about being greedy and selfish. Did you donate to the poor people in the Philippines?. Be honest now.*


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Dr. Dirt, what makes families break down?


----------



## madts

DR.Dirt. Did you donate to the poor people in the Philippines? Come on Dirt you can say yes or no.


----------



## patcollins

Madts, it is hard to care sometimes when you see the very people that claim to need government assistance driving Cadillac Escalades (big expensive SUV) with $2000 rims, an I-Phone, nails just done, hair just done.

I actually know a retired couple that travels the world but when they are home they eat at the local soup kitchens.


----------



## DrDirt

madts - - how much did you send to Japan following the tsunami earthquake and Fukishima power failure?

Uncanny - - families break down when we create a system that both rewards bad behavior, and Punishes good behaviour.

If you skip out on your responsibility - you create problems and poor role modeling.

However there is a penalty also built in - where if stick around and marry - then you don't get your WIC checks.
The challenge is how to break the cycle.

The answer to these problems is not a lack of SCHOOL FUNDING as claimed by *madts @#463Tim, I think that it all starts with schooling. You have lots of people of color living in ghettos without any future because all funding has been cut by sequester and other great ideas by the geezers in office.*


----------



## madts

Pat. You will find that in all societies. Cheating is a common practice. All you need to do is bring it to somebody's attention, and it will stop. I know it is hard to tell on our neighbors, but it it no different than telling on some druggies next door.


----------



## madts

Dirt. I believe that we sent $200.00. How about you?


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Dr. Dirt, I'm still curious if you can explain what it is that has caused the break down in families.


----------



## RockyTopScott

I think the point is that throwing money at a problem is not always the solution.


----------



## patcollins

*All you need to do is bring it to somebody's attention, and it will stop*

No it won't. Whenever someone wants to put accountability they are labeled an uncaring racist.

The Social Security Disability system is not even allowed to investigate people any more no matter how many calls they receive.


----------



## patcollins

Uncanny, alot of people will tell you some crap like taking prayer out of school etc. But in my opinion family use to be much more necessary, women for the most part didn't work and were totally dependent on their husband. The safety net of child support, welfare etc enabled women to not be slaves to the family and over time became less important. It wasn't a sudden thing but a gradual change in culture. Not saying it is good or bad, it just is.

I have seen a study that concluded the more money a couple has the more likely they are to divorce because the financial repercussions will be less hurtful to both of them and I pretty much agree.


----------



## madts

Pat . Call the police with a complaint. Then it will stop. If not call again. And call again. Lemmings do not get the job done. You have to be proactive in this society, to get anything done.


----------



## madts

Pat. And why do you think that has happened. Wages have gone down so that a husband has not been able to take care of a family. Now two people have to do the job. Less care from the home, and therefore more mayhem 
in the family. When the Grownups are gone ******************** is going to happen..


----------



## DrDirt

Uncanny - what is the root cause?... short answer - - I don't know. But I do see the effects

It is not even a race thing. Certainly single parent rate for minorities is higher than whites - but all have climbed dramatically since the 50's. On average we moved from 5% to 41% overall.










Some of that is the growth of the social network support of government.
Once upon a time pregnance causing a "Shotgun Wedding" was common. Oft reported was that claims of pregnancy to force marraige. 
That is largely gone.

Single parenthood used to be much more difficult, and considered unacceptable in society, so there was less of it, and more adoptions. Now we make it easier - put daycare centers in the schools, and give hall passes to breast feed. Once this became accepted and normal - there is now more of it.

I feel that father figures are critically important to keeping "naturally self destructive boys" out of trouble. Especially as teenagers. Teenage boys are idiots, regardless of education of wealth. They just get into different kinds of trouble - and have different results in teh justice system. (Justin Bieber has a different relationship with law enforcement than Jamal Jones in the bronx)

When we shoot the bull with other dads, we all comment how our role is to get stupid kids to survive their self destructive instincts as teeagers. Take that away and you get the *" we play Knock-out because we are bored"* response from teens getting into trouble


----------



## DrDirt

I agree with madts comment at #481 *When the Grownups are gone ******************** is going to happen*..

But if it is so financially necessary to have 2 incomes to survive….why is unwed pregnancy up 600%?

Those two factors seem contradictory.

Actually contrary to what I said back at #461 about Europe has a stronger family - - they are on the same path we are, with a single parent birth rate in the scandanavian countries much higher than the USA.


----------



## patcollins

Madts, the police have no authority over these programs. The thing about the US is that it has a very complicated web of authority. Growing up one of my neighbors down the street never had a job and was on social security disability because of his "bad back". His bad back never kept him from playing basketball or going hunting and dragging a whitetail deer out of the woods. The neighbors all reported him but nothing ever happened, someone has to be seriously commiting fraud such as having false identities and collecting more than once or hiding the fact that grandma died a year ago and they are still collecting her check for something to happen.

As far as women working in the 1970's women decided that they wanted to work (and I cant blame them) but suddenly the applicant pool was much bigger, suddenly it was much more likely that someone was out there that would do the job for less.

I work in the aerospace field and in my opinion the wages are very over inflated, this is due to the small applicant pool with the specialized experience. I know people that I wouldn't trust to scrub my toilet that make $40/hr (entry level for the most part) because they had certain experience.


----------



## madts

Pregnancies are up 600% because you guys don't want to teach kids about how it happens. It is all about schooling. and that costs, more in taxes or getting off your high religious horse.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Dr. Dirt, would you agree that if less minority fathers were in prison for simple possession of controlled substances and instead were counseled and helped, that we may have stronger family units?

Would you agree there are many factors which exacerbate the downfall of the family unit, that include everything from cable t.v., a lack of affordable counseling, poverty and in Pat's assertion too much money?

The point is that with any problem, whether it's welfare recipients driving Escalades, or the down fall of the family unit, there are many many factors which cause these problems….and up to now, we as a society choose not to address the root causes of these problems and rather choose to vilify and incarcerate people instead of lifting them up?


----------



## RockyTopScott

What if the minority fathers just obeyed the law and loved and provided for their children?


----------



## patcollins

Uncanny, show me where i claim too much money is the problem?

Also anyone that claims to know "the root cause" or there is one thing and it is that simple is either lying or diluted. People and society are vastly complicated and claiming to understand it is a show of extreme arrogance, ignorance or both.

madts, not long ago I read a study that basically said the abstinence only programs do nothing to prevent teen pregnancy, but it also went further to state but neither does the program at the other end of the spectrum providing condoms and birth control. Teenage guys never want to use a condom they claim things like ill pull out or I am too big for those…. You can give kids condoms until they have them coming out of their ears but unless you put them on them yourself it doesn't seem to work. My cousin was one of the guys that had them, didn't use them and had a kid at 16.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

*patcollins: I have seen a study that concluded the more money a couple has the more likely they are to divorce because the financial repercussions will be less hurtful to both of them and I pretty much agree.*

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend money.


----------



## patcollins

says the man who simply ignores people when he is shown to be a liar


----------



## GFYS

what did you expect from a big gov taker retiree.


----------



## madts

Man O man. A lot of guys showing lots of class here.


----------



## GFYS

Oh no the Viking is offended. All you lefties do is toss out offensive crap then whine like Oblamer when some one retorts. Grow a pair. 
How many posts of clear, concise ideas have I posted that you totally ignore because you don't want to read three sentences? Instead you rather post cartoons and snide remarks about people rather than principles…so blow it out your kazoo Leif Erikson.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Why show any class toward a foul-mouthed insecure bully? A complete waste of time.


----------



## madts

I have a pair, thank you, and they have served me well and proper for over 64 years. I hope you have such luck.


----------



## GFYS

great your nuts are 5 years older than mine…big freakin deal


----------



## madts

I bet mine have had more fun than yours!


----------



## Sumdume

IMHO, Union leaders serving on corporate boards as owners have definite conflict of interest. They cannot truly represent the workers because they are obligated to represent the company. Add to that the opportunities they have to sell out the members in return for increased company profits. Can the union members trust that their leaders are not providing inside information to "management" in order to keep labor costs down.


----------



## DylanC

A few excerpts from wikipedia:

Bill Gates:
Another executive recalled that after he showed Gates a game and defeated him 35 of 37 times, when they met again a month later Gates "won or tied every game. He had studied the game until he solved it. That is a competitor."

Warren Buffet:
Even as a child, Buffett displayed an interest in making and saving money. He went door to door selling chewing gum, Coca-Cola, or weekly magazines. For a while, he worked in his grandfather's grocery store. While still in high school he was successful in making money by delivering newspapers, selling golfballs and stamps, and detailing cars, among other means. Filing his first income tax return in 1944, Buffett took a $35 deduction for the use of his bicycle and watch on his paper route.[18] In 1945, in his sophomore year of high school, Buffett and a friend spent $25 to purchase a used pinball machine, which they placed in the local barber shop. Within months, they owned several machines in different barber shops.

Larry Ellison:
Larry Ellison was born in New York City to an unwed mother of Jewish heritage.[4][5][6] His father was an Italian American US Air Force pilot. After Ellison contracted pneumonia at the age of nine months, his mother gave him to her aunt and uncle for adoption.[6] He did not meet his biological mother again until he was 48.
In 1977, he founded Software Development Laboratories (SDL) with two partners and an investment of $2,000; $1,200 of the money was his.

Koch Brothers:
TIME magazine included Charles and David Koch among the most influential people of 2011. According to the magazine, the list includes "activists, reformers and researchers, heads of state and captains of industry." The article touts the brothers' commitment to free-market principles, the growth and development of their business, and their support for liberty-minded organizations and political candidates.

Do you want to know what I find more troubling than the wealth of these people? The "luxuries" that the supposed "poor" are able to afford. People who receive housing subsidies, yet drive nicer cars than I do. Individuals with taxpayer-provided health care who spend all day on their smart phones. When Bill Gates gets my money, it's because I made the decision to purchase a Microsoft product. When a "qualified individual" gets a rent subsidy (freeing up their other income to pay for an iPhone, Coach handbag, or nice SUV), that money is taken from me. This is not fiction. These are examples I have personally seen.

To be fair, I am willing to admit that there are people that abuse the system on both ends, wealthy and poor. However, I bet that for every sleazy, lazy, millionaire, there are 100 sleazy, lazy, deadbeats milking the system.


----------



## RockyTopScott

And all this time I thought these people got wealthy because of a government program.

I am now shocked to hear that it was actually hard work, innovation and taking risks that made them all of that money.

Can you understand my amazement? Wow


----------



## oldnovice

*Pat*, I agree with you about the disintrigration of the family "unit" but I believe there are other things in play besides the wives working to make ends meet. I know this may sound a little far fetched but getting the wife out of the home opens her up to the same temptations that the man of the house has been exposed to for decades; better oppertunities in work, marriage, finances, and social standing that may lead them to stray as often as the males do. Not to mention they often come home too exhausted to engage the family as they could.

That is not bad enough, now we are also breaking it down further with social media; a dinner table where everyone is on their smart phone texting to someone while not communicating with the family at the table. I was out to lunch at a local deli where a family of four were sitting was next to me and all the while three of them were engaged the "dad" was on his cell reading emails. Occasionally he would look up and nod his head as if he was listening to his kids! If my observations are true, we can thank Steve Jobs for this!

My buddy who started two successful companies told me that he and his wife made a concious decision to put family first and has paid dividends for their family relationships. In order to do that he gave up many of the "social" requirements of a CEO which could have helped his company but to this date (some 25 years later) he never regretted that choice!

That's my 2¢ worth on the family breakdown.


----------



## patcollins

oldnovice, that is my part of my point, options, when people have them, they sometimes exercise them.

Again not saying it is good or bad, it just is.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DylanC

This may sound a bit grim, but I believe the problem many of us are discussing is caused by one simple factor: human selfishness (AKA Original Sin for you Christians in the crowd). This is true at all income levels. And I don't believe there is a fix. As human communities have grown larger and larger we are more likely to act without social responsibility, because we are disconnected from the negative effects of our selfish behavior, i.e. we do not have a meaningful relationship with any of the individuals being "harmed" by our actions. (See link at wikipedia) This irresponsibility and lack of a social conscience allows low-income folks to scam the system without guilt, middle-income folks to shop at big-box stores who do not compensate fairly, and rich folks to hoard money.


----------



## Sumdume

Madts, your comment is hilarious.
"Pregnancies are up 600% because you guys don't want to teach kids about how it happens. It is all about schooling. and that costs, more in taxes or getting off your high religious horse." 
The kids know where babies come from. Heck, the schools have been teaching sex ed for decades. The problem of unwed mothers is not caused by kids not understanding that having sex may result in pregnancy. If sex-ed was the cure the trend would have changed in the 70s or 80s.
I do not know what the cause is but the problem is certainly increased because the young men just don't give a ********************.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

oldnovice, you sir rock mightily. I heartily dig your commentary, at all times.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Hey Dan, that's Tonga. I used to live down that way…


----------



## MsDebbieP

*FOUL LANGUAGE, DISRESPECTFUL NAME-CALLING AND PERSONAL ATTACKS*

*This is why political debates have been banned. When you cannot control your posts and debate issues in a civilized manner then moderators have to take the control in order to keep the site respectable and in the spirit of LumberJocks.*

*Take this as your warning. Any disrespectful comments posted after this will be met with a week's suspension from the site.* (and what falls into the category of "disrespectful" will be at the discretion of the moderators.)

The topic of being strict and again banning the debates is under discussion.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

I've alternately enjoyed this topic and been disgusted by some of the comments at the same time. 'Disrespectful name-calling' almost seems to be a norm anymore when it comes to these kinds of topics, and that's unfortunate.

Thanks for coming by, Ms. Debbie. I hope we do better.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Yeah, you know, I love talking politics, religion and morality… In fact, I think they are the three most worthwhile topics of conversation, if discussed with grace. I find, when discussing these issues, that I am constantly reevaluating my impression of the world. I generally just like talking with folks. I like hearing different points of view, even if I do find them appalling, surprising or uncomfortable.

But with any touchy subject, emotion can certainly get the best of you. And lord knows, I'm super happy that we have such a wide range of opinions in this world. If everyone believed the same thing, this hunk of space rock would get mightily boring really fast. God help me if I had to live on a planet with a population that thought just like me. I'd go mad, as would we all.


----------



## americanwoodworker

MSdebbie something you might ponder is to have a political, religion etc section where you must enter a password to get in. I have seen sites that do this since those subjects tend to get heated. Basically you have to agree to terms that your feelings might get hurt if you participate in the discussions. Once you agree a password is then sent to you so that you may start participating in that section of the forum. If you cannot refrain from name calling or personal attacks your password is then voided and you no longer have access.

This seems to be popular in some forums because people still love to debate with people who share the same interest. Uncanny said it best. This also keeps other people who do not like the subjects from having to sort through them to find the coffee table chats.

Just a thought.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

http://jimhightower.com/node/8185#.UpGmJNJJNI4


----------



## MsDebbieP

the separate section has been discussed before.

The decision has been to keep our site, all of the site, open to all LumberJocks, of all ages. 
This is a woodworking community and the Coffee Lounge is provided for casual, off-topic, social interactions for its members. There are other places on the internet to have conversations that do not fit with the spirit of the site and/or are not appropriate for all to see.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*"...Clean it up guys, especially you Mike…"*

Maybe YOU need to clean it up. You are being a bit judgmental there DKV, especially with *your topics* like The Jesus Says , Crazy people and crazy ideas... ,

and this one titled Inane Bullsh*t... where YOU ask…

DKV
home | projects | blog
2585 posts in 859 days
#14
Madts, you're turning my thread into a joke. Please don't do that. BTW, does anyone know the correct spelling for bee-yatch?
-The Jesus talks


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## oldnovice

Let's turn this around and discuss the over distribution of poorness in other words the state of lacking or being deficient in some desirable quality or constituent.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*RockyTopScott: "...The foul-mouthed inarticulate returns. Mike likes to judge but not be judged…."*

HUH?


----------



## RockyTopScott

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.


----------



## DKV

Calm down Mike…


----------



## HorizontalMike

Then by all means, explain.


----------



## madts

I am thinking that Mr. RockyTopScott should cool his jets. Maybe the use of Mr. is to much.


----------



## RockyTopScott

When you call somone a ba$****, you don't think that is not judgemental?


----------



## DanYo

be it cool people… be cool… I enjoy reading this thread and do not want it closed because of sillness


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## patcollins

Dan, what the heck units are that graph in?


----------



## HorizontalMike

*RockyTopScott: "...When you call somone a ba$***, you don't think that is not judgemental?..."*

Geez Scott, that all depends on how guilty you are, and how "obviously" guilty you are. Once it becomes an "observation" it is no longer "judgmental" as you so like to call it. Sorry…


----------



## DanYo

Data for the chart comes from a 2006 study by the United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER). The plot displays the Gini coefficient of wealth distribution for each of 228 countries.

The Gini coefficient is a measure of the inequality of a distribution. A higher Gini coefficient indicates a more unequal distribution. In the case of wealth, if one person in a country owned everything its Gini coefficient would be 1. If everyone in a country had the same net worth then its Gini coefficient would be 0. Wikipedia has an extensive explanation of the Gini coefficient, but you may need to brush up on your integral calculus and discrete probability functions.

In 2006 the United States had the 4th highest Gini coefficient for wealth distribution in the world. In terms of its exceptionally large wealth gap, the United States keeps the company of countries like Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Libya. Other developed economies like the United Kingdom and Germany have much lower Gini coefficients somewhere near the world mean. Japan and China have the most equal distributions of wealth in the world.

The fact that these latter countries, especially China, have gained and sustain competitiveness in the global economy, suggests that economic success does not require significant wealth inequality, conservative pandering about pampering job-creators notwithstanding. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that a large wealth gap can lead to economic and social instability. 









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient


----------



## RockyTopScott

Come to Tennessee and have that same conversation HMike. I'll buy you a beer.


----------



## patcollins

Dan

After reading up on the Gini Coefficient I have to say I think that is a rather poor way to show equity in population. For example, I live rather modestly but am "in the black" as my assets are greater than my debts but know people that live high on the hog but are so far in debt they will never get out. If you took the Gini Coefficient (of wealth and income) between us it would show much inequity even if we had the same job and made the same amount of money.

That is no more than a "Jealously of the Joness" factor in my opinion.


----------



## DanYo

Created back in 2005 by by late New York artist Tobi Wong in collaboration with Ken Courtney, these swallowable 24G gold pills are said to turn your innermost parts into chambers of wealth".









Gold Pills were originally launched by Wong and Courtney as part of their 'Indulgence' line - an art project that comments on society's 'ever-expanding market of luxury items', but in the last seven years, they've become quite the hit with luxury addicts, and their price has skyrocketed to $425. That's probably just chump change for rich kids looking for new ideas to take their already decadent lifestyles to new heights, so it's no wonder Citizen:Citizen, the webstore selling the pills states that they are 'temporarily unavailable'. It's not clear if for the above-mentioned price you get one or three gold pills, but I bet some of the people who bought them actually swallowed them to see if it makes their poop glitter. Either that or they are really big fans of Tywin Lannister.









http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/24k-gold-pills-will-make-luxury-addicts-poop-gold.html


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DrDirt

madts - pregnancy is actually DOWN in the US. it is the PERCENTAGE that is to unwed mothers that is way up.

the only reason that the US population is actually growing is because of immigration. 
This is why I point to family as the key to crime and poverty

*UncannyValley* - There is almost NOBODY in prison for simple posession. It is a convenient way to play with statistics. The drug incarceration numbers are Inclusive of other crimes.

e.g. somebody beats up their girlfriend and the police are called. During the questioning and patdown, they find a baggie withe a gram of pot in it.

Is the guy in jail for drugs - - or in jail for Assault? the answer is yes - - so the groups like NORML - lump everyone that INCLUDES pot as pot imprisonment, even though the major reason for prison, was that they beat someone up, or stole a car, or some other major felony - but were in posession at arrest.

In most states possession is a misdemeanor that carries no jail time.

Fact: About 750,000 people are arrested every year for marijuana offenses in the U.S. There's a lot of variation across states in what happens next. Not all arrests lead to prosecutions, and relatively few people prosecuted and convicted of simple possession end up in jail. Most are fined or are placed into community supervision. About 40,000 inmates of state and federal prison have a current conviction *involving* marijuana, and about half of them are in for marijuana offenses alone; most of these were involved in distribution.* Less than one percent are in for possession alone*.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/lists/top-10-marijuana-myths-and-facts-20120822/myth-prisons-are-full-of-people-in-for-marijuana-possession-19691231#ixzz2lfWwDc3p

And Rolling Stone - is hardly Fox News especially on Marijuana!


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Dr. Dirt, on Dec. 31, 2011, there were *197,050 sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction*. *Of these, 94,600 were serving time for drug offenses*, 14,900 for violent offenses, 10,700 for property offenses, and 69,000 for "public order" offenses (of which 22,100 were sentenced for immigration offenses, 29,800 for weapons offenses, and 17.100 for "other").

On Dec. 31, 2011, there were *1,341,804 sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction*. *Of these, 225,242 were serving time for drug offenses*, 710,875 for violent offenses, 245,351 for property offenses, 141,803 for "public order" offenses (which include weapons, drunk driving, court offenses, commercialized vice, morals and decency offenses, liquor law violations, and other public-order offenses), and 18,534 for "other/unspecified".


----------



## oldnovice

*Legalize, and tax drugs, and 90% of our crime will disappear plus extra revenue, a decisive blow to drug cartels, and fewer diseases being spread by "dirty" drugs!*

However it will probably take "bigger" minds than we currently have in congress!


----------



## madts

I totally agree with oldnovice.


----------



## TaybulSawz

There is NO substitute for GODLY Parents. A Godly Stay at HOME mother and A GODLY Living at HOME Father.

That's all I have to say about that!!!!!


----------



## oldnovice

As long as these GODLY caring parents communicate this in person as opposed to texting them on their cell phones!


----------



## TaybulSawz

True GODLY parents Don't do that!!!! Just Saying you'r GODLY does NOT make you so. Action speaks louder than words.


----------



## TaybulSawz

madts There is only ONE TRUE GOD Odin and Thor are NOT in the running!!!


----------



## DrDirt

Uncanny - I agree with your numbers completely.

What those numbers don't indicate whether the 225,242 who were serving time for drug offenses in the state system… is "SIMPLE POSESSION" their *ONLY* crime. Or are they doing time as reported for more serious crimes, but posession or distribution is part of that number.

I believe the studies that show that possession of pot…is a very small percentage of the prison population.

The whitehouse reports as follows:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/frequently-asked-questions-and-facts-about-marijuana#prison

Simply stated, there are very few people in state or Federal prison for marijuana-related crimes. It is useful to look at all drug offenses for context. Among sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction in 2008, 18% were sentenced for drug offenses. We know from the most recent survey of inmates in state prison that only six percent (6%) of prisoners were for drug possession offenders, and just over four percent (4.4%) were drug offenders with no prior sentences.

*In total, one tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of state prisoners were marijuana possession offenders with no prior sentences.*








For Federal prisoners, who represent 13 percent of the total prison population, about half (51 percent) had a drug offense as the most serious offense in 2009. And Federal data show that the vast majority of Federal prisoners sentenced for drug offenses were incarcerated for drug trafficking.

-------------------------
I believe that the concept that the prisons are bursting at the seams with people busted for simply possessing a baggie with some ganja in it, is propaganda… just as much as the government propaganda about *Reefer Madness*.

It will be interesting to watch Washington State, and Colorado - what the unintended consequences are on legalization - underage use and whether we see an increase in harder drugs (whether the gateway drug prognosticators prediction comes true).


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Taybul, by "GODLY" would you substitute spiritual?

I'm a stay at home dad. We have a very strong family and everyone is generally quite happy. But we are not devout in any mainstream religion. We do however hold ourselves to a moral code that we sometimes find many Christians lack.

So my question is, is it really about God, or is it about being decent human beings, aware human beings and kind human beings who have an enormous support group of family and friends?


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Dirt, I honestly don't differentiate levels of simple possession. Whether it's possession while trafficking or possession of small amounts, neither warrants imprisonment in my *opinion*.


----------



## madts

Taybulsawz: There is only ONE TRUE GOD. You are entitled to that opinion. I hope that I am entitled to mine. That would mean that Tor and Odin are in the running.


----------



## DrDirt

Well Uncanny - I think finding the college student in the dorm with a baggie, versus a guy with a backpack full selling to 12 year olds at the middle school, and the Columbian drug runner using mules to smuggle in cocaine inside condoms as VERY VERY different situations.

I understand that the link is directed at whether the action is legal - and if you are in posession you either bought it or grew it (less likely). So there isn't life in a vacuum, but at the end of the day - our lawmakers are going to decide (hopefully with our input - - but seldom the case) exactly what is going to be Legal


----------



## patcollins

I would be interested in a statistic on how much of the prison population is in jail for money laundering. I have been on a jury twice now, both cases involved drug dealers and all 6 people were charged with and found guilty of money laundering.

To all the make it legal and tax it people, Maryland actually has a pretty lucrative black market for cigarettes. It costs over $6 a pack for the the "premium" brands. Virginia is less than an hour away from where I live and all the smokers I know make a trip to VA to buy smokes. The law says you are only allowed to bring two packs in from out of state (not cartons), there are tobacco stores right across the river with names like "Last Chance Tobacco". I have heard rumors that Maryland has lookouts over there to catch the people that buy a bunch.

I have heard they are over $12 a pack in New York City, I can't imagine all the smuggling going on there.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

pat, this graph is only for complaints filed, not incarcerations:


----------



## Sumdume

Here is an interesting bit of trivial. Forbes has reported that 68% of the billionaires the Forbes 400 list are self made billionaire. This demonstrates that people can start with little or nothing and become immensely wealthy.


----------



## americanwoodworker

Sum, I have pointed that out to people as well. The response I always get is, "well they are outliers". People today are too quick to discourage themselves from reaching levels of success. That, and we have become too dependent on gov-ment. Which creates another problem.

Fred Deluca, the founder of privately-held Subway Restaurants, said government regulations are hurting small businesses and that this environment has prevented entrepreneurs from creating value in the market. "If I started Subway today, Subway would not exist,".

Here is a great quote…

"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. *The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.*" 
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America


----------



## Sumdume

Americanwoodworker, That is well said, indeed.
In my opinion being poor is a personal choice for most people in the USA. Before the jackals pounce, please let me explain. Being without money and being poor are two entirely different things. 
I have been flat broke several times. Usually this resulted from my poor decisions. For example, I bet life savings on a horse race during a spree that included copious amount of adult beverages. Consequently, I was flat broke on Monday with a hell of a hangover. It did not help that I was recently unemployed because a layoff. It was the market that caused the layoff and my stupidity that causes me to be without money. I was broke, I was not poor.
To me being poor is to be resigned to the fact that one will not have money. Basically they have given up and expect to be provided for. I seems that we are teaching our young people that they should simply accept poverty and not strive for something better.
I understand that some people are without money because of an illness or accident. That is a tragedy to be sure. However, it does not meant they must live a life of despair. I have cousin in-law who was injured in an accident when he was in his 20's. That left him paralyzed and unable to walk. It did not make him poor. He learned to use computers. He learned a new trade that enabled him to earn a living for his family. Will probably will never be fabulously wealthy. But, he is not poor. He made the choice to go forward and not wallow in poverty.
Young people have that same choice. Tragically, many of them choose to be poor. The choices they make to become poor include failing to get an education, becoming a single parent, failing to purchase health insurance, or becoming addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. 
I know people can overcome their poor choices because I did. If I can do it anyone can. I look forward to a comfortable retirement because I chose to stop making stupid decisions and saved my money. If I had invested a bit more aggressively I could have been wealthy. I am not because I chose to avoid the safe path.


----------



## Hinge

I've been following this thread and find it interesting. What happened to rockytop and horizontalmike? They make the thread exciting.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Sumdume, Your link doesn't work.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Not sure where this came from, maybe here?? here goes: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/blame-rich-overeducated-elites-as-our-society-frays.html


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It is easy to say gov't regs hurt small business and even large industries too. I wish they would be specific. I'm in favor of regulating restaurants in an attempt to limit food poisoning and the number of rodent droppings allowable per pound of food.


----------



## chadirvin

If people are so concerned about spreading the wealth, here is a novel idea. Open a business that will pay every employee 3 to 4 times what your competitor does. Make sure to give them the premium insurance and benefits that they have earned all while mantaining a healthy profit margin to keep the investors happy. Im not rich by no means but, i was taught to not expect a hand out and work hard for what i do have. I seriously doubt any of you who think wealth distribution would be a good idea if you were the one with the money. If so sell your tools and give freely.


----------



## Sumdume

Try this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2013/09/18/how-self-made-forbes-400-billionaires-earned-their-money/


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Chad, well said.

Amazing there is sympathy untold for those below the poverty line (they have done nor can do no wrong) but severe disgust for anyone well off (they must have screwed everyone). Unbelievable, the lack of sane middle ground.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The issue isn't giving handouts to relieve poverty, it is stabilization of financial markets and ultimately society when the gap gets excessive. Peter Turchin points out how the wealth distribution was significant factor causing the Civil War in the Bloomberg article in post 555. Most of the 2% of the US population that died in that conflict didn't even have a dog in the fight! They were poor folk whipped into a frenzy and manipulated just as we see happening today.


----------



## Sumdume

So how much do the rich have to give to the "less fortunate" in order to stabilize society and prevent the next civil war?
I understand that the gap between the wealthy and the poor was quite wide during the civil war. I really have a hard time swallowing the idea that caused or was a significant factor causing the civil war. The issues of states rights and slavery caused the civil war. Any disparity in wealth was probably something that occurred but had no actual effect.


----------



## americanwoodworker

A significant factor in the civil war was economics. But it was not because of income gaps. Slavery as we see it today is racism. Slavery back then was economics. They didn't have tractors so they used slaves. If the south lost slaves many would lose their business because they relied solely on what was essentially free labor. It had absolutely nothing to do with racism and everything to do with economics. This is why blacks owned blacks as well. But we have scrubbed that from history books because it does not fit an agenda.

This leads to another problem where we manipulate our school materials in order to further an agenda. If you have never read up on Alexis de Tocqueville I highly suggest everyone to do so. He came here on a mission to study our prison system but was amazed at how our country which was so young was advancing so much. He found one of the reasons we succeeded was our education. People knew what the constitution said. They knew economics. They knew history. Very few people know any of this today.

Do you think if people could quit thinking in terms of left vs right that we could actually move forward? I am amazed at how we love to say it was a dem who passed it so we dont like it but if it was a repub. then it is okay, and vice verse. It's okay if a dem. sides with a corporation and takes taxes from the common man in order to give to corporate welfare because it keeps unions in business. But my goodness if a repub does the same thing then they are out for the rich! This by the way is what largely contributes to the income gap.

We have so much to learn from people of the pass because they believed in truth as it stands. They studied history and learned from it rather than read it and found it dont fit their agenda so they claim racism, or be offended. Today we cannot get the truth from any news source or school. Why did Benjamin Franklin say every house needed a newspaper and a bible? Because the newspaper kept you informed unlike today. The bible taught you morals. Whether you believed in GOD or not the bible is the very best book on morality. Of course now some will nit pick this point. Then he believed in every community having good schools because it educated us in order for us to keep our liberties. Thats why slaves were not allowed to be educated.

Couple more quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville which are as relevant today as they were nearly 200 years ago. Think about that for a moment. 200+ years ago people could foresee what would happen today, and we cant foresee what will happen in 5 years.

"It is above all in the present democratic age that the true friends of liberty and human grandeur must remain constantly vigilant and ready to prevent the social power from lightly sacrificing the particular rights of a few individuals to the general execution of its designs. In such times there is no citizen so obscure that it is not very dangerous to allow him to be oppressed, and there are no individual rights so unimportant that they can be sacrificed to arbitrariness with impunity."

"When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters."

"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

and lastly…

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."


----------



## Sumdume

Americanwoodworker, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, I strongly disagree with you implying that slavery was merely an economic issue. Certainly, the slave owners viewed it that way. It is doubtful that the majority of Americans believed slavery was an economic issue. This is particularly true for those who opposed slavery. Most people opposed slavery on moral grounds, not economics. Many in the south simply believed slavery was part of the culture. It was their way of life. They believed that outsiders had no business interfering.
The wealthy industrialists of the north were not threatened by the wealthy farmers from the south. From an economic point of view it was better for the northern industrialists to allow slavery to continue. Slavery allowed the production of raw materials at a low cost. Abolition of slavery would have increased the cost of cotton and other products.


----------



## americanwoodworker

I think I may not have been clear enough. It was a significant factor but not the complete story. One side believed in slavery merely on the economic front while the other side believed "All men are created equal". I only covered the economic point in order to remain within the spirit of the original subject matter of wealth inequality.

Today people view slavery solely as a racial issue. When it was not. This is why black people also owned slaves. People try to discredit the founders because they were slave owners and they are called racist by todays standards. They dont think of it as merely an economic issue. If you ever get a chance to read the journals of the founders you will find that although they worked slaves very hard, they also took very close attention to taking care of them. They fed them well and gave them very good medical attention. Because slaves were an investment.

Of course there were some people who were simply racist.

Another person who would be great to read up on is Frederick Douglass. He thought of the Constitution as a pro slavery document and the founders as pro slavery until he actually sat down and studied it.

"if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it?"

"Now, take the Constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery."

-Frederick Douglass

Gotta say though sum, thanks for the adult discussion. I cannot stand it when people cant think beyond partisan politics and start getting offended or claiming they are being unfairly attacked.


----------



## Hinge

Where's Mike?


----------



## Bogeyguy

I agree with MsDebbie in her 508 and 513 posts. This is a site for fellow lumberjocks to share their ideas chat about projects etc. etc. The political, religious, and personal mud slinging has no place here. A one week ban seems a bit trite IMO. 
Thank you MsDebbie.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*So how much do the rich have to give to the "less fortunate" in order to stabilize society and prevent the next civil war?*

In a few words, restore the post WWII laws and policies that have been repealed since 1980. Those policies begat the world's most powerful and successful economic engine.

Jefferson and others would have loved to have abolished slavery in the Constitution, but the South would not agree. Matter of fact, the wording of the 2nd Amendment has its root in preserving slavery. Every slave owner was required to serve one day a week tracking and returning run-a-ways. Firearms and organized militias played a significant part in that activity. The southern states wanted wording that would guarantee their rights to continue business as usual.

Another important item that has been stripped from schools and history books is labor history. The current generation has no idea people risk their lives and some lost them to establish "a living" wage and a civil work week without child laborers starting at ages as young as 8 or 10.

Human nature being what is is, predicting the future 200 or even 2000 years ago was quite easy. The quotes of Cicero and Socrates are as applicable today as those of Jefferson and the other founders. History is little more than an endless cycle as surely as summer will give way to the fall that precedes winter.


----------



## americanwoodworker

Top, I have heard about the 2nd amendment tied to slavery before. Unfortunately I have not studied enough into it in order to comment on it. I wonder though if it wasn't blown out of proportion like the 3/5 ths clause? My guess is though that you would be citing either Thom Hartmann or Carl Bogus? Carl Bogus Article would be where I first heard of it.

On your labor history comment. I remember reading about the early railroad system and the "brake men". WOW! The life expectancy if I remember was somewhere around 6 years. The book also talked about the poor knowledge we had with steel. As the train passed over the tracks they would heat up. Some of those tracks would literally start to bend upwards. Then the next train in line would be cut in half by the track resulting in loss of life. Our early history shows us how far we have come along in knowledge and the extreme cost which we paid in order to learn.

Human nature my friend, is what the founders were trying to keep in check when the Constitution was written. Thanks Topamax!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Yes, Thom Hartmann is were I got the 2nd Amendment history. Norm Goldman and Michael Medved do a lot of historical background on their broadcasts too.

The increase in life expectancy between the turn of the 20th century and WWII from 49 to about 72 was not medical advances, it was mostly work place safety with associated civilized working conditions and food safety laws. I was an apprentice walking steel 40 feet above a concrete slab before OSHA was past in 1972. If you wanted to work, you did the job. At 50', you got 1 1/2 x regular pay; 90 and above, it was 2x. I never worked high enough to get "high time pay." I'm not sure when high time was deleted from the contact, but today, nobody works higher than about 8 feet without safety considerations except standing on a ladder! Probably for the best ;-)

PBS did a show I saw several years ago showing the turn of the 20th century; probably American Experience. Two things have stuck in my mind. The "Breaker Boys"; 8 year old kids in PA breaking chunks of coal sliding down a shut 10 or 12 hours a day. By the time they were 12 or 14, they were big enough to go underground into the mines for the rest of their lives!

The other one was not being able to garner enough votes in the US Congress to pass a law against lynching. Southern sheriffs wouldn't do anything about it and without a Federal Law, the US Marshall apparently couldn't either!

Most people have no idea about the conditions that existed before the labor movement. Pretty much everything that is socially acceptable in today's work place. A few days ago an 80+ yr old guy called into Hartmann. His grandfather was a leader in a strike that caused the Czar of Russia to reduce the work week from 7 ~ 14 hour days down to 6 ~ 12's!


----------



## Sumdume

Unions and the brave men and women who fought for unions have made great contributions to workers around the world. Alas, that has changed. Today the unions appear to be serving only the union and the union leadership. The union leaders do not care about the membership. They are only concerned about receiving dues from the members.


----------



## madts

Amen and Amen. Now lets move on.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The union is not a 3rd entity between the workers and management. It is the worker's organization. If it is not serving them, they need to pay attention and elect new officers. Of course, too many are easily whipped up and manipulated just as the U.S. electorate is. They vote against their own best interests because of ignorance of the facts and the truth.


----------



## patcollins

Topa, most unions today care more about their own power than the jobs of the workers they represent.

Often the best people for the officer positions either do not want to do it or have no chance of ever being elected. In the quest to protect workers from big business , unions themselves have become big business.


----------



## dbray45

I would like to address a few things -
Slavery was an economic issue - but it was "justified" in the idea that Africans (and American Indians) were not people, they were chattel (property). None of this makes it right - it was the way it was. Slave traders bought their "product" from tribes in Africa that had already enslaved them.

Let's look at the housing bubble - a serious economic issue in the US. Clinton told the banking industry to loosen credit so that more people could buy larger and better homes - instead of rent or only buy small houses - no money in that. This was a measure to compensate for the jobs going to other countries - construction is a local economic growth. The banking industry told him that this was stupid, and could not be sustained for more that 10 years or so. Clinton knew he would not be in office when the bubble burst, so he told them to do it anyway. They did.

When Bush came into office, he saw that the bubble was going to burst - didn't want to tighten the credit to what it was so he installed some temp tax credits - to when he was out of office.

It all boils down to a handful of things - We have moved agriculture to other countries, we have moved manufacturing to other countries, we have moved oil production to other countries, you cannot sustain economic growth by building houses and you cannot tax and regulate your way into prosperity.

The tax loopholes were put into place to get people to take their money, start companies, hire more people and grow their money creating an bigger tax base. Manufacturing, and agriculture puts people to work and feeds them - we have lost all of it and as a result, people don't want to work. What were good professions and careers are now "for those people".

Many things need to be "reset" including attitudes and ideals or there will be no economy.


----------



## dbray45

When I started a small business, I could take a percentage of my gross profits and put it into a "reserve" account. This was not taxed and to be used when and if things were "tight" and to grow. If I recall, it was up to 50% of annual revenue. A couple of years into the business, the fed and state said "no more of this, it is all taxable". This put me into a much higher tax bracket and as a result, my reserve fund went away - so did my ability to grow, hire people, get bigger facilities, etc… without borrowing money (at 10-15%) or giving 85% of the company to venture capitalists.

There are so many things that we could do to bring the economy back - and some they do - for one or two years but this actually hurts more than it helps - they need to make these changes long term.

The loss of a reserve fund fundamentally changed the way businesses operate - cause and effect


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## oldnovice

*UncannyValleyWoods* that is really eye opening and thoroughly disgusting!

If it were turned around maybe there wouldn't be any need for corporate subsidies as we would have smarter people running the companies.


----------



## DrDirt

Corporate welfare is a problem.
A lot of it has to do with government tampering in the market e.g. Green Energy, Wind credits, Ethanol Subsidies.

It is not all CEO bonuses - - all of it needs to stop. It is important as well to recognize that tghe 870Billion is not Joe Blow's tax money that government "sent" to GE or Apple. IRS has made some rules about being able to deduct "R&D expenses" from their taxes.
Those Tax deductions are included/counted as corporate subsidies - - which to me is a bit misleading.

The "Corporate Welfare" also includes local politicians, giving property tax 'incentives' to entice Walmart to build a store in their town. Indeed Wallyworld is benefitting, but that is not coming from the *Federal government *diverting money from Food Stams or Medicare.

It is akin to stating that the GOVERNMENT is * giving *me a subsidy by letting me claim my kids as dependants.

To ME!! Tax Deduction and Subsidy are (should be) entirely different animals. But it is all lumped together,

Of course when milk would be true market price at 7 dollars a gallon, the need on SNAP increases as well. So some of the "subsidies" cover costs on the "Food Stamp Side" of Uncanny's image.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/26/news/economy/milk-farm-bill/










http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

That 'Cost' poster is cherrypicking, to say the least. Food stamps are not the sole means of 'helping the poor' to be found in the federal budget, for example. What would the $36 be if it included medicaid and housing subsidies and WIC and unemployment and etc. etc. Half disclosure makes the point 100% suspect.

And corporate welfare is a misnomer; it's been pointed out on this forum that tax breaks are targeted by our elected representatives (and often abused for political purposes); but lost revenue is not the same as cost. See a $20 bill at your feet, reach to pick it up, then the wind takes it away. You don't go home $20 poorer, you stay the same. It's somewhat nit-picky, but it's a point worth making.


----------



## patcollins

There are only two ways to have a good economy. One is completely wall off from the rest of the world, this assumes that you have everything you possibly need. This also assumes that there is plenty of stuff for everyone to do to be productive and contribute to the economy. The second is to bring more money in that you take out by using your resources be it labor, mind power, natural resources such as coal, timber, minerals etc. For too many years we have sent money out of the country (the reason Nixon took us off the gold standard, we would have no gold by now) to never return. I believe I read it was on the order of billions per day.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Today Thom Hartmann mentioned an interesting fact about the minimum wage. If it had kept up with rate of increase experienced by the 1%, it would be $22/hr. He also mentioned young people (under 50, I think) in the US do not remember the affluent middle class of the post WWII years.


----------



## dbray45

Yes but does Thom go into what was considered affluent middle class. When I was growing up, I remember when we got our first washing machine, dryer came several years later. A dishwasher came somewhere in the mix but only because there were a bunch of kids. We had a pair of tennis shoes and dress shoes (for church), I knew a lot of kids that only had one pair of shoes. I remember that we had a single TV (grandmother gave it to us) and the family would watch it in the evenings.

Middle class kids have their own cell phones, computers, several pair of shoes, nice clothes, and nice TVs at home. The standards are much different now than back then.

I have a relative that was complaining that he only made 9.00 and hour and it was seasonal. So, we did the math, he was making his hourly rate, he also did some odds and ends on the side, then there was the unemployment while he was not working, food stamps, and something else (I don't remember now) - crap, he is making well over $28,000 a year - take home pay.

I remember when I was making $9.00 an hour - I didn't do as well as I thought I should and decided that there needed to be a change, I made those changes. I didn't call the govt and demand my money that I was entitled to, I got off my a$$ learned a trade, then moved to a better career and 4 or 5 careers later, I am making about 2/3 of what I want to make but am good with it for now.

One of the things that all these people don't realize is that once you are on the govt subsidies, you cannot get off of them without taking a significant hit. You cannot do better - they won't let you because the carrot will go away. It breeds compliance.


----------



## NinjaAssassin

Smitty, I don't think your point is nit-picky at all. The meaning of words are quite important, especially in the political world. Anyway, your point is one I've made many times in various discussions across the interwebs. When you hear on the news or from some political pundit or government economist that a tax break costs the government X dollars, it's (in my opinion) intentionally misleading. That language makes a tax break out to be a bad thing, taking the focus off of the actual source of the cost - spending. Not increasing taxes or outright reducing them (via deductions or reducing the actual rate of taxation) does not increase the costs borne by the government (or, more correctly, taxpayers). It is the expenditures themselves that are the problem. Reducing taxes only provides a way for people and businesses to keep their own money in the first place. (I hope that's as clear in text as it seems in my head. I haven't had my coffee yet so I'm a little fuzzy.)

Aside from that point, I haven't followed this discussion very much. I'm trying to stay uninvolved in the political topics on LJ as it is my reprieve from "real life."


----------



## HorizontalMike

aaawoodguy: "...Where's Mike?..."

Mike who?

*;-)*


----------



## patcollins

Topa, what is the rate of increased experience?

As I told a coworker that claimed he had 20 years experience, "Having one year of experience over and over 20x does not give you 20 years experience".


----------



## HorizontalMike

*Dirt: "...Corporate welfare is a problem. A lot of it has to do with government tampering in the market…"*

While I understand what you are trying to say, but I would counter that and say that it is the market (Wall Street) that is tampering with government. There are way too many "bought" politicians of both parties that are being told what to do and what laws to create/ignore in order to please their 1% bosses.


----------



## patcollins

*There are way too many "bought" politicians of both parties that are being told what to do and what laws to create/ignore in order to please their 1% bosses.*

A way to mitigate this would be to make it where it if can't vote it can't make donations. No donations from business, from super pacs on behalf of…, no donations from unions, only donations from individual people that can actually vote for the candidate. This also means someone from Minnesota can't donate to a candidate in a California election. The McCain-Feingold act had the opposite effect that was intended, as do many laws to "help" us.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I've known a few electricians that had 1 year's experience 20x instead of 20 yrs experience ;-( I'd be the last to defend those who are too lazy or who willingly milk the system. I doubt if there is going to be any rate of increase in minimum wage for experience ;-)) However, there should be a minimum standard to stop the exploitation of the disadvantaged. Do we really want the workers living in cardboard shacks in the parking lots of Burger King and Wal-Mart? Any job worth doing should pay a living wage.

Greenspan said he viewed maintaining a bit of uneasiness in the labor market as part of his job to keep workers from demanding higher wages. He didn't stop inflation, but he did oppress the middle class and lower wages in real terms while promoting high stakes institutional gambling by allowing the creation of a durative market that is about 8x the world's gross product. The tax payers whose wages have been suppressed are having to pick up the tab for those gambling losses.

There are very serious issues that need to be addressed. Too bad it has to get a lot worse before enough people wake up to make it get better.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Topa +10

Pat,
Get off the"union bashing" already. Surely you know that union representation is at a 70 year low, so how can "unions" as you say, be responsible for how bad the economy has been screwed up so bad in recent years? The 1%rs have increased their wealth dramatically and the nation's problems have increased linearly with the 1%r's wealth, so what gives with THAT?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Mike, I don't think it is the 1% increasing their wealth, it is the laws and policy changes that have caused and facilitated it including shifting the tax burden to the middle class and the working poor. Before anyone says the poor don't pay taxes, they pay payroll tax that was doubled in the early 80s under the guise of saving SS, then shifted into the general fund to hide the ballooning deficits.


----------



## HorizontalMike

And don't forget at who can afford to and does own many politicians of both parties, and thus gets those laws tailor fitted to benefit the big corporate owners, the 1%. I agree with you Topa about the effects of those laws, but we need to remember just how those laws came into being.


----------



## DrDirt

Mike Agree with the wall street debacle nd money in politics -

My earlier point was more to do with government intervening on behalf of particular groups - - whether that be poor, or things like Ethanol Subsidies, where the government starts trying to steer the market by picking winners and losers, instead of markets deciding.

e.g. for Lighting I am not a big suporter of banning lightbulbs, to push LED's via subsidies. Government is CREATING inequities, and making certain technologies affordable and or unavailable…. then we point at the mess and say "Capitalism is a Failure"

When what we have is twisted crony capitalism where winners and losers are chosen from supporters. Like GE not paying ANY taxes while Jeff Immelt sat on the Job Creation board of Obama, while sending Medical imaging jobs to China…. he has steppd down, but that crapola is not capitalism.

TOPA - I don't think the income gap has gotten to the levels of the OP based on tax structure… or the shifting tax burden. Low and middle class wages are stagnant to declining which fits - and the manipulation of social security.
I don't see where the multibillionairs like Buffet/Gates and Zuckerberg - - are really about tax burdens, but are the business models they operate under


----------



## DrDirt

Where has cronyism and the income gap really grown.

Lots and Lots of data and graphs that all stop at 2007…. but when you include the present…

45% of growth went to the top 1% under Clinton… growing to 65% under Bush II.

But Obama - - the supposed CHAMPION OF THE WORKING POOR…. out of the growth in the economy 93% went to the top 1%. While the speeches are still soaring with rhetoric about how ashamed we should be about growing inequality, and the need to increase the minimum wage… it is Obama's record of governance for the past 5 years that is the ugliest in recent history.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Do note that W Bush was President during most of BOTH listed recessions. Two years during the first recession and again two years during the most recent. We are still paying for this man's mishandling of America, and will continue for many more years.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/bush-terrible-president-also-not-a-smart-man.html
So the claim here is that, between the two recessions that began under Bush, we were not in a recession. But the period between the two recessions was a giant housing bubble. And even if we ignore that fact, absolve Bush for the first recession because it came at the beginning of his term, absolve him for the second recession because it came at the end, and absolve him for the bubble that he did nothing to deflate, the fact remains that the job and income growth during that middle period was extraordinarily and historically weak.


----------



## DrDirt

Seems the Recover growth under Obama at only 2.3% is weaker than the 16% growth

The COMMENTARY from an op-ed piece in new york magazine with the title:
*Yes, George W. Bush Was a Terrible President, and No, He Wasn't Smart* 
By Jonathan Chait

Isn't exactly a reasoned and rational discussion of who has disproportionately benefitted from whatever growth was present.

Indeed - I do absolve Bush for the Market Crash of 2000… when the dot com bubble (much of Clintons positive second term numbers including balanced budgets were made from)
But when Y2K hit and the airplanes didn't fall from the sky, and there was no purple haze and just like 2012 we survived. All those Dot coms went poof.
That happened in 2000 (Bushie took office January 2009) so indeed that crash is not his.

However the 2007-9 recession bush totally owns.

Regardless - as shown above - the inequality under Obama is far worse than under Bush.

after 5 years of governing…. Barry cannot defend that 93% of all income gains have gone to the 1%.

Nor can he remotely claim his administration is somehow "Fairer" than Bush.

Saying you support fairness is not the same as actually BEING fair.


----------



## patcollins

Mike, no union bashing there, it is just my opinion that no organization, only individuals should be able to donate to a political campaign. I include corporations in the list of things that should not be able to make campaign contributions.

Show me where I have blamed unions for the economy.

Any union bashing I do is because of what they have turned into. My father was a representative for the AFL-CIO as well as an officer in several locals in the AFGWU and he fought to keep unions as representatives of their members and not just another political organization. He spent many days away negotiating contracts when I was a kid. When the local factory closed he had to get a new job an hour away, their local president wanted to spend all of the locals reserves to pay for rallies in DC for various causes, he ran against their local president on the platform of keeping the locals money local, won and served many years before the international merged with the USSW and the only thing they cared about was politics. Unions that don't do they job they were intended to do because they are too invested in politics deserve to be bashed.

Remember under Bush Mexican trucks were allowed to operate on US roads, the Teamsters were against this (good for them) but as soon as the Mexican truckers started paying union dues the Teamsters gave up, how can you defend this as anything but a money grab by the Teamsters?


----------



## HorizontalMike

DIRT: "...Indeed - I do absolve Bush for the Market Crash of 2000… when the dot com bubble (much of Clintons positive second term numbers including balanced budgets were made from) But when Y2K hit and the airplanes didn't fall from the sky, and there was no purple haze and just like 2012 we survived. All those Dot coms went poof.
*That happened in 2000 (Bushie took office January 2009) so indeed that crash is not his…."*

HUH?

"...That happened in 2000 (*OBAMA, NOT* Bushie took office January 2009) so indeed that crash is not his…."

NOW THAT I CAN BELIEVE!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*Barry cannot defend that 93% of all income gains have gone to the 1%.*

Unfortunately, Barry can't do much about it. On the night of January 20, 2009, 16 or 18 of the top opposition leaders meet in DC and took an oath to sabotage his presidency. They have done a good job of shutting it down. The problem is they have sabotaged us, U.S. too!


----------



## oldnovice

*+1 Topa*


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## bullhead1

This thread has gotten quite long and I just happened to scan the whole thing. So I don't know if this point has been brought up yet. But a large amount of the wealthiest americans have pledged to give the majority of their wealth away to charity and other social helping programs. As an example, Warren Buffet has pledged to give 99% of his net worth away. You can see the list at givingpledge.org. Bill Gates was the one that initiated this campaign. I live in a small populated state and we have a banker that has been giving much of his wealth away. Although he has done it by attaching his name to many things with some negative reaction, our state and other world wide charities have benefited from it. To stereotype all super rich as money hungry mongers is no different then racial profiling minorities in my opinion. 
There are just too many political comments in this post to try to address. So I will just give you my general comments for what its worth.
- I think our political system is broken. The left and right are too extreme. The "I'm right, your wrong." just isn't working. What happened to compromise?
- Education in our schools needs to be not only improved but emphasized. We are 25th something in the latest testing in math and science in the world. We seem to be more interested in sports and winning state championships than graduation rates and preparing students for the future. We give our students laptops in high school and they use them to search cyber Monday deals in study hall.
- I believe this country was built and prospered on a capitalist system and if allowed to along with a free market will work. I believe that the government intervention of protecting us from our own stupidity and feeling of self entitlement is a detriment to the overall prosperity for all.

I'll stop there before I get carried away and people will quit reading.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Bullhead1,
If you think that the rich giving to "charities" is always such a good thing, then please consider just how much many of the CEOs of these "charities" earn in annual salaries and benefits. I think you will be surprised:

http://www.charitywatch.org/hottopics/Top25.html

IMO, "charities" is the new profit center for the elite. They get positive press AND big bucks…


----------



## oldnovice

It is a proven fact that *"trickle down"* economics does not, and never did, work!

The FEW philanthropist mentioned are in a tiny minority!


----------



## RockyTopScott

Bill and Hillary are the godparents of elitist charity theft.


----------



## bullhead1

I think Mike didn't read my post very close. I was not defending the rich, I was only pointing out that not all fit the stereotype that you have placed on them. There are bad apples in all carts, but there are also good ones too.
So what's your answer to helping those in need? I don't think more government is the answer, look at the mess we are in now. I can anticipate your answer. We are in the mess we are in because of Wall Street and the big corporations run by money hungry executives who steal from the poor and give to the rich!


----------



## HorizontalMike

Pay attention bullhead, 
I asked you to pay attention to how much these big charities pay their CEOs. I then stated my disapproval of such compensation for said CEOs. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you are taking something personal, then you need to look to yourself to understand why, and not look to me for THAT answer.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Bullhead, Mike is upset that you correctly anticipated his answer, thus the scolding from the principal.

BTW, we missed you Mike.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Rocky, do you have happy quivers every time you pay your phone bill? I'm guessing that you are either an AT&T man, T-mobile, Verizon? Did you know that your tax dollars paid for the government owned satellites that make your phone and gps work? And tax payer subsidies paid for the towers that support your signal range? So..if you already paid for infrastructure, do you enjoy the fact that every time you pay your cell phone bill, you are essentially paying for little more than the salaries of the top 1% of the company?

When I worked for AT&T, we sat in on meetings that explained, in detail, the methods we should use to lie to customers. On more than one occasion, I had Spanish speaking customers come into the store, and a manager would lean over my shoulder and place a note on my screen, indicating that I was to add features and services to their account and not tell the customer.

If we failed to lie and cheat the customers we were fired. If we failed to meet exaggerated sales goals, we were fired. On occasion, I was overheard being honest with customers and was forced to sit through lectures demanding that my honesty had no place in this company.

These are not just the tactics of the telecommunication industry, but in most other industries too. People lie to you, rip you off and over charge you. And they've fixed the game on the government side to allow these practices to be completely legal, both on the state and federal level.

So, many people are getting filthy stinking rich off of you and the service provided in return is incomparable to the amount you pay for it. And based on your political leanings, you are not only cool with this, but you intend to elect people to insure that this behavior continues.

How can you justify this?


----------



## patcollins

Let's do a little analysis on this, people always want to throw out big numbers that tug on emotions and get people riled up but those same claims never seem to do much analysis.

Walmart employees about 2 million people, the CEO Michael Duke recently had his pay raised to 21 million dollars which is pretty damn high. But if you divide 21 million dollars by 2 million employees even if he worked for free each employee could get around $10…for the year.

Now the question that was raised in this Forbes article is would this money actually go to the employees?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/07/18/the-wrong-people-care-about-ceo-pay-and-they-care-for-the-wrong-reasons/

Some more analysis, AT&T's CEO also makes $21 million a year in compensation, AT&T wireless has about 110 million subscribers, so of my $960 a year I pay AT&T if I assume that all wireless subscribers share this burden equally I pay 19 cents a year of the CEO's salary.

Arguments such as these income disparity ones are nothing more than red herrings to distract you, to get you riled up, to get votes. and to make you think your team is really different from the other team. They are no different than the "its the government man" complaint of the hippies in the 60's it gets people riled up and makes them an enemy to direct their ire toward but in the end you are ignoring a cancerous tumor because you are distracted by nothing more than a pimple.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Not that it is any of your business Uncanny, but I choose my cellphone carrier based on the value of the product they deliver and the service they provide within the confines of what it is I wish to purchase.

I have changed carriers in the past based on finding a better value for the scope of services I am looking for. It is my money I am spending so I get to make that judgment call.

Since I am not a direct shareholder of my current cellphone provider and therefore have no voting rights, I do not care what they pay any of their employees. .

What they pay their CEO does not take away from my ability to choose how I prefer to conduct my life, including how and how much I earn at my given career endeavors.

I do not see the 1% as taking a slice of my pie, but the pie expands in my world based on my efforts, skills and desires, in essence my responsibilities. Not what some CEO at a public company makes. That concern belongs to the shareholders of that company and is really none of my business.

I can't justify it because it is really not my place to do so.


----------



## HorizontalMike

RockyTopScott: "...Bullhead, Mike is upset that you correctly anticipated his answer, thus the scolding from the principal. BTW, we missed you Mike…."

But Scott, YOU were taking the very same sabbatical as I, thus you missed nothing. However, it looks like you are bucking for ANOTHER sabbatical already. You pay way too much attention to me and that seems unnatural.


----------



## RockyTopScott

Silly boy…you must just have one sign-on here at LJs.

Bless your heart.


----------



## patcollins

Clearly someone thinks CEOs of government contracting companies are underpaid.

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20131204/DEPARTMENTS00/312040016/Contractor-exec-salary-reimbursement-rise-24-percent


----------



## HorizontalMike

RockyTopScott,
Just what IS your infatuation with me? Why is it that you cannot drop seeking me out and still FAILING to do any woodwork on LJs? You have ALL ZEROs.

I would sooner you actually become a real woodworker than spend your time tracking all of my LJs posts. You know what I mean…? I am sure that regular woodworkers would agree, so please leave me alone.

This is an official request and or directive. Stop. And that means by any and all inference by name, or by any riming name of inference. Done,... finito. .. nada… no more…

*Copy to moderators…


----------



## DanYo




----------



## oldnovice

*+10 Mike!*


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Rocky, you've once again missed the point.

You say you choose a plan that's a good value to you. But do you really have an understanding of what a good value is, in the case of phone plans.

As I said, the reps are trained to lie to you. You've already paid for the infrastructure with your tax dollars. So, you think paying 100+ dollars to the phone company every month is a good value? I bet you're one of those folks who got roped into bundling services too…you know, to get the best value.

Boy oh boy, do I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. But don't worry, it's a good value.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

"This: http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/2013/12/04/tip-jar-thief/3873133/":http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/2013/12/04/tip-jar-thief/3873133/

Coffee shop holds food drive for man who stole from tip jar

A man was caught on camera stealing from a tip jar.

But instead of pressing charges, a local coffee shop is instead choosing to host a food drive.

If you saw the surveillance video from the Nervous Dog Coffee Bar in Stow, you would probably think it was a Christmas grinch stealing from these hard-working baristas.

"He stuck his hand straight into the tip jar and took out as much as he could get and walked out like nothing happened," says Manager Scott Moses.

But according to Moses and the shop's owner, this was no grinch.

"We assume that if he was desperate enough to steal tips, he's probably in desperate times," says Moses.

Instead of pressing charges or even filing a police report, the Nervous Dog found grounds for generosity.

"In the holiday spirit, we decided to help this guy out," says Moses.

Both Nervous Dog Coffee locations, in Stow and in Akron, have started a food drive.

And if the man in the video comes forward, the food will be given to him, no questions asked.

But when they posted that news on their Facebook page, some people said the coffee bar was rewarding a thief.

"It definitely started a discourse. We are trying to show awareness that people are going through hard times," says Moses.

And in the spirit of the season, instead of getting steamed, these baristas are offering up an olive branch, a warm cup of coffee, and a lesson in compassion.

"If he does see this, I'd tell him to come back into the Nervous Dog Coffee Bar in Stow. We'd love to have you back," says Moses.

So far, the coffee shop has collected about three boxes of food.

The first to donate was the barista to who served him that day.

If he does not come forward, the food will be donated to the Akron/Canton Food Bank by Christmas.


----------



## bullhead1

Sorry Mike that you see a doctor that probably spent 12 years in post high school education with 30 some years of experience in the medical field running an institution that has over 12,000 employees and has revenues of 2.8 billion is not worth 2 million a year (Sloan-Ketterling). What should they pay him, 100,000 a year? It appears you google the internet to support your positions. I am sure the philanthropists I mentioned above and those with substantial donations do there do diligence when they do their giving. Again you are stereo typing based on your belief that the those at the top of large businesses and organizations sit behind their desks surfing the internet and working on their net worth spread sheets. I was a CFO and Treasurer of a public company. I worked 60 to 80 hours a week. The company was on the verge of bankruptcy when I started. They where not public when I started and I negotiated new bank agreements and then later took them public. We had 400 hundred people that would have been out of work had we not crossed that hurdle. When I left there were 3000 employees. Don't pretend to have the intelligence to evaluate the worth of those that run large corporations or nonprofits. I'm glad you are out of education because I sure as hell wouldn't let my children near you!

ps. In case you don't know who Sloan-Kettering is it was the first on your list from your link of charitable origanizations.


----------



## HorizontalMike

bullhead,

*I am stereo typing NO ONE bullhead. * I clearly stated that I do not approve of such outrageous compensation. So do not spend your time trying to invent/modify/chastise my motivation or belief system. I already stated what it is, succinctly.

BTW, I have my OWN Doctorate, so what is your point? I understand the work involved in obtaining such a high level of education, and I STILL disapprove of outrageous compensation, and that goes for ANY job on the planet! NO ONE is worth that kind of money.


----------



## patcollins

Uncanny, I notice you did not respond to my analysis of AT&T's CEO pay.

What you are refering to is the upsell, it has been going on since the beginning of human trade. I worked very briefly for one of Warren Buffets companies, Kirby Vacuum cleaner. The goal in going into peoples houses was to sell the Vacum for full price, at the time a G5 for around $1600, when all was said and done if the mark (er buyer) pushed hard enough they could end up getting the vacuum for half of that, $800. I am guessing that the upsell you were instructed to do put cash into the pockets of the store manager, much like addons do at a car dealer. Back to the Kirbys, the first $800 went to the company and maybe some to the regional manager, the next $100 or so to the van leader and then the final $600 to the salesman. All wasn't lost for the salesman if the vacuum was sold for half price, even at that price if someone sold three in a week they got a $350 bonus check, if you sold two for half price in a week you got absolutely nothing.


----------



## patcollins

Regarding charities, I hate the ones that hire people to fund raise for them. Nothing worse than getting a call saying I am calling on behalf of _ because they were hired to do that.


----------



## dbray45

What other people get paid is between them, their employer, and the tax man. If you negotiated better and worked harder, you would be paid more - if what you do is worth it to the company.

If you are in a commission only sales position, your minimum wage could be $0. If you work your tail off and are good at what you do (like this guy I know), your income is unlimited. This guy sells services, his commission is only 10% of what he sells. His annual income is around 1.5 mil a year. He earns every dime. If he doesn't work, he starves.

Just like small business - all employees get paid before the owner(s) - by law. If there is no money, the owners don't eat. If they have a good year, it is their money, they are entitled to it all - always.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Passing judgement on what others make in the private sector is incredible hubris.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Missed that Pat…I sorta stopped reading your stuff a while back. Not for any particular reason, it's just that I can only follow the ramblings of one or two folks at a time.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*dbray45: "...What other people get paid is between them, their employer, and the tax man. If you negotiated better and worked harder, you would be paid more - if what you do is worth it to the company…."*

OK, then please explain how Detroit, or ANY OTHER ENTITY, can change those rules after 40yr and say that they do not have to pay those promised deferred benefits? These were negotiated CONTRACTS.

*Smitty: "...Passing judgement on what others make in the private sector is incredible hubris…."*

Please tell me how it is supposed to be DIFFERENT in the public sector? These are CONTRACTS, are they not?


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Who says the top 1% are out of touch. McDonalds reminded its employees to be sure to tip fast food employee's nannies and dog walkers for Christmas.

With Christmas just around the corner, McDonald's is making sure its underpaid employees don't forget to generously tip their stable of domestic servants.

*On its employees-only "McResource Line" website, the fast-food behemoth posted a tipping etiquette guide that suggests holiday bonuses for such common hired helpers as au pairs (one week's pay or a gift from the family), housekeepers (one day's pay), and pool cleaners (the cost of one cleaning).*

Don't worry: McDonald's didn't forget about its employees' dog walkers, massage therapists, and personal fitness trainers - they get a handsome tip too.

No word on what the guide suggests a corporate giant with more money than sense should give its struggling workers, but they're probably better off in any of the other mentioned professions.

CNBC reached out to McDonald's to ask what the ******************** and were told the content was "provided by a third-party partner and quotes from one of the best-known etiquette gurus, Emily Post."


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*Passing judgement on what others make in the private sector is incredible hubris.*

Not really. Have you owned a significant number of stocks? Generally speaking, the the good ol boys club who are on each other's boards shelling out the benes for each other in spite of any share holder initiatives or votes. A significant portion of corporate profits are taken by upper management in salary and bonuses.

One example I recall about a decade ago involves Hercules Chemical. Everybody watches companies like a hawk during earnings season. Hercules had posted within expectations or maybe a bit better. Everyone was happy. After earnings season when nobody was paying much attention, they restated earnings due to an accounting error. It seems they forgot all the previous quarter's profit was paid to one ex-CEO as a retirement benefit.

A more recent example is Bank of America's dire financial situation last year. They would have been just fine if they hadn't set aside a couple billion for upper management's bonuses early in the year.

This is the climate into which our kids and grand kids are supposed to be investing their 401ks ;-(


----------



## oldnovice

*Again, +1 Topa,*


----------



## madts

Right on the mark Topa.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*Topa +10*

And we are supposed to "trust" these CEOs and CFOs with our investments, right?... Mega-million$ in executive salaries because they "work" so hard and zero for the stock holders… LOL!


----------



## hokieman

What percent of people in the US could actually build what Gates, Buffet, and company built AND maintain profitability? That curve would be the inverse of this income "inequality" curve. That is precisely why those guys are worth what they are. Also check records about their donations to the needy. They give a back to the country, too. We DO NOT need the gubnit stepping in here. More power to these wealthy guys. They worked for,it and deserve it.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Topa,
Here is the real crux of the problem that you refer to with the mega-corporations' theft of workers' pension funds, and it all falls on these big corporations' CFOs and their underling accountants in their charge.

The Problem-as explained in this article:
*The theft of the American pension -- In the last decade, the country's biggest companies have raided worker benefits for profit. An expert explains how*
"...it was enormously simple. Think of pensions as a debt. If a company can reverse a debt, it can record it as income. And that income is the same as if they got it from selling trucks or whatever it is the company sells. There were billions in promises to retirees for pensions and healthcare and death benefits and life insurance, and the companies figured out that if they cut or eliminated them altogether then they could get those billions in profit - and even use them for executive compensation…."


----------



## DKV

The biggest threat to equality in America.


----------



## DKV




----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

So the bogeymen talked about in the posts way high up from here are actually liberal constructs in the form of the super rich. These miscreants are apparently controlling our politicians and raid our pensions, all without providing anything of value. It's up to us have-nots to take their excessive earnings away, because it's simply not 'just' to be rewarded for a job well done when is 7x the poverty level (or whatever). We're all victims, every one of us.

Ugh.

I don't live in that version of America and will not subscribe to the rhetoric. Especially in the face of self-proclaimed 'enlightened' liberals.


----------



## oldnovice

*hokieman*, again you pointed out *two* of the better known philanthropists out of the thousands that don't do a damn thing with the fortunes! You can also add Bill Hewlett an Dave Packard but that is still only four of the many.

For example:
Leonard Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco International, a $10,000,000 birthday party for his wife
Jeffrey Keith "Jeff" Skilling of Enron, indicted but no reimbursement received 
Kenneth Lay also of Enron, same as above
Richard Grasso, former CEO of NYSE, $180,000,000 retirement package, sued to keep his money and won
Carly Florina, former CEO Lucent and Hewlett Packard, $22,000,000 severance from HP alone
Jack Welch, former CEO GE, after stock holder outcry returned some retirement money and perks
just to name a few!

Most of us could live extremely well with 1% of the compensation those above received and havesome to spare and perhaps even start a foundation as Bill and Melinda Gates did and it which Warren Buffet gave his money!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Thom Hartmann has speculated one reasons for the level of ex compensation is a shortage of sociopaths with the ability to run many of these companies. Certainly there are a limited number of people with the ability to run them. Out of that small group, finding a sociopath who can and will do what many corporations have done in the last 30 years might be why they are bringing a premium price in today's market.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## oldnovice

*Dan*, your quite a name dropper!


----------



## DKV

Rich people earn their money. Inherited money still needs to be earned and maintained. A dumb son will quickly lose it to the smarter person unless dad taught them how to maintain it. Money that is not protected will be earned by someone else. If you do not have the ability to earn it do not begrudge those that do. Sour grapes are not fashionable nor are they in high demand.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Sounds like theft and earning maybe synonyms in that statement.

"The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." -BERTRAND RUSSELL


----------



## DKV

Topa, I'm talking about survival of the fittest whether in the jungle or in business. The only difference between man and animals is level of intelligence. I am not quick to discount your first sentence. Great wealth is seldom if ever earned by playing fair.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them right away.

Ronald Reagan, 40th president of US


----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*Great wealth is seldom if ever earned by playing fair.* That is the point of this thread.

Since there are no laws to stop the thieves, why are there laws to contain the victim's responses?


----------



## madts

Very well said Topa


----------



## DKV

Topa, when government is populated by victims there will then be laws to protect the victims. What I don't understand is why people continue to discuss this thread topic when there will continue to be "thiefs" and "victims" until the end of mankind. We started this way and we will end this way. It is the nature of the beast and no amount of commiserating will change that fact. If you want to use religious preachings as a case in point then use the Christian beginning times and the fact that Cain killed Abel to get what he wanted and the Cains of the world still continue to kill the Abels to this day whether it is blood murder or bloodless murder. It is all about us and what we want not about what they and you want. Charity and playing fair do not factor into our everyday endeavors unless it somehow benefits our plan. Sorry, but that is reality…


----------



## madts

Deek: What you just said is absolutely somewhat true. What you need to do is get on the phone to The Jesus and get him/you to fix it. We have too many poor people in this so-call riches country in the world. You and JC fix it.

You were much nicer as a camel/goat herder. At least then you made more sense.


----------



## DKV

Madts, there were too many prejudices against camel owners and I had to get out of the business. I decided to go into a business that is accepted by the majority of Americans.Thusly, I partnered with the Christian Jesus. Can't go wrong there.

On another note, to make the world a more "equal" place to live maybe we could setup price controls on the use of the world's ski slopes and begin busing kids to the slope of their choice.


----------



## madts

Maybe you can't go wrong, but where are you standards?


----------



## DKV

Madts, what kind of standards were you thinking I should be cognizant of? Man's or Jesus'?


----------



## madts

I would say both! Even The Allah would not be as full of it as you and you so called, The Jesus are.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*there will continue to be "thiefs" and "victims" until the end of mankind*

There doesn't have to be. The regulators of Beaverhead County Montana introduced civilization to the area in the 1860s. Could not a few good men do the same today?


----------



## dbray45

Mike- Where I currently work is union based, not individual based compensation. The reasons Detroit go into the situations it did are expanse. Suffice it to say, it originally started with the unions. The unions WERE required when they first started out and did a tremendous job for the people. Not long after they did what they did, the management very quickly realized that the unions, like anything else, are a tool. The companies and the unions sat down and the companies gave the personnel management to the unions. This saved the companies a whole lot of headache AND money.

Once the salaries and in some cases, the benefits, got to a level that were not easily sustained, and the competition from overseas carmakers increased and the profits dropped, the companies could no longer support the high salaries and benefits. When you have a company where all the employees are in the same employee group (that's what unions do), selecting the salary cuts is an all or nothing event.

In the union where I work, I too lost a 5% increase that was in the contract and the union gave it away so I have seen this first hand. In my case, the area has been growing and the largest employer - the federal govt. got three 10% increases where I got none. My cost of living went up at least 30% and my income has not gone up more that 1.5%. You see, I cannot break the contract and go on strike - but they can break the contract because the union local president was given a 30% raise. Her pay is based upon our top supporting services pay scales and management created higher pay scales that so can be paid more but no employees are given those pay scales.

-- See how it works !!!!--

These people ONLY work for themselves, they don't give a rat's backside about you. The union contract even states that the sole purpose of the union is to propagate the union - nothing more. There is no wording that the union is to fight for the people that pays them or even to help them - they are to negotiate and maintain the contract - in who's interests, I have yet to determine.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

The latest crusade is paying a living wage to McDonalds workers. Wow. How about paying a living wage to congressional aides? Or Teacher's Aides? Or the person that cuts your grass?

Living wage for wiping tables and flipping burgers. Again, wow.

How about getting a better job? Oh, right. That would require effort on the part of the individual and we can't have that.

The CEO raised his pay (triple?) the way McD's folks want theirs raised. One is outrageous, the other isn't? Can McDs raise the wages of tens of thousands of employees by 3x and not raise prices? That'd be a great trick. His is raised without increasing prices, so he gets to keep his job. Living wage for all employees, stores will close and there will be layoffs. Including the layoff of the idiot CEO that agreed to the change.


----------



## madts

Close them all. It is call junk food after all. People would be forced to buy decent food at lower prices, with much less fat and sugar.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

I assume govt would shut down this entire industry, then? Why stop at fast food? Move on wine, spirits, beer, tobacco, big oil and big drug companies. Think how healthy we'll all be then!


----------



## DKV

I guess we could all move to communes and share the workload, share the wealth, share the love…Oh wait, that fell out of favor due to some being lazy, some being greedy, some being jealous…you know, acting like humans. Or, we could try communism where all are created equal…no, no, no that was also tried and failed. Hmmmm, what else is there that we could try so the lazy make great money, the greedy get less money and everyone get's the partner of their dreams. Wait, just wait one minute, that's the answer…dream machines. I like it, I like it alot.


----------



## DKV

Here's another idea. Slow/stop the birthrate. That way we would have fewer people in the world to share with.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Perhaps that's a misunderstood graphic, Deek. Maybe we need to have more kids in order to raise living standards?


----------



## patcollins

Regarding McDonald's, the corporate headquarters actually owns very few of the McDonald's restaurants (around 20%). Most of the money the company makes is on franchise fees.

So if you are not happy with the wages the local McDonalds pays then you probably have a beef with a local owner.

Regarding the CEO pay, in the US there are over 14,000 resturants, even if all of those were owned by the company that would mean each restaurant would have to make up $1000 in a *year*, so basically $3 a day, I think this number is low but lets say each McDonalds sells 300 hamburgers in a day that would raise the price of the hamburger by 10 cents.

And finally they did just raise prices, the dollar menu recently became the dollar and more menu.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DrDirt

With basic statistics.. if everyone got a 5% raise every year.
The income gap would still be widening.

5% of 50K is 2500 bucks raise.

5% of 5 Million dollars is a 250,000 dollars.

How do you "Fairly" force the gap to close? Guillotine?


----------



## DrDirt

We worry about CEO salaries - - but how about coaches in the STATE universities?
Really - 100 Million dollars + a stake in the TV network!!

You want to witness "a tale of two cities" go to a college town!


----------



## DKV

Saban is following the rule of supply and demand.

Supply and demand is perhaps one of the most fundamental concepts of economics and it is the backbone of a market economy. Demand refers to how much (quantity) of a product or service is desired by buyers. The quantity demanded is the amount of a product people are willing to buy at a certain price; the relationship between price and quantity demanded is known as the demand relationship. Supply represents how much the market can offer. The quantity supplied refers to the amount of a certain good producers are willing to supply when receiving a certain price. The correlation between price and how much of a good or service is supplied to the market is known as the supply relationship. Price, therefore, is a reflection of supply and demand.


----------



## oldnovice




----------



## DrDirt

Deek -
Agree with Supply and demand and if Texas wants to pay that it is their right.

Also in general the athletic endowments fund the salaries - so the coaches money isn't "taken away" from academic budgets.

But accordin to the Wall Street Journal:
*Sizing Up Pay*

Chief executives took home more money last year than in 2011 as the bull market swelled the value of prior stock-based compensation. *CEO pay rose a median 3.6% to $10.1 million in 2012*, according to The Wall Street Journal/Hay Group CEO Compensation Study, which was conducted by Hay Group, a management-consulting firm. The study analyzes CEO pay from the 300 largest U.S. public companies by revenue that filed their definitive proxy statements between May 1, 2012, and April 30, 2013.

So all those "evil" CEO's that don't deserve their money have just caught up to Nick Sabans coaching money offer.

And the top coaching pay in the NFL is around 7.5 million….

So should people be more angry at colleges, or McDonalds? the Pay McDonalds workers 15 bucks an hour crowd are insane.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Other side of the sign above might say:

"I didn't pay attention in school, I don't have a degree, I don't wish to do better for myself by gaining new, marketable skills. I'm a victim and have to work in these menial jobs, so…"


----------



## DKV

Smitty, I love it. Sooooo right on. If you work to be successful you will be successful. End of subject…


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/college-grads-overconfident-in-job-prospects/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/janitors-clerks-and-waiters-with-college-degrees/


----------



## DrDirt

Agree with topa we are on a dangerous trend for the college grads.

The issue I don't think is training, it is that there are few jobs out there. Employers looking at pools of qualified and OVERqualified applicants, is going see little need to provide training…. when there are large pools of applicants with the skills to hit the ground running.

Until companies are competing/fighting to find the best candidates - - that won't change.

Companies especially silicon valley and Microsoft are notorious abusers of the H1b Visa process, but as salaries in India climb, that is a less lucrative process.

Lastly - it is time for a wake up /shake-up call to the "undecided" majors, or those that are majoring in 7th century english literature and wondering why they are working at Starbucks.

Interestingly - there is a "personal Management" class (1 semester) at out high school that my oldest is in. THey have to create their life…. what field do they want to work in, what lifestyle (city/country/rural etc) do they envision having. Then they have to find WHat education is required. WHat tuition costs. What that job pays to start. What is the size of that job market. WHat does it cost to live where you want to live. Own versus Renting.
So I have to applaud that USD305 in Salina Kansas, recognizes the above issues, and has kids as new freshmen looking at what their ideal life will require.

There used to be trade internships. Now if you are in a non degree field, it is expcted that the applicant attends a trade school, like Wyotech, or DeVry etc, and learn electronics, welding, diesel repair, autobode etc. there are no more apprentice to journeyman tracks anymore. You have to go out and pay tuition to get the training that used to be "on the job" while getting paid.

I don't think employer training is ever coming back.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I was working on a major internationally known manufacturer's customer service facility a few years ago. The majority of the employees were 20 something Indians. It was quite obvious H1b was and is being abused.


----------



## patcollins

If minimum wage meant for teenagers and not grown adult jobs get expensive enough this is a definite possibility, it only has to be economically viable, then what?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Having predicted and observed the disparity of incomes affecting us, U.S. for the last 30 years, I find it quite interesting that Einstein published these opinions in 1949. It would seem the same conditions existed on both ends of the post WWII affluent middle class.

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

More Einstein …...

"Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career."


----------



## dbray45

This is correct - and the "unlimited competition" that he speaks of is the globalization of the corporate world. With these kinds of competition, only the largest and most streamlined organizations can grow. The sad part of this, that he speaks about is that the "people" part of the equation get left on the side lines.

But - people in a capitalist environment are very resourceful - when the government doesn't pay the forever safety nets as it is currently doing. If faced with the knowing that this safety net is going away in a fixed timeframe, most people will pick themselves up and find a way to either get employed or create their own job - something to keep themselves going. It is hard, it takes them out of their comfort zone but from what I have seen, this is when people do their best work. I have been in this situation more times than I care to remember and why I have owned a business - it was better than losing the house.

When the government provides the cradle to grave services, there is no reason to do anything, it is all "free" and if in every position provides a "living wage" those positions will go away. If every company must do this by law, then an unemployed person, trying to get back on their feet by starting a company - can't. This further cripples the work force. Throw in socialized medicine that the company must pay for - creates a final axe to any small business trying to compete. Another thing that killed small business creation is the elimination of the loss of income tax deduction. They tax every penny of income but limit the loss to $3,000 a year. This creates a situation that if something does not go well, you cannot take the loss, pay a little less taxes so you can pick yourself up and go at it again.

If you want people to prosper, the idea is to help them do it, create an environment that if you succeed, you can grow and hire more people but if you fail, you can pick yourself up, make some changes and go at it again instead of putting you down and keeping you down.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*"...But - people in a capitalist environment are very resourceful - when the government doesn't pay the forever safety nets as it is currently doing. If faced with the knowing that this safety net is going away in a fixed timeframe, most people will pick themselves up and find a way to either get employed or create their own job -…"*

Wow, what kind of pipe dream is that! When it gets bad enough, there will be direct action by the poor unemployed. Do you really expect these poor unemployed, now starving because of cut social assistance, to actually play by the "rules" set by the rich? Starvation sets an immediate timeline to action, immediate. Mark my word.


----------



## dbray45

Mike, I do not speak for everyone, just my observations and I have been unemployed, once for a period of time - I have taken jobs that were much less than what I thought I deserved or warranted - but it fed the family. I have worked two jobs to keep things going.

When I worked in an orange grove, I spoke with a number of migrant workers. They go from place to place to get work, they didn't get unemployment, their kids didn't got to school - they worked, they lived in shacks of tents.

They got by, and they were good with it. If they were not treated well, the orange would not have pickers the next year, this was understood.

If you are a responsible person, you will find ways to make things work, even if it is not what you want. If you expect that you are "owed a living" then you are mistaken. You come into this world with nothing and you go out the same way. What you have in between those times are of your own making. Monetary wealth is fleeting, wealth in relationships is precious. You make of your life and lifestyle is your business, it is not my responsibility to pay for it.


----------



## dbray45

Same goes with your health care - 
I am responsible for my wife and I and my kid while she was growing up. I met and meet those responsibilities - I am not responsible for yours and if the government pays for it-I AM paying for it.


----------



## HorizontalMike

The latest move by these mega-store employers is to require their "part time" workers to be available 24/7/365 for work that will only max out at ~25hr/wk. That means someone who took this employment as a drastic step to keep money coming in, can no longer get a second or third job without losing the one job they currently have. And that part time job won't pay the bills.

And THIS is the latest move to make all of these minimum wages jobs "on-call" AKA "just-in-time employment".
Just one more step toward starvation action…


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Damn those employers. If not for them, we'd all be better off.


----------



## madts

Are any of you guys doing extra small jobs during the day? Thereby doing some one's job.

Do you, when going to the food store, put your shopping cart in the rack in the parking lot. Don't' because over time that is a job lots. Same with the self checkout at the same store. Lost job.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

But those are underpaid jobs. Wouldn't want to contribute to that.


----------



## madts

They are still jobs for teenagers disabled etc.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Starvation wages lead to action, believe it or not…


----------



## DrDirt

*Starvation wages lead to action, believe it or not…*

Unfortunately the action is to petition government to provide them supplemental income and SNAP, and not to look at trade practices, currency manipulation, or offshoring.

People aren't asking government action to SOLVE a problem - just gimme some "free" money.


----------



## HorizontalMike

And a sicophant answers. How nice it is to have those who follow you JUST to contradict.

.
.
When someone is guilty of being a sicophant he or she is unnecessarily bigging up another person. This butt-creeping is seriously over-egged and superfluous!

sicophant


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Adam Smith and Alex Hamilton laid it out and it worked pretty well until Laffer, Reagan, Greenspan and Graham screwed it all up.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

No one you just mentioned is in the same league as Adam Smith, and by including them in the same sentence you're bestowing too much credit where it ain't due.

Oh, and I believe it's Keynes' followers that have screwed up.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Speaking of the Devil…


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The point being that bunch of idiots screwed up an economic system that worked well for over 200 years. Of course they are not in the same league, They wouldn't have screwed it up if they were ;-))


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Who is that Devil reference pointed at? Keynes?


----------



## HorizontalMike

Topa +10


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

okay…


----------



## DrDirt

mikey - sticks and stones…Come on Mike - you were a teacher!

it is spelled sycophant

but coming from someone that has only ever suckled the government teat, but claiming to have knowledge about business and markets is pretty funny.


----------



## MrRon

Unequal wealth distribution is universal. It is the case in every country and society. In some societies, wealth may be counted as the number of cows you own or how many coconuts you have. In the U.S. it's how much money you have. There is and always will be inequality. That's the nature of life. You either make it or you don't. It's all up to the individual. You call it greed, but only if you are on the bottom looking up. If roles were reversed, it would not be greed.
My advise to everyone is; get a life; work hard, don't smoke, use drugs, or drink excessively. Use your brain. Never buy anything off of TV; buy only what you need, not what you want. But most of all, adhere to family values if you know what they are. Love your spouse and children.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*mikey - sticks and stones…Come on Mike - you were a teacher!
it is spelled sycophant*

In your case I'll make an exception for the exceptional.

"psychophant" And I really LIKED "sico-phant"... oh well…

*;-)*


----------



## patcollins

*Never buy anything off of TV*

But all the rich folk are buying these…

http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/chia-uncle-si---duck-dynasty/ID=prod6204269-product?ext=gooAs_Seen_on_TV_PLA_Chia_prod6204269_pla&adtype={adtype}&kpid=prod6204269&sst=7aab4ed0-c94b-4a5a-93c2-6f2a2095e2f4


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*You call it greed, but only if you are on the bottom looking up. If roles were reversed, it would not be greed.*

Greed is greed by definition: intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.

The thing that amazed me the most in this thread is the trivial focus on the condition and/or accomplishments of a few individuals and lack of any comprehension of the devastation the last 30 years has had on society as a whole. We have millions of 50 somethings who are long term unemployed and will never find another job other than minimum wage. Lots of college grads with excessive student debt in the same position.

We are importing cheap labor who have no real hope of ever achieving the better life they came here to find as the American Dream fades into the history of the last 200 years. Some are even going back home! Everything that made America what it was is being systematically destroyed by a few monopolies. Worst of all, it is ironic the right wing extremists who foolishly support the monopoly economic model may very well find themselves under socialism. It was a very real threat in the early 20th century. Now, with the average person's outlook rapidly reverting to that same disgusting, hopeless condition, why would the electorate react any differently?


----------



## patcollins

Greed is sort of funny, everyone that thinks someone "rich" is just greedy fails to realize that there is always someone out there with less than them that probably thinks they are greedy.


----------



## DKV

Mr Ron, Mr Ron, well said. Jealously shines brightly on this thread.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

What shines the brightest is the myopic view of the consequences of consolidation; ie, monopoly.

Take a totally seemingly unrelated topic; fire departments. What could the consequences of the last 30 years be on fire departments?

Most of them are largely staffed by volunteers. Matter of fact, I was a volunteer fireman until the tax base increased to support the full time paid staff. Financially secure people have time to make a positive contribution to the community. Today, there is a growing shortage of volunteers to staff many departments. People struggling to feed themselves and their families, struggling to pay the mortgage and meet other basic needs can not make the commitment required to do the training and respond every time the plexatron goes off.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Looks like spoiled bratdom has entered a new phase; "affluenza" is now a legal defense for manslaughter complete with a Get Out of Jail Free card. http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/texas-teen-dwi-wreck/


----------



## DrDirt

Topa - there was a lot of discussion here if the "volunteer" fire department, had to provide health insurance under Obamacare.
If so they are expecting mass closures of VFD

I would not have thought it an issue since being volunteer and mainly part time, would be exempt. But apparently not.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/12/11/aca-could-shut-down-volunteer-fire-departments-throughout-the-country/


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Sounds like fire insurance may be the next thing that is unaffordable or not available at any price. Most of our calls were aid calls for drug OD, car wrecks, and heart burn or heart attack (often confused).


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## dbray45

Topa - fully agree but I think it may be closer to 40 years. The idea that a president decides to shut down 100,000 car dealers (that are paying fees, training, and parts to the manufacturers) and as a result put 1 million directly out of work - because those dealers had republican owners - under the guise of "bailing" out a few companies that should have renegotiated their contracts - is beyond me. Then, after he screwed up that market, he created this plan to junk all those used cars which killed the used car market for several years - completing the inability for these folks to gain new employment.

And the extended result - take a look at Detroit and the fine economic condition it is in and the unemployment across the country.

Did I mention that many people bought foreign cars when they junked their "clunker" because they were uncertain about the American car industry - further undermining our car manufacturers?


----------



## MrRon

You may call me insensitive to the problems of society and that would probably be true. Under the current administration, I cannot see any solution to our problems, like health care, jobs, etc. lets face it; the old saying "You can't fight city hall" is just as true today as it was during Tammany Hall days. Our government has embraced socialism under a socialist president. Even though most people realize this, we are not empowered to do much about it. I just can't understand how Obama has been able to get away with his socialist adgenda for so long without anyone standing up against him. All I can hope for is 2016.
If you look at socialist countries, the people pay as much as 50% of their income in taxes to provide social services to everyone. No one in this country is willing to live like this. The only exception is the very poor who have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I don't mind supporting worthwhile charities, but I'll be damned if I will give a penny to someone so they don't have to go to work. Obama is promoting the welfare state. He is the new Robin Hood; take from the rich and give to the poor, but in this case, he is also taking away from the middle class. They represent the productive segment of society.


----------



## MrRon

GMC (Government Motors Corp) is back as General Motors Corp. Labor unions have the U.S. government in their pocket.


----------



## MrRon

People buy foreign cars, not because they are un-American, but because they get what they want, not what the ad hypes say you want. The same goes for the electronic devices that are flooding the market. It used to be "Find a need and fill it". Not anymore; It's now "CREATE a need and fill it". People who never heard of a Ipod have them even if they got along just fine without. The miniscule amount an Iphone or I anything enhances my life enhances the corporation many million times more. Fortunately I am at a stage in life where all the new devices do not interest me, even if I could afford them. I wish todays consumers would take stock in their buying habits; and ask themselves; "do I really need this new thing?" People have been conditioned to want the "latest and greatest". This conditioning is responsible for the huge growth of corporations like MS and Apple. I guess I have ranted and raved long enough. Sorry.


----------



## patcollins

Here is the perfect example of how I believe unions have lost their way.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/12/15/union-bosses-outrage-members-by-denying-them-a-vote-on-boeings-final-offer/?utm_source=morning%2Bbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12%2B16%2B2013

I know a lot of people in this union and they are quite upset, some of them are just short of showing up to the national office with torches and pitchforks over this. In the unions attempt to preserve its power it most likely cost people their jobs.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## patcollins

How is the Seattle Times then?

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2022464113_iam751machinistsxml.html


----------



## dbray45

Ron - Normally I would agree with you but in the case of the auto industry, Obama handed it to the foreign companies. Only in the US are the companies penalized and demonized for operating on their home soil. They are given break after break for manufacturing outside of the country and shipping it in to the US and taxed beyond belief if the manufacturing is done on US soil.

Companies, to be competitive have adapted to the current model because they have to. Unfortunately, it does not hire our own. Some of the problems are the unions, but even this was overcome if the volume is there. If the volumes are not there, current hiring cannot be sustained and the whole thing crumbles - ask the city of Detroit how this works. Then it is those evil companies that made this problem -


----------



## oldnovice

There are, in reailty, no totally foreign cars as many of the "foreign" cars are either built here or have parts supplied from here (if you include Canada). There are a few exceptions but not as many as you would think.


----------



## dbray45

Many US manufactured cars are assembled in this country - the parts are made elsewhere. It is not cost effective to make them here. Honda and Toyota assemble here as well.

More of Honda components are made in the US than the "Detroit" cars, if I remember correctly.


----------



## DrDirt

Pat I think one sentence from the Seattle times sums things up well:

*Ferguson said he'll balk at giving up the traditional pension, even if it means that 777X is lost and Everett's economic future evaporates.*

So apparently Boeing is wanting to move towards 401 type pensions rather than defined benefit.

The UNION would rather close the whole place down and say "the hell with other employees, and the hell with the city. My retirement plan outweighs all else - now and into the future."

Then folks sit around and wonder why outsourcing is so comon.
They talk cheap about "paying living wages" but then have a Grizzly table saw instead of the Delta Unisaw.

That decision on which saw was based on PRICE…. they decide that Companies shoudl pay big - - -even though they are unwilling to buy the products that are MADE at the living wage they so ardently fight for.

Like the 15 dollar/hour McDonalds discussion. You can bet that Grizzly and Powermatic and the others building tools in taiwan are not paying 15 bucks an hour.


----------



## dbray45

What people do not realize is that when the minimum wage goes up, the cost of everything goes up the same amount.

For those that start a small business, the higher the minimum wage, the more they have as an overheard to pay their bills. The probability of them failing increases exponentially. I am not talking about employees, I am talking about the small business owner themselves.


----------



## patcollins

If Boeing wasn't in heavy competition with Airbus (who is heavily subsidized by the French and German governments) and the airlines weren't trying to save every penny because passengers want low fairs then they may have been able to sustain the defined pension. Airbus planes do not have as much overhead luggage room as Boeing planes. I will take a flight on a 737 any day over an A320, that seems to be all I ever get out of BWI.

These people are highly skilled and deserved to be paid well, they also deserve a say in whether or not they accept the deal. Last year Lockheed Martin employees in the same union were on strike over the same thing, the employees here did not want to strike or picket so picketers were actually bused in from Texas. One of the union members statements stuck me it went something like "strikes never end up helping us and only take pay out of my pocket, why would I want to?"


----------



## oldnovice

+1 Pat on Going versus Airbus!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Too bad these issues have no simple solution. All I know for sure is I do not want to live a country where over 50% of the people are below the poverty level with little hope and nothing to loose! ;-( The U.S is the only country in the history of the world that voluntarily turned itself into a 3rd world nation.

You guys hit the nail on the head about people wanting good wages and benes with cheap prices for everything. A friend of mine was very active in the AIM at Boeing. The union held a meeting about job security and the company shipping work overseas. During the discussion, he told the members they had taken a vote in the parking lot by counting foreign cars vs US cars. He said they had voted overwhelmingly to support the use of foreign labor. Nobody said a word in response ;-)


----------



## patcollins

My old Toyota had more American labor into it than my current Ford does, that argument just doesn't hold anymore.


----------



## oldnovice

That's correct *Pat* and that not even half of it!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

When taking delivery of one of the Fords we bought about 25 years ago, I noticed had an "Assembled in Mexico" sticker under the hood. I told the salesman if I wanted a Mexican car I would be looking at Jesus or Juarez not Ford.


----------



## DKV

dbray45, since I never eat at fast food joints they can feel free to raise the minimum wage to $15.


----------



## dbray45

Raising the minimum wage is a not a good thing for many reasons.

1.) It is a panacea, when it is announced that the minimum wage will be raised, the prices of everything goes up to ensure that the buying power is the same.

2.) If the minimum wage is $7.00 and goes up to $9.00, all of the people that were making $9.00 are now making minimum wage and their purchasing power actually gets worse. They are not entitled to an increase and probably won't get one.

3.) The same thing goes for everyone that makes $15.00 an hour or more, it means that you are now making $2.00 an hour less because it doesn't go as far.

4.) When you stage the minimum wage increases over several years, like they are doing, the resulting inflation actually accelerates. They want to double the minimum wage in the next 5 years. This will double the prices for all of the basic staples in three years or less and many other items in five to six years.

5.) The fed does not equate the cost of food in the Cost of Living increases for Social Security, neither does your pension or retirement. This means that ALL of the people that are due to retire may not be able to afford to and many of the people that have already retired will suffer in big ways because they cannot work.

In essence, the politicians tell you how much they have helped you (to get your vote) but in reality they actually are making a larger minimum wage pool and a larger amount of people well below the poverty line. What should they be doing - leave it alone.


----------



## oldnovice

Minimum wage laws are actually mandated inflation laws and are part of a vicious cycle!


----------



## patcollins

My first job was a min wage job when it was $4.25/hr (I think, 1994), I quickly got a job that paid $2 more than min wage, the min wage was raised shortly there after and my job also raised my pay by the amount the minimum wage rose. I will never forget thinking wow I got extra beer money and such (was in college), I went to McDonalds and suddenly the #2 which was two cheeseburgers, small fries and a drink that was $2.99 raised in price. I was devastated, it was then i realized that raising the minimum wage doesn't really do anything because everything that I spent my meager pay check on (was only 15 hr/week) raised in price.


----------



## DanYo

*
TOM THE DANCING BUG: U.S. Income Inequality in Six Panels, featuring Lucky Ducky*









..









...









....









.....









......


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Nice summary Dan!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I believe you will find the Fed doing a little Quantitative easing (that would be creating vast sums of money out of thin air) have a little more impact on inflation than raising the minimum wage. The fact the minimum wage needs a little boost is because of inflation, not the or a cause.

Actually, it is too bad it was raised pat. You could have started at $1.10 like I did ;-) Think a Big Mac would still be 35 cents if the minimum wage was still $1.10? How about 29 cent gas if the minimum wage had never been raised. That would be great !! ;-))


----------



## oldnovice

My first job while still in high school was at a radio/TV repair shop. My dad did not want me to be a paperboy because he wanted me to at least learn something. He found this job for after school and Saturday morning for EXPERIENCE only. That was 1961 nd the owner of the shop gave me $5 for 14 hours/week of work. That is if it was his turn to work on Saturday and not the shop foreman. When I left, in 1966, to go on to the last two years of college I was being paid $5.50/hour for part time during school and full time in the summer.

When I left the manager/owner and his wife expressed that the had taken me on as the son they could never have and, even though they understood, they hated to see me go. I learned a lot while NOT getting rich but that experience paid for itself in college and obviously when I got my first job out of college. That was a salaried engineering position at $8200/year in 1968.

So from 1961


Code:


$0.35/hr<br />To ........ 1968

$4.10/hr 
So it took me 7 years to get a 11.4% raise. Would I do that again, in a heartbeat!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Those engineer's wages in those days are why I got into the trade. One of my first prof's had a Phd on the end of his EE. He advised me to get out of college unless I just had to be an engineer. I started as a 1st yr apprentice in '68 at $3.10. I think it was about 40% of journeyman. No more 16 hour days, 6 days a week with an 8 on Sunday. I learned to like being a city slicker real quick ;-)


----------



## dbray45

When I got my first job, I got $2.00 and hour in '72 - minimum wage. I later decided to go into the Navy (for hours worked, I made less). After the Navy and with a young family, I decided that the minimum wage thing was not in the cards. I worked hard learned a trade, worked up, added some other trades, owned a business, changed careers again, put myself through college with a BA (with basically two majors and graduated cum-laude in 2 years), and now I make a bit more than minimum wage. Did I mention that I quit high school - twice?

The silliness that you get out of school and then you are to be given a career making $$$$$$ with no experience, no formal education - because you are entitled is the biggest piece of crap. You earn your way through life whether it is up or down. If you fall down, you pick your a$$ up, dust yourself off and move forward - or not. There is no entitlement there. I have known some people that were really well off, they were given a really well paying job coming out of college. They worked under their family's wing(s) or tutelage - and they worked 80 hours a week until they knew every aspect of their respective company. I may have had that opportunity but my father, when given that opportunity, threw it away by being stupid.

The idea here is that you have choices, you make decisions and you grow your horizons - no one is entitled. Once you are entitled, your options, your choices, your directions are now gone - these are made by someone else. Be very careful of what you ask, you will get it.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*Topa: "...Too bad these issues have no simple solution. All I know for sure is I do not want to live a country where over 50% of the people are below the poverty level with little hope and nothing to loose! ;-( The U.S is the only country in the history of the world that voluntarily turned itself into a 3rd world nation…."*

No truer words have been spoken on this thread!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I'm not sure why there is a fascination with entitlement here. Extremist billionaires buying Congress and committing other felonies in an effort to maintain dominion over the little people (that would be about 98 or 99% of us, U.S.) really has nothing to do with anyone sitting on their behinds and getting freebies.


----------



## KnickKnack

"The U.S is the only country in the history of the world that voluntarily turned itself into a 3rd world nation."

With the greatest of respect - having lived, visited, and worked in actual 3rd world nations, (and yes, I have visited America and worked there a bit too) - the US isn't even close to *not* being a 1st world nation by comparison.
I'm not arguing with statements such as "...a country where over 50% of the people are below the poverty level…" - but if that really is true, then that poverty level is being defined an order of magnitude too high - there's real, genuine, no water, no food, no work, no roof, no medicine, no law, no order, no hope, no nothing poverty in 3rd world countries.

Feel free to return to arguing about wealth distribution in the US, but, please, do remember that things could be worse by many orders of magnitude, and that they, in fact, *are* for many millions of people - quite a number of whom will have died from malnutrition, easily preventable disease, or things even the "poor" of the US take for granted during the time it took to read what I've just written.


----------



## dbray45

I agree that "poverty" is used in a way to promote the political methodology versus reality.

Much of it pertains to the distribution of wealth. All of those freebies and entitlements are paid by the middle class working people. This brings down the middle class while the wealthiest are unchanged.

The premise is to bring up the poorest to a middleclass level but the net-net is to create a bigger poorer middle class.

It is all for the power and to say, "we helped you by doing this!"  Taxing the wealthiest takes their money that they would be investing and hiring more and gives it to the government. Without this, many jobs go away - directly and indirectly. Besides, the wealthiest is where the serious one time donations come from, the average $5-10 dollar donations add up to millions but they are not faces that get the politicians into places that influence large numbers.

The middle class is where the real money is because 45% of the people are in that category. Increase their taxes by $100 and you have serious money. Give the remaining 52% (the poorer class) a bunch of entitlements and you have the majority vote - and by last year's count, over 51% of the US is now in that category.


----------



## oldnovice

*KnickKnack*, I believe that your perspective is often forgotten by those living here.

As I have said before, yes we have our problems but we *live in the greatest country in the world!*

And, I strongly believe that, as with all human endeavors, correcting mechanisms will bring back a balance to what many believe is out of balance. We will get enlightened leaders in office who understand the issues and, have the guts to enact change regardless of political consequenses. It has happened before and history will repeat itself!

*Does everyone see that I am a blithering optimist?*


----------



## dbray45

oldn - I fully agree with you, we do live in the greatest country in the world - my belief, but if I lived in CA (Canada), I would feel the same there - as I should.

The idea here is that we CAN discuss this without being arrested or shot. We all have our ways of thinking and doing things - and sometimes our thoughts are skewed because some of this information is not broadcasted. People are being isolated and the news that they get is misinformation. If all of us have the same information, our perspective is broadened - even though we may not always agree. Everyone of us come from a different place and from what I see and hear, this is being manipulated against us - for other's benefits. That is not good.

A line from the movie "MIB" - Individual people are smart, they can doctors, lawyers, builders, etc.. but when you put them into a group, they all get a collective mob mentality and are then stupid. - this is not quoted but gives you an idea.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*David: "... Taxing the wealthiest takes their money that they would be investing and hiring more and gives it to the government…."*

THAT has to be the absolute BIGGEST MYTH that the GOP has sold to Americans. They have the rest of America circling the drain and fighting each other for the dregs that are tossed into the sink.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods




----------



## oldnovice

*+1 Mike*, trickle down does NOT, DID NOT, and NEVER WILL work as long as we have people in office that can only trickle down when they *go to the toilet*!


----------



## patcollins

The biggest myth the democratic party has led the American people to believe is that they are actually different from the GOP.

They may say they are against big business and for the common citizen but their actions show otherwise.

They may say they were against the patriot act yet it continues to get renewed and the man who once railed against it while a senator signed the bill into law renewing it.

They may say they are against war while bombing Libya, trying their damnedest to start a fight with Syria.

They may claim that using fossil fuels are bad for the planet while the one screaming the loudest has a carbon footprint 1000x my own.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The US is the only country in the world to voluntarily self liquidate its assets and standard of living. There are areas in the US suffering from malnutrition, easily preventable disease, and things the most of our poor take for granted. WE may not be to 3rd world status yet, but the trend continues and shows no sign of turning around.

The biggest problem with not taxing high incomes substantially is the destabilizing affect the money has on the financial markets and economy when the wealthy start speculating. We were relatively stable from WWII to 1980. By the end on the 80s we had the S&L crisis, then the dot com bust, then the housing bubble…............. not to mention the volatility in the commodity markets.

Before there is any solution, people have to give up the petty ideas of taxing the rich to give to the poor and think in terms of reestablishing the America we knew in the 50s, 60s and 70s. It needs to be about a functioning economic system, not hand outs. The most amazing part of the US economy is the post WWII policies built a system so resilient, Reaganomics has not been able to totally destroy it in 30 years. Question is how much longer do we have?


----------



## patcollins

Topa, I believe there are a couple factors you are ignoring in your nostalgia for that time.

1- The competitions manufacturing base was utterly destroyed from WW2 so the world not only needed stuff from us, they did not take any of our manufacturing business away from us.

2- We were are war during most of that time period, a large number of the most otherwise unemployed (young men with little to no skills) were drafted into the military and were off fighting in Korea or Vietnam.

3- War quite frankly was good for the economy

4- You talk about the middle class and equity of that era but there is a significant portion of America that would not agree, the black man. While you saw it as a great time they were not allowed to eat at the same lunch counter or drink out of "the clean" water fountain let alone have any chance at a good job.

When people look back they tend to forget the bad but always remember the good and I think that is what you are doing in your nostalgia for the era.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Pat, I'm talking about the public policies that were in place that begat the middle class. Rather than speculating and gambling with their profits, business people either reinvested in their businesses or paid significant tax burdens. This created jobs and grew business rather than large bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. The policies were put in place after the 29 crash to prevent another. When I was in grade school in the 50s, it was drilled into our heads there were laws to prevent another Depression. In the 80s and 90s, Reagan and Clinton suspended enforcement of many and Congress revised many more. The result was the Great Recession of 2008. The only difference was the social programs such as unemployment which staved off some of the misery and the public bread lines.

#1, After WWII, the US did not merely sell to the devastated countries, we rebuilt them so they could , again, become viable economies. Then, we opened our markets to them so they would have a place to sell. WE gave and lent as much or more than we sold. When did that ever happen in world history before?

#2, WE still have a large number engaged in permanent wars. The military industrial complex is milking us, U.S., for more than they ever have.

#3, War is good for the economy. Too bad we exported so many of those jobs ;-((

#4, Civil Rights is a separate issue, but without the growing affluent middle class, minorities would never have made the gains in equality they now enjoy.


----------



## patcollins

#1 Whether we gave or sold it to them, the businesses were paid for the ___, people were employed and gainful.

#2 The number we have in the military is far far less than it was in the past. In todays wars we use small forces with vastly superior weaponry vs just throwing meat shields and the enemy to see who runs out first.

The defense industry use to drive the economy, now the consumer dwarfs it. During the cold war new gadgets originated with military spending, today the military has very little sway over new inventions and the term COTS (commercial off the shelf) floods the military. Also the statement that the defense industry is milking us for more than ever is incorrect. The chart below is defense spending as a % of the entire federal budget.










4 Finally it is not so much a civil rights issue as I am pointing out that a significant number of the population was marginalized, taken advantage of and not considered with the general population when you say things were good. At no point in human history did one group have it good without another group getting the short end of the stick, sometimes it was the advantaged group purposely taking advantage of the less fortunate group and sometimes it was just a side effect. If things were more equal for blacks during this time I ask would whites have had it as good? I don't think they would have. More viable people in the economy would have drove down wages. I think if we had tighter borders and enforced immigration laws the economy would be better today, just looking at it from a numbers perspective.


----------



## DrDirt

Thanks Knick Knack -
our "Poverty Level" rich versus the much of the world.

We live in a society that claims poverty is to only have 2 flat screens and 1car.

Visit the suburbs of Monterrey Mexico, or SaoPaolo where we have factories - and you can see what real poverty is.

We will see what real poverty is, when China says NO to additional borrowing. WHen actual CUTS have to be made - not just "cutting the increases" the cities will look like Rwanda within 6 months and there will be martial law..

From Policymic 
http://www.policymic.com/articles/2636/compared-to-the-rest-of-the-world-americans-are-all-the-1

The Occupy Wall Street protesters may claim to represent the grievances of the 99%, but we should remember that when it comes to the global income distribution, we are the 1%. Domestic inequality may be on the rise, but so too is international inequality, with similar inherent power imbalances that benefit the wealthiest.

We are technically not all the 1%. United Nations researchers Davies et al. calculated in 2008 that the cutoff for the wealthiest 50% of the global income distribution was $2,138; for the top 10% and 1% the cutoffs were $61,000 and $510,000, all measured in 2000 U.S. dollars. Global wealth remains concentrated in a few hands in New York, London, Shanghai, and Dubai. But as Branco Milanovic shows in The Haves and the Have-Nots, the bottom 10% of the U.S. income distribution falls in the upper 30% of the global income distribution. When considered from this perspective, the prospects of the 99% are drastically improved.

80% of the Worlds population makes less thn 10 dollars a day - that we have supposedly a ~18% poverty rate is twisting the definition of what poverty really is


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Pat, In post 734 you mentioned your first job in 1994 was a min wage job at $4.25/hr. Unfortunately, nobody under about 50 has any real experience in a pre-trickle down economy. Arguing historical points and their causes and affects until we are blue in the face is pointless. What does any this have to do with justifying the move from a capitalist democracy with a large middle class to an oligarchy controlled by a few monopolists with a majority of impoverished working poor and small professional middle class?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*80% of the Worlds population makes less than 10 dollars a day* Do you want us, U.S., to meet that standard? Is the race to the bottom of not going fast enough? Does this mean the top 1% should take more out of the economy so we can make quota for poor folk?


----------



## dbray45

Topa - I want to weigh in here.

When U.S. corporations got tax breaks and foreign companies goods were tariffed, the major corporations would look for locations to put their manufacturing and assembly plants in the US. They actively looked for places that were suffering. When the "made in US" tax incentives went away and there was push to give US companies tax incentives to move their facilities to other countries - They did.

You cannot have it both ways, they need to be competitive to stay in business. If you open your doors to everybody, take away the tax breaks for our companies to manufacture at home while other countries tariff our goods and subsidize their manufacturing - you have to be able to compete with all of them or shut down.


----------



## dbray45

I believe it was the Carter days when the decision was made to clean up our air and pollution. I remember the discussions that the government WANTED the move the pollution producing manufacturing to other countries because it would cost too much to rebuild the steel plants and other manufacturing to be cleaner. the conversations were that the US would run these overseas operations and bring the money back to the US. Even my father (a staunch democrat) said that this was really stupid because most of our population were not the executive ranks in the companies.

Whoever it was and whenever it was - it was seriously stupid - the policy still stands so folks on all sides are stupid to this day.


----------



## patcollins

Topa, the real culprit is globalization as soon as we gave China most favored nation trade status we opened a pandoras box that cannot be closed without probably causing an economic war that would take an even greater toll.

Look at things like the average size of a home of a 50's house and now and tell me that we do not live a more luxurious lifestyle. I purchased a house built in 1976 and it is the smallest house that anyone that works in my group owns, almost everyone else has a McMansion.

When most Americans spend over $100 a month for cell phone plans, close to that for cable, keeps their house air conditioned to a cool 75 degrees in the summer, blows $4k on a set of rims for their car, stands in line for a pair of Nike shoes that cost $200, stands in line for a $700 cell phone or tablet computer to have it on the day it is released you are never going to convince me that we have gotten poorer.

My dad was born in 1950 and told me about wiping his butt with corn cobs because they thought it was silly to spend money on something that you was going to wipe your butt on.

Oh the humanity our poor only have 3G and not 4G LTE coverage…..


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Little doubt a lot of poor decisions were made.


----------



## DKV




----------



## oldnovice

I tell my kids that when I was growing up we were so poor that we would have hot dog soup … my other would cook a hot dog in water and that's what we would eat and the next meal we would split the hot dog among the four of us.

*Pat* is correct about the spending habit of some people! My cell phone cost me $10.00 for 3 months ($3.33/mo) and I still think that is too much. Charges should only apply when I make a call, not when someone calls me, and definitely not while phone is idle in my coat pocket. Some people don't take the time to calculate the actual cost; $100/mo = $1200/year, is it really worth it to be in constant contact when we survived with wired service for over 100 years?

*There are shelters here in the bay area that provide meals for those that can't afford to buy their food and they state that every $1.00 donated to those shelters will provide 2 meals. So $1200/year is 2400 meals which is 2 meals/day for 6 people!*


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Just when we were running out of this to worry about: Our friends on Fox reported this morning there will be aggressive collection efforts on student debt. If the 1% do not start trickling down some jobs for them, I'm wondering if that means debtor's prisons?

Also of note: Military pensions and benefits were mentioned as getting a "hard look" to help balance the budget. I have been telling me retired military friends this would happen for the last few years. They looked at me like I was nuts. People did the same 15 years ago when I was telling them employment is dying in this country. 1.4 million permanent unemployed prove that prediction to be correct.


----------



## patcollins

Maybe that is why the dept of education needs 14 inch choke barrel shotguns

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-does-department-of-education-need-12-gauge-shotguns


----------



## DrDirt

Topa - I don't support a race to the bottom, however the economy is global and that WILL mean that the US will come down and the developing countries will rise in income and power.

My point was directed at the discussion of *not wanting to live in a county where 50% of the people live in poverty*.

Only the homeless living on a steam grate or under a bridge understand TRUE living in poverty - and even they are several steps ahead of equatorial Africa.

There frankly is ZERO poverty in America, *compared to the rest of the world *- - the high poverty percentages reported are political spin - as is most of our news anymore.


----------



## DrDirt

Topa don't worry - Patty Murray already drafted with Paul Ryan to cut 6 billion from military and disability pensions - and it is law now.

But supposedly they will look into fixing that after they get back from holidays.


----------



## oldnovice

As if these heros really need another kick in the teeth.

*To me every man/woman in the service is a hero unless proven otherwise!*


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Dirt, If that is the way you want to define poverty, that is your prerogative. If you don't want to believe the middle class is going away, that is your prerogative also. With such myopic views and attitude, I believe you will probably be taken by surprise in the future. It didn't catch me by surprise. When union busting cut wages, I became the competition and set the standard to be met in the industry ;-) As they say, luck is made by foresight and preparation.

I guess I didn't hear that news blurb quite right, I thought the cuts were going to be considered next year. Sorry to hear us, U.S., are going to kick the vets in the teeth again ;-( I really have to wonder how much more abuse and broken promises they will stand for? The US Gov't seems to think it is still making treaties with Native Americans, not native born Americans..

One I know personally is a high ranking R party officer. I have been wondering how long it would take for him to figure out he is cutting his own throat. These cuts just might do it.


----------



## patcollins

This fact is shocking but absolutely true, 50% of the American population is below average.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

This fact is encouraging and absolutely true also; 50% of the American population is above average.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Interesting analysis of the current state of management: http://www.dailywealth.com/299/An-Inside-Look-at-One-of-the-Biggest-Scams-in-America It is consistent with my experience with stocks I have owned.


----------



## SCOTSMAN

I am amused and amazed at the people who believe slavery started in the south of the usa and was brought to an end by the north. Slavery has been around since pre Egyptology and is more alive today than it ever was in the past, go to India and pakistan etc and see how the caste system works.There are people who have never known freedom even today as we write these fellings down they are often sold into servitude.Sometimes as children for a small sum often loaned to their parents and under an obscure but totally immoral set of laws and rules, which allowed these loans to mature beyond the life of the individual.
One man was used and pawned as human collateral, and put into servitude for approx $50, which was an original loan to his parents. He was still working off the loan long after the parents died and the original sum was still owed ,so that after 50 years the now grown man still owed $50 and was never able to escape his poverty ridden circumstances throughout his whole life.Now that of course has nothing to do with clolour but culture which is still very much alive despite being so appalingly and obviously wrong.This is not at all uncommon others sell their kidneys or often an eye to unscrupulous money lenders etc.Throughout the under developed world today slavery is very common sad but true,and is a very complex thing to pin down and understand books are written about it.Very Very sad so it is no surprise that blacks owned blacks when they still do read about the caste sytem it is horrifyingly sad.Alistair


----------



## DKV

I have a question for you guys. How many on this thread are conservatives that are whining about the liberals giving it all away but also whine about not getting their share of the pie? Why are you willing to take but not allow others to take? No matter how the taking is accomplished it's still taking. Do you think the rich are going to give their hard earned money up to someone else?


----------



## oldnovice

*NO!*


----------



## DrDirt

Topa - Never said anything about shift in the middle class and buying power.

However - people decide to just THROW AROUND the term poverty and compare it to other nations, when in fact even those that have fallen from the middle class (or never got that high), are not living in poverty.

People want to define poverty as having an I-phone 4 instead of 5.
Eventually I look around, my work has me travel, so I visit rural and Major Metropolitan areas. I recognize poverty but not at the percentages claimed.
NCCP claims 45% of children live in low income home. and that the MINIMUM wage for a family of 4 needs to be >46K
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html

The Union busting was done by Carter when he removed collective bargaining from public sector Government workers. In 1978, Democratic President Jimmy Carter, backed by a Democratic Congress, passed the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA). This act abolished the US Civil Service Commission and handed all federal labor disputes over to an arbitration board.

Yet many like to put blinders on to the actions of a Democrat, and instead point to Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers as "beginning of the end"

Of course the peanut head also lobbied capitol hill for Bill Clinton to pass NAFTA.
So we got to hear first hand the sucking sound Ross Perot warned us of.

We saw that efffect here in Kansas - Hawker Beechcraft - closed its union shop, and moved to Mexico. The union strike started the ball rolling, as folks were just CERTAIN that nobody could be trained to rivet aluminum south of the border.

We march steadily forty - It isn't a race to the bottom - but a race to the middle.

The Democrats love the UN delegation, and have turned over all authority to globalization, and to the Executive Branch Cabinet positions.

What could possible go wrong?
The United States is negotiating bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements with the following countries and blocs:

Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA; incl. all countries on the Western Hemisphere)

U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area (US-MEFTA; incl. most countries in the Middle East)

Transatlantic Free Trade Area (TAFTA; European Union)

Thailand: United States-Thailand Free Trade Agreement (on hold since the 2006 Thai coup d'état)

New Zealand: US-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement1

Ghana: US-Ghana Free Trade Agreement

Indonesia: US-Indonesia Free Trade Agreement

Kenya: US-Kenya Free Trade Agreement

Kuwait: US-Kuwait Free Trade Agreement (Expert-level trade talks held in February 2006)

Malaysia: US-Malaysia Free Trade Agreement (last meeting was in July 2008)

Mauritius: US-Mauritius Free Trade Agreement

Mozambique: US-Mozambique Free Trade Agreement

Taiwan: US-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement

United Arab Emirates: US-United Arab Emirates Free Trade Agreement (5th round of talks are yet to be scheduled)

US-Southern African Customs Union Free Trade Agreement (US-SAUC; incl. South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, and Namibia; on hold since 2006 due to US demands on intellectual property rights, government procurement rights and investment)

Ecuador: US-Ecuador Free Trade Agreement

Qatar: US-Qatar Free Trade Agreement (on hold since 2006)

Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership


----------



## dbray45

DKV - I for one, when I became unemployed, started a company instead of getting unemployment benefits. Once you are self employed, you are not eligible for ANYTHING except to pay the full 15% for SS, taxes, and did I mention the taxes.


----------



## patcollins

DrDirt, I never understood the love for the UN either. Every time we sign an agreement or treaty we are the only ones losing anything. The bargain is always for how much we are going to give up. We constantly sign treaties for things we don't do anyway with countries that are just certain to ignore them anyway, why?

When I was in high school and even college in the 90's I kept hearing how we were turning from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy and instead of making things people would be providing information and services. Even then I wondered how can giving someone information be considered a career. The Sociology class I took in college, which was a major liberal pep rally basically, thought it was great that manufacturing was leaving and people in the future would provide services and information instead.


----------



## dbray45

I guess building homes is to be the source of all of our jobs. Too bad people that work in the trades cannot afford those $800,000 houses.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I believe the diminished buying power is the point of this thread. Certainly $46 k is not poverty in most locations of the US, but scrounging for grubs in rotting tree stumps is not the definition either. It is probably somewhere in the middle.

Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers are largely cited as the beginning of the end just as December 7 is cited as the beginning of WWII. Certainly may factors leading to either can be cited as the true beginning. Most events are the result of a tangle web of factors. I doubt if there will ever be complete agreement concerning the cause of anything in the course of history. No matter what anyone says, another can point to a different factor as the true cause just for the sake of doing so.

There is little doubt that all the administrations in recent history have bought into the "Free Trade Folly." It is little more than corporate welfare served on a silver platter. During the Slick Willie Administration, the US gov't was recruiting businesses to relocate to the Yucatan Peninsula with guarantees of endless supplies of cheap labor and freedom for any union organizing activities. When the gov't is violating the laws it is supposed to be enforcing, well…………….

We have come a long way since a member of my family pledged his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to get us, U.S., started. Others were among the first to help the poor of Boston when the British blockaded the city. Another was wounded serving with Washington on Long Island. The oligarchy developing today is totally contrary to the principles they established.


----------



## DKV

dbray, why would you expect someone in the trades to be able to buy an $800,000 house? The only way to do that would be to save enough money or get a job that would allow you to qualify.


----------



## dbray45

The majority of houses in this area are in that range. - just sayin. I cannot afford them either but that is what they are building.


----------



## DKV

Sales and Marketing (S&M) typically have a heavy say in what is built. You know…marketing research and such. What does that that tell you?


----------



## patcollins

My house is actually illegal to build right now one county away. I live in a 1500 sq ft house and the county code says no houses under 1600 sq ft may be built. I don't quite understand this law, but it was passed in a heavily democratic area. I am guessing that the lawmakers do not want people living near them unless they make a certain income.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

During the recent cold snap here, I learned Lynnwood, WA has a law against homeless shelters. Most of the cities have some public building or church group open when the temp drops to freezing and below.

Maybe the poverty level is $50K if the minimum house is 1500 sq feet. WE have come a long way since one of my aunts was born in a corn crib in November in MT! I'm sure Grandpa would have loved to have that 1500 sq ft minimum house. On second thnught, he probably would have settled for a solid wall barn instead of a corn crib.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

DKV, I just thought of a response to your question in post 774. Last summer after one of the bad tornadoes in TX or OK or somewhere down that way, a Congressman who voted against aid for Hurricane Sandy thought there should be aid for the tornado in his state ;-))


----------



## DKV

Topa, I remember the story. Which party was he from?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Cost cutting, no tax for the rich R, I believe.


----------



## oldnovice

One of the mottos that I was taught by parents is "if you always give, you will always have."

I believe that those in government/and in some places of power need to learn that as they have it backwards!


----------



## patcollins

Yesterday I took some food over to a mission in a section of town called Glen Elk (in Clarksburg WV where I am from) which is a run down former railway station. In the 20's it was "the place" but now its drunks and crackheads laying in the street, literally, anyway there is a mission over there that feeds the homeless and hungry. On a building nearby was a big sign wanting to get rid of the mission. I know people don't want them and the crime that comes along with them in their town, but cutting their food supply off is not right. These people may find that if they get their wish they leave that section of town and show up in their subdivision.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## dbray45

Everyone here does know that when there is an emergency, and the fed sends money to rebuild, all of it is in the form of low interest loans. The only time it does not have to be paid back is when it is to a different government.


----------



## MrRon

Patcollins, It was for humanatarian reasons that unions began; to improve workers conditions, better wages and a say in company business. At that time, a group of criminals called the mafia realized that there was a lot of money to be made in the union business. Many years of corruption in the unions were finally ended due to government intervention. The mafia realized their end was in sight so they decided to go "legitimate". This was a big cash cow they didn't want to lose. The mafia is still present, but they are now legitimate businessmen. They no longer mow people down or break knee caps, but their presence is still there under the surface. You have to live in a big city like New York or Chicago to see the mafia influence that owns the docks, trucking, laundry services, garbage and food deliveries. Only the most naive would not realize it. Ask any old timer New Yorker and he will tell you the mafia is alive and well.


----------



## DrDirt

Unions are a great IDEA… just like Socialized Medicine/single payer systems look great *on paper*.

In the early 80's I worked a grocery job in high school
I had to join the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (closed shop) 1496 in Anchorage AK.

At that time the Federal Minimum Wage was $3.85. Alaska has one of the HIGHEST costs of living in the USA.

My Collective Bargaining agreement " WONT US a Hard fought" *$3.82.*
They had a challenging NEGOTIATION on our behalf to get us *LESS than the federal minimum wage*.

That is the magic of collective bargaining - you get what they negotiate! You are EXEMPT from the federal guideline.

This may have changed since that time, but it is certainly that *searing initial spark *for my dislike of union crooks.

You can be sure though, that the crooks made darn sure that union dues were collected out of every paycheck up front.

People talking about unions getting a fair wage when they cannot even secure federal MINIMUM WAGE can lick the sweat off my NO LONGER UNION teabag. (Something the employees of McDonalds wanting higher wages than Federal Minimum should think about)

If Unions were really about fighting for the working man - they would bring their CONSIDERABLE political power to bear, to push congress to develop a FAIR TRADE policy. They would also be working to keep jobs (and thus a union wage base HERE in the USA). If only they would fight for our future, more than just collecting dues…I would support them, because the government is certainly against the common man. (unfortunately so is the AFL-CIO)

They only feather their own nests. Once upon a time there were structures within unions for progressing from apprenticeships to journeymen in trades… that is all gone. You are expected to train yourself - and be a card carrying member in good standing.


----------



## patcollins

I too had a bad experience with the United Food and Commercial Workers union. I worked 15 hrs a week, during the first 6 weeks they took $5 initiation fee and once a month they took $20 for membership fees. Considering my gross pay was 77.25/week they took a huge part of my check. Worst part was the union did nothing for the "kids" like me that worked low hours, there was talk of going on strike and I really wanted to because I would have earned more on strike than working.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

You really have to look beyond a few personal experiences and disappointments to see the total movement. Everything that is socially acceptable and expected in the workplace today is a result of organized labor. Not only for blue collar jobs, but management too.


----------



## DrDirt

If a union cannot even get you to the *federal minimum wage*... it needs to fold its tent as an abject failure of collective bargaining.

I find it funny that you say to look past my own personal experience. At the end of the day that is what we have - - our experiences.

I don't trust the Union that figuratively F-cked me in the arse, the experience was up close and personal and cemented my EXPERIENCE of how that system works.

-Maybe your experience working for the Republican party, - - was all a fluke and not representative of all republicans? (Look beyond your few personal experiences right?)

The 40 hour week started by Henry Ford before there was a UAW
He PERSONALLY took the position that the people that work in HIS factories should be capable of buying the products they make based on their wages.

I don't disagree that in the 1930's especially working out of the depression, Unions did good work.
I would certainly stop short of saying that "EVERYTHING" that is socially acceptable and expected in the workplace… is a result of unions… But that is because I don't really believe in those kinds of Absolutes. As it assumes that EVERYONE running companies are evil, but Unions are the *ever benevolent* Knight in shining armor on a white stallion… when in fact both the coroporations and the unions… just like government - - work for their OWN POWER… not that of others.

The supposed gains post WWII were a result of a job boom for Reconstruction, because we were the only real economy that wasn't smoking rubble.

Once the 70's hit and we started to see Sony, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, JVC, NEC, and many more enter our markets - the situation changed.

Look at the 1977 bailout of Chrysler by Carter to Lee Iacocca

The Japanese cars were kicking our collective asses in quality and price. Lets compare - - Aries and Reliant K-Car or Honda Accord?
Ford Pinto or the "Sporty" Mustang II versus a Civic, or a Datsun 280Z.
Magnavox TV or a Sony Trinatron.

Those changes had nothing to do with Unionbusting.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It took Ford a while to figure that out. He started having about 50% more employees report to the factory every day than needed because conditions were so bad, that many did not show for work or had quit and were never coming back.

A few anecdotal experiences are quite irrelevant. I could recite mine, both positive and negative, but it would not prove anything.

This whole conversation is getting a bit pointless. The tangled web of history has so many intertwined relationships, one could argue the cause and affect endlessly without resolution. The facts of the matter really amount to history being a continuous cycle. As the baby boomers retire, we are seeing a work force that has no memory of the wages and conditions we once enjoyed in the U.S. As conditions worsen, and they will, you will see a re-emergence organized labor and reasonable trade policies. (Note: There were demonstrations at 1500 Wal-mart locations on Black Friday according to Hartman. Fast food workers are beginning to stage strikes.) I repeat my main point: Any job worth doing needs to pay a living wage. Society supporting poverty level waged worker's in public housing, food stamps and medial care, whether it is through the gov't, the church or other private charity organizations, for the sake of dirt cheap prices is an endless downward spiral.

US and European manufacturing workers will never never compete at the same labors rates as peasants in 3rd world nations. The biggest question in my mind is whether the US will emerge again as it did from the 30s or will it be voted socialist by the have nots. The greedy [email protected][email protected]$ in the 1% are cutting their own throats, but they are so removed from the everyday reality, they can't see because they don't care, they have no empathy or maybe, they are just plain stupid. I don't know, but I do know my kids will be very lucky to retire and my grand kids will most likely be the beneficiaries of the resurgence of the middle class.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

I really encourage folks to read this thought provoking article…https://medium.com/quinn-norton/f3db7e13e6e3

When you are poor in America money is chained to shame. You are ashamed that you don't have it, you are ashamed when you do but don't share it with family and friends, you are ashamed when you want it, you are ashamed of what you're willing to do to get it. Like all unchosen masters, you hate it as much as you need it. Money makes you angry, it's what families yell and lie to each other about. Its power is mythologized. One of my most vivid memories of my childhood was my father declaring he didn't have any problems money couldn't solve.


----------



## oldnovice

Coutersy of the San Jose Mercury News

Here are the top 10 philanthropic gifts of 2013, according to a report from the Chronicle of Philanthropy. The list includes 15 gifts, including six at the $100 million level that tied for No. 10.

Mark Zuckerberg: $992.2 million to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation 
Phil Knight: $500 million pledge to the Oregon Health and Science University Foundation 
Michael Bloomberg: $350 million pledge to Johns Hopkins University 
Charles B. Johnson: $250 million pledge to Yale University 
Stephen Ross: $200 million pledge to University of Michigan 
Muriel Block: $160 million bequest to Yeshiva University 
John Arrillaga: $151 million pledge to Stanford University 
Irwin Jacobs: $133 million pledge to Cornell NYC Tech 
Charles Munger: $110 million pledge to University of Michigan 
David Koch: $100 million pledge to New York-Presbyterian Hospital 
Frank McCourt: $100 million pledge to Georgetown University 
Ronald Perelman: $100 million pledge to Columbia Business School 
T. Denny Sanford: $100 million pledge to University of California at San Diego 
Stephen Schwarzman: $100 million pledge to Tsinghua University in Beijing 
Deborah Joy Simon: $100 million pledge to Mercersburg Academy

These are *not* part of the Melinda and William Gates Foundation or the Hewlett Packard Foundation!


----------



## DrDirt

Wow Uncanny - Quinn the author of your link is one pessimistic person!!

In families, everything in the middle class pushes people to abandon each other as soon as they have the money to. Children are pushed to education and stable corporate jobs so that they can be shameless - never needing their families in any way. Parents are pushed towards saving for retirement, in either the hope of financially created independence or expectation that their grown children would never abide their presence.

Really?
I guess Quinn is not a fan of Fuller either, since he advocates education and going to school, since that means not needing family….. wow!


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo

*"As Paul Krugman often notes, almost no one in the conservative movement is ever accountable for being consistently and demonstrably wrong about everything. Not only did the stimulus and quantitative easing not cause inflation and higher prices, they frankly didn't go far enough. What they did was help create bubbles in assets like stocks and housing, but that alone doesn't lead to widespread inflation or higher interest rates (neither of which are necessarily a bad thing in moderation.)

What's wrong with the economy has nothing to do with the deficit, the ACA, government spending, regulation, or anything remotely related to what any conservative pundit might blather about. The weakness in the economy is a function of wages that are too low and jobs that are too few. And given the outlandish stock prices, corporate profits and executive salaries over the last few years, any claims that businesses are too overtaxed or overregulated to create jobs are an outright joke.

Everything conservative economists say is an attempt to distract from the most dangerous truth they face: that corporate profits and stock prices are at record highs, but that's not helping create middle jobs and prosperity. If they ever admit that simple truth, the whole game is up." *


----------



## DanYo

*"Here's the story. The story is that the national minimum wage is seven and a quarter an hour. I think most people understand that's a starvation wage. Individuals can't live on it. Families can't live on it. If we raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour - which to my mind doesn't go as far as it should - that would be a raise for 30 million Americans, a vast majority of whom are adults. And that's not just people making seven and a quarter an hour, it's people making eight bucks an hour, nine dollars an hour.

And at a time when almost all new income is going to the top 1% it is time that working people - lower income workers - get a raise…" *


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## oldnovice

*Dan* hit the nail on the head as that is where the real problem lies … !


----------



## oldnovice

*MaxieMelve02 SAY WHAT? * I think you are on the wrong web site, this is not Facebook!


----------



## dbray45

The funny thing about all this talk of helping everyone, increasing the minimum wage etc…

Based upon the Fed's numbers, there isn't significant inflation to warrant the increase. If there was, then you would think that the govt. would give Social Security recipients more than a 1% raise. Raising the minimum wage would be a clear indication that we are not putting ALL of those people at the poverty level - AND THEY PAID FOR THIS BENEFIT! If the TRILLIONS had not been stolen out of Social Security by our Congress (started by Democrats and continued ever since), they could have an actual living annuity - which is what this is.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

dbray45, You may have missed the point of this thread. Middle class buying power is half what it was in 1980.


----------



## dbray45

Oh, I am very aware of what the buying power is and what it isn't. I also aware of how people spend their money. I have watched people that struggle to make ends meet go to Burger King 3-4 days a week at $25.00 a pop for them and their 2 kids instead of spending $50.00 and getting basic staples when they are on sale (they have a large freezer full of donuts and crap) and feed their family correctly. They spend $200 a month on their fancy little phones and text their kids.

There is not reason that these people are having issues and are on the verge of loosing their car for late payments if they were to get their head out of their backside cavity. Did I mention they go to Disney every year at a cost of $5000?

Yes, it is rough when the income is low - been there more time than I would like, but it is a part of life. Instead of EXPECTING the govt. to bail you out of your idiot attitudes and give a life - pick yourself up, get off your ass and do something with your life. If you believe for one second that raising the minimum wage is going to help, it doesn't. All it is doing is masking over the "non inflation" as the govt is touting and sanctifying the inflation. It is a diversion and your quality of life is the same if not worse afterward.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*David: "...There is not reason that these people are having issues and are on the verge of loosing their car for late payments if they were to get their head out of their backside cavity. Did I mention they go to Disney every year at a cost of $5000?..."*

Talk about anal hypoxia, since you specifically brought the subject up (above)!

I suppose you stood at the gate of Disney and conducted personal interviews and ran everyone's credit records and past loan payments too… LOL!


----------



## dbray45

No - I actually know people that would rather go to Disney, have their fancy electronics, get their fast food - than feed and clothe their kids. They EXPECT the govt to give them what they feel they need. Because they don't make much, they feel that they are entitled to free healthcare, free car, free phones (with free texting), free school lunches, free breakfasts for the kids.

All I hear from these people are how poor they are and what the govt should be doing for them. Hell, they even get a bigger tax return than what was withheld.

So they are getting free healthcare - they haven't paid it in several years, they have an Obamaphone - or 2, they get money from the govt in the form of cash - and they are not responsible for anything - yes it pisses me off.

When I wasn't making much, we didn't ask for any of it, we handled it - but my daughter had nice clothes, there was food on the table - nothing gourmet but we ate well, we didn't go out to fast food or restaurants.

If you want wealth - make it. Get off your ass and do it. It is not owed to you, the govt is not your benefactor and never should be.


----------



## dbray45

Yes it is a hard attitude but that is the reality of life - get over it.


----------



## oldnovice

*Dbray* do you not agree that there are people that work their ass off and can barely make enough to keep a roof over their heads and eat. Despite everything they do they cannot get ahead.

I know people like that, both husband and wife work, he gets up at 4:30AM and comes home at 6:30PM about 3 hours after his wife comes home from her job. These people really living paycheck to paycheck and can't take off time to go back to school to advance their lot in life. I am sure that as time passes they will need help as the cost of living increases faster than the paycheck from working! What do you suggest these people and many others like them do.

There are people due to no fault of their own cannot get a break in life and are doomed unless we/U.S. help them!


----------



## dbray45

I have been there, I have worked 2 jobs at the same time and moonlighted on top of that. I have worked 40-50 hours a week AND went to college full time to get my degree, completed my bachelors in 20 months - because I didn't like where I was and needed to change things for the better - and paid the tuition and fees as I went without student loans.

I may help my daughter if she needs it because I choose to. The people down the street I may help - not because the govt tells me that I have to but because I choose to or not.

I know that at times, life really sucks. I know what it is like to make $120 every 2 weeks and have $400 of expenses a month and then get hit by a $1,000 medical bill and not have insurance because I have been there. I paid them all and I got through it - it takes a whole lot of work, and is a royal pain in the backside. Does it always work, nope - got more than a few T shirts that show it but it can be done - well, in the current state of affairs, don't know because now you are penalized for achieving anything.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Sometimes my wife reminds me things are not as easy for everyone as they are for me. She is probably right; very few graduate high school with 2 military academy appointments and an alternate. Nice yield from letters to 2 senators and our district congressman, eh?.

I have been very fortunate. Started hoeing corn before I was big enough to handle a hoe, so dad had me crawling up and down the 1/4 mile long rows and my hands and knees. Buy the time I started first grade, I knew there be an easier way to make a living. Nobody had to tell me to get an education. I got it long before I had financial obligations.

The people I really admire the most of those do menial tasks for very little and they do it day after day without complaining. Who knows the individual circumstances that put them in that position. They really do deserve a reasonable standard of living with some hope of retiring before 80.


----------



## patcollins

Thinking that just raising minimum wage will make peoples lives better is just naive. Lets assume that there will be no inflation involved and lets use fast food as an example. Suddenly when wages go up the cost to the restaurant goes up, the restaurant can raise prices and probably will, but also automating more tasks or expecting more out of a single employee becomes much more attractive and any competitive business would pursue the most cost effective way to get the task accomplished.

Anyone ever shop at an Aldi supermarket? The ones I am familiar with have a built in cart return where you have to put in a quarter to get a cart and when you return it you fasten a chain and you get your quarter back.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Finding-a-loose-grocery-cart-at-Aldi-and-pocketing-a-quarter/118591324838868

These supermarkets amaze me, it seems that the entire store runs with only 2-3 employees at a time.

Coincidentally they pay their checkers pretty well compared to other stores, about 5-6 years ago they were advertising starting wages at $15/hr.

So what is better 3 people making $15 an hour or 6 people making $7.50 an hr?


----------



## dbray45

Topa - I seriously appreciate you perspective, I really do. I worked a season in an orange grove and worked with a family of migrant workers. The whole family worked, they didn't make minimum wage, they were paid by how many bushels of fruit they picked. All eight family members picked fruit. They told me that they could have the grove picked in 2 weeks but where would they go. They staged their production levels to what the processing plant would pack and ship in a day, around 200 bushels a day. They did alright, and yes, it is a hard life but they did not complain. They told me that it was much better than working in a factory and working much harder for less. When this season was done, they go to Georgia to pick peaches, same places every year.

There are always 2 sides of the coin. If things were so difficult for them to live, they would go someplace else. People adjust to what they are comfortable with. If they are not comfortable, they find someplace else. Same thing with unemployment, if they are going to lose everything, they will adjust one way or another. I did, and I have and I am no different than anyone else, and you know what, I expect that I will in the future, it is a part of life.

The idea that people are paid to be not working for up to something like 3 years is absurd. After 6 months, they will not be hired in their same line of work - for many reasons. It is political, it creates a dependent state, and is not good for anybody. Who is training the long term unemployed people current skills for new careers?

Let's look at these new graduates that cannot find a job (getting paid what they want), isn't the purpose of higher education to teach them how to think? Or are they teaching them limitations? If I just came out of college and I could not find a job that I wanted and had a place to live, I would start a company in a minute and do what I was educated to do. I wouldn't sit at home complaining about not finding a job (well, maybe for a week or two). One of the things about MIT, if you cannot get a job, you have the entire alum of MIT as potential customers for your business.

Is this pertinent to the thread, yes. The whole idea of this concept is to help people. giving my money to someone who doesn't want to do anything is pointless and helps no one. It creates hatred and division - on all sides. Hatred for the people that work and as a result "have" and for people that don't want to work. Helping people to get a job, whether by creating it or hiring - is a whole different matter.

Giving incentives like tax breaks to start companies, hire people, train people - now that is productive. Giving 300 million in tax breaks and getting the 30 million that have dropped off unemployment working plus the people on unemployment, versus paying 19 million on unemployment - do the math. You are paying hundreds of billions out on long term unemployment - for what? You tell me how that is helping anybody -


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

dbray45, I'm not saying handouts, I'm saying any job worth doing should pay a living wage. As FDR said, the best form of welfare is a job. While there will always be examples of lazy bums looking for a handout, most people aren't, they want a real job. People say they can't find good help. All the years I have been an employee, supervisor and employer, I haven't seen that. What I have seen is failure of management to have the tools and materials on site for the help so they can perform. People have varying abilities, but the vast majority will preform if you do.

I'm not sure how old you are, but I have seen big changes I the economy over the last 45 years. The generation of contractors I worked for as a young journeyman had a level playing field and a far greater margin than I did when I started in 85. After the Business Round Table's artificial construction recession to break the trade unions, the work volume recovered, but the price structure never did. Now, my son-in-law works harder than I ever did after being established for a few years and on much thinner margins. In this climate, you expect kids without any real experience and an overwhelming debt burden to go up against monopolies that will destroy them if they show any real promise?

The flat buying power since 1980 has put both parents of a family in the work force to maintain the standard of living. Now, since the Great Recession and the loss of over 50,000 manufacturing facilities, when they report job growth in the economy, it is usually less than 200,000 a month. At the turn of the 21st century, it took over 250,000 a month to keep up with population growth. Into this vast sea of unemployed, the US legally imports a million low wage earners annually in addition to the illegal immigrants.

Only 1 in 5 new businesses made it back when I started. I don't know what the rate is now, but I would be surprised if it is higher than 1 in 10.

What we need is a return to a reasonable trade policy and tax policy. Somehow we need to cut off the money to the whores in Congress. All the criminal activities of Wall Streeters and the multinational corporations should not be just a cost of doing business that they deduct from their measly tax bill. If corporations are people, they should be made to suffer capital punishment for their grievous misdeeds.

One would have to live in a hyperbaric chamber to support the current expansion on multimillionaire and billionaire power to the detriment of over 95% of the US population.


----------



## oldnovice

+1 Topa!


----------



## dbray45

I would say it is closer to 1:50 new businesses make it. New trade policies and tax breaks to new companies that make sense - hmmm - you are suggesting that our politicians actually do something to benefit OUR country instead of everyone else. That would be a whole new concept that hasn't been tried in years.

I don't think it will work (I am taking the good old liberal point of view). Lets face it, if there wasn't a crisis and the economy started to do well, what good are the people in power. The idea here is to create unrest, create division, create problems - just so that the politicians can come in, feed us a line of how they are going to fix it by telling us that 'those' people messed everything up, take away a few more of our rights and liberties, but not fix the problems.

I heard on the radio this morning that we need to rename "welfare" because it has a negative connotation to 'transitional income something' - that will fix everything. What a piece of tripe.

They don't want the problems fixed and anybody that does want to fix it WILL be put down. That is their power. My fear is that now that the IRS controls our money AND our healthcare, now the politicians have absolute control - and they will use it, they already have a history of it and there is no accountability.

The constitutional checks and balances that were in place have been compromised without any accountability or challenge.

And no, I am not an alarmist - this is a documented fact.


----------



## oldnovice

*Dbray*, the old line "we are from the government and we are here to help" comes to mind from your last post. Sometimes yes more time no is what I have observed.


----------



## dbray45

Most times, when a politician says that they want to "help" it will cost us dearly in money, prosperity, liberty, and way of life.

Other than the military, there are but a few things that the fed has done that actually did what it was supposed to do. Because of its mass, this is very understandable, by the time an idea gets to fruition, billions have been spent to just decide if it can be done and how. To actually do it is a whole different matter and it usually has taken a completely different direction from the original idea - it is the nature of the beast.

Lets look at GM - the govt opened up free trade to everyone. When GM was put into a position where their products cost more because they are taxed more and unions are milking them dry - the fed says they are going to bail them out. Instead of letting it go bankrupt so that all of the contracts could be renegotiated they shut down dealers that were paying GM dealership fees and revenue (putting millions out of work just because the owners were registered republicans) and gave the company's operations to the unions. None of this makes any kind of economic sense - just political sense.

When a president (Clinton) pushes the financial world, at tells them that everybody should be able to buy a house regardless of credit worthiness and the banking industry tells them that this is a bad idea and the administration still pushes it - you create a housing bubble, for a different administration but that's ok - it is their problem.

At one time, it was a federal policy that if the private sector did something, the federal government would not do it. Now, it seems to be the policy that if private sector does it, the government will either take it over or regulate it to its demise - then take it over and declares that it is because it is a private company that it failed - and now we must run it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

dbray45 *If as you say: I would start a company in a minute and do what I was educated to do. I wouldn't sit at home complaining about not finding a job* and *I would say it is closer to 1:50 new businesses make it.*

Then, there isn't really much hope for the next generation (20 somethings) still living at home, is there? Sounds like the days of working hard and improving yourself may really be getting to be a thing of the past, eh?

I did a job for an East Indian who left India for a job in Saudi, moved on the Europe when that ended and eventually came to the US and started a business. I asked him if he made the right choices? He said if he had known what is happening in the US, he would have stayed in Europe. Definitely not go back to India.


----------



## dbray45

Lets look at welfare - once you are on it you cannot get away from it. If go out and get a job over $12,000 a year, or something like that, you lose all of your benefits. To replace your standard of living, you need to go from $12,000 to something like $35-40,000. Well, that doesn't happen as a rule. There is no graduation, it is either all or nothing - and this is a help?

Nope, it locks you in to a life style you cannot get out of - so why should you?


----------



## dbray45

When I became unemployed, I did not apply for unemployment. When I decided that I was not getting a new job right away because of the then economy, and my money was running out--I DID START A COMPANY.

I had it for 13 years, changed its direction 4 times to accommodate changing times. It paid the bills, didn't live great but I was so under capitalized and made a few mistakes down the road that I made the problems that I had. When a pretty good job was offered to me, I took it - been there since.

Just because a business goes away doesn't mean that everything is lost, companies are bought and sold as well.


----------



## dbray45

I also know a few people that will start a company, get it going, milk the crap out of it, declare bankruptcy, turn around the next day and start another company. They don't care who they burn in the process.

This goes into the same stats as a closed business.

Many companies start out by trying to secure govt contracts. This can be trouble in many ways, they are a pain, they don't make decisions quickly, and they don't pay quickly. Many people don't know how to collect from the govt. and they default on their loans. Sucks but it is the way they do things. I learned the rules early on because the fed is in my backyard, so to speak. Marketing to the fed takes a long time and getting in there - longer. Did I mention the bidding process - a nightmare.


----------



## dbray45

All that being said - it was a whole lot better than sitting on my backside complaining about not getting a job - learned a lot and completely changed career paths to boot.


----------



## SCOTSMAN

Many people who take drugs not the big time crooks but ordinary people whop suffer from depression as we all do from time to time are simply desperately trying to self medicacte .I feel very sorry for poor people who take drugs or alcohol to brighten up an otherwise desperately poor life and a struggle from day to day.It's help most of them need not jail or prison.Just my opinion when I see poor people go to jail for being on drugs caught with just enough for themselves.Or imprisoned for having a little in their system. I have no sympathy for the big time crooks who get rich from drugs they ought to pay dearly for their crimes but it's all to easy to get poor despearate people onto drugs and keep them there. Alistair ps I don't take or never have taken drugs myself I don't even drink.


----------



## oldnovice

+1 SCOTSMAN, some people need help and other need punishment!


----------



## patcollins

Coming soon to a McDonalds near you

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2014/01/12/do-you-really-think-mcdonalds-will-be-paying-burger-flippers-15-per-hour/

Like I asked earlier, what is better employing 6 people at $7.50 an hour or 3 people at $15.00 an hour? is there any difference?

Anyone familiar with Sheetz gas stations? You can get "MTO" Made to Order food there, you have no interaction with a person when you order it, it is all done on touch screen, the machine prints your ticket and you go up front to pay for it and thats it.


----------



## dbray45

Excellent link - thanks


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## dbray45

Wonderful propaganda, I love it!

The facts are that increasing minimum wage resets (or already has) the cost of living to the new level.

This also reduces the people that were just keeping the heads above water to a level closer to minimum wage, creating a much larger poverty pool. The goal for these politicians is to create a two income society - All the people make $$ while the politicians make $$$$ - other people call this socialism.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## dbray45

In this country - the ability to increase your fortunes is directly proportionate to your abilities and your your work ethic - as long as you are increasing your fortunes without violating local, state and federal laws, you should be allowed/permitted and encouraged to make what ever you are able.

There is a fine line between fair and equitable taxation and punishment for excelling. We have put a serious distance between where we are and into that area to punish, even put down as bad - as evidenced above. It is now to the point of promoting and encouraging non performance and complacency instead of going out there and be the best you can be.

When you are publicly ridiculed for achieving and being the best that you can be, as the cartoon depicts, then we have gone down to a level that I will not strive for. I will continue to do the best I can - so that I can reach for my dreams, achieve, and make money, you are more than welcome to wallow around in your mud puddle and cry foul.

If you spent half the energy that you do in complaining about the wealthy toward achieving new goals for yourself - you would probably be right up there with them.


----------



## oldnovice

David, for the most part I have to agree with you! However, I believe that most people on this forum abhor the "rich" that have gotten rich by unethical yet still legal means. And, those tht use those means use their wealth to sway, and/or influence laws that benefit them over and above those that work their friggen ass off.

And, I for one, do not hold it against people like Eric Schmidt of Google who got a $12M bonus for his *work* for Google.

*However-------------------*
But I do resent Meg Whitman, CEO of HP, who keeps all her money out of reach of taxes with off shore accounts, hires illegals for her home, and spends $40M of her money to "buy" an election.

But I do resent companies like Apple, one of many large corporations, that keep profits out of reach of the IRS as most small companies do not have those resources.

But I do resent those like the hedge fund managers, as I don't consider what they are doing is work or, for that matter, of any benefit to the country as they are making money for the sake of making money. You might as well give them a printing press.


----------



## dbray45

The last I checked, the IRS has been going after the off shore accounts. Having been a small business owner and having paid a serious amount of my revenue to the tax man, I would have liked to have kept some of it.

The problem is that the mentality that is being generated is that ALL people that make ANY money are evil and therefore should be put down. It is a class warfare mentality. The people and companies that you site, if they are doing those things, generally as the say - it's all on a wheel - it all comes around. Sometimes in ways that you don't expect.

I have been deemed an evil and bad person because I want a fair retirement for my wife and I. I have watched people that sit on their a$$ and collect benefit after benefit, take home more than I do and then I listen to them cry and bellyache about how poor they are and how they are victims of oppression from those rich ba$tards. I am sick of it.

If those people are breaking the laws of our country, they, are no better than any other common criminal. You know, if Martha Stewart had not tried to save a few million dollars, she would not have lost billions and gone to jail. Things have a way of catching up to them in sometimes subtle ways as well. They tend to not have happy lives and loose a lot in their divorces - many things happen.

For me, I am happy, I have a tremendous marriage and a wonderful wife, my woodworking, my health - all is good. Those other people, they create their problems and they will pay in one way or another.


----------



## dbray45

To summarize above, who cares? What they are doing is between the law and them. It is not my position to judge them, even if I were to work with them or their products. I do not subscribe to the attitudes of the Ford family but I own a Ford (Henry Ford was very anti Jew).


----------



## dbray45

Just to be clear - when I say "you", it is the obligatory you or them. It is not meant to be personal or directed to a specific person. If I want to be specific, I will mention by name.

Thanks


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

David, That is the way it was about 40 years ago. Obviously you have not scammed by the likes of Merrill Lynch. There have been big changes. Martha Stewart was jailed for being a high profile woman while a 98 year old judge was brought out of retirement to dismiss a class action against Merrill Lynch. None of the criminal actions of Merrill Lynch or the other 15 of the largest US brokerage houses identified by Eliot Spitzer, NY Atty General, were prosecuted.

For recent shenanigans by Chase read this http://jimhightower.com/node/8247#.UvP3yGJdW9U For the most part, the 1% are those who have learned to game the system and own the whores in Congress that have changed the laws making it legal. The way Mitt Romney made his billions were illegal before 1980.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Topa +100

You nailed it to the wall!


----------



## oldnovice

*Topa +100* as that is what I was saying to … if you WORK for you deserve it!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Thanks for the vote of confidence guys. Ironically, today Thom Hartmann gave a brief review of the 80 year cycle of which we are in the depression phase. The leadership made the same stupid, greedy moves every time. Cut taxes excessively, leading to boom, followed by financial collapse and war. Bush did the same thing Harding did with the same results leading to the crash of 1929. Hartmann thinks Obama is continuing the course started by Bush and there will be further collapse. The fed can't continue to buy toxic assets forever with printed money. 80 years before that was the Panic of 1857 followed by the Civil War. 80 years prior was a Panic preceding the Revolutionary War. He said you can follow the cycle back into the British Empire.

A friend of mine once asked, "Why does every generation have to learn the hard way?" I don't know, but they certainly do! ;-((


----------



## dbray45

An the railroads owned Congress - or should I say that the members of Congress owned (as shareholders) the railroads in the late 1800s through the mid 1950s.

This has not changed. Question about Mitt - when he made his billions, was it legal?


----------



## dbray45

Topa - It is a lot more than buying toxic assets, it is also spending to keep people NOT working. The main problem in this country is that people are now conditioned to the government being their benefactor instead of being their own benefactor.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I'm not sure of the any specific criminal charges against Mitt and don't care to try to research it. I do know it has been reported he is one of the few actual cases of voter fraud in this country by his own admission. He used his son's basement as an address to vote against Teddy Kennedy when he was living in another sate, CA I believe.

Certainly the whole gang and his ilk starting with junk bond inventor in the 80s, his name escapes me right now, was illegal until the 80s. It is certainly highly unethical to scam investors using junk bonds that will never be repaid and multiple sources have stated how these enterprises are executed. It is detrimental to the US economy to the point that it should be considered treason. Raiding pension funds and other Wall Street scams will eventually cause the deaths of more Americans as the retirees chose between heat, food and medical care than foreign terrorists could ever hope to kill.

I do not believe we have seen the level devastation in the homeland as caused by this current crop of financial wizards since Sherman laid waste to a 60 mile wide swathe through Dixie to end the Civil War. Millions have lost any hope of recovery. There are 3 applicants for every job. This will eventually play out as a greater disaster than the Great Depression if we continue sending whores to Congress and allowing the Supreme Court to dictate rather than rule.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*It is a lot more than buying toxic assets, it is also spending to keep people NOT working.*

Facts do not support that statement. Corporate welfare is at least 100x if not 1000x the benefits paid to unemployed and working poor.


----------



## DrDirt

Feels like we need some oversight and evaluation on what 'public' servants are earning, and what we give as perks.

I mean really?! - the school district will give a 910K home loan at 2% for the new superintendant??
He is a school super, he shouldn't make more than the President of the USA.

This is the real reason education is so expensive, yet teachers still get a crap salary.


----------



## madts

Sounds like there is some kind of nepotism involved


----------



## oldnovice

And we wonder why our schools don't have enough money for the children.
Just think about how many kids could benefit with this money put into the schools *instead of his pocket*!


----------



## madts

Amen on that.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/opinion/making-college-pay.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140213&_r=0


----------



## rommy

American are more in top ten, America is number one country due to its citizen.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo

The 85 richest people on Earth now own 46% of its wealth

source


----------



## Texcaster

Capitalism as we know it for the oligarchy… privatize the profits, socialize the losses.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## Mahdeew

Fact#1: Get your facts straight.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/


----------



## oldnovice

.... *that's a fact Jack*!


----------



## Mahdeew

There is no way that someone earning $34 grand is in the top %1 in the USA. Yes, as the statement says, top 1% in the world. So, what about Germany, UK, Canada, and even Turkey?? We do have some problems here in the USA but nothing compared to India, China, the Bricks, Russia or Ukraine. Nonetheless, what is an alternative? You come up with the solution. At least we can vote, if we are smart enough to pick the right person instead of the tallest and most handsome or the best slick talker. At least for now, we have a choice.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Solution is simple. End corporate welfare known as free trade and restore the policies of post WWII America that not only built most resilient economic engine in the history of the world, but rebuilt Europe and Japan.

The middle class of he US used to be better off than most of the kings and queens of world history. WE can restore it, but I believe we have at least another 20 years of grief and greed before the masses have had enough.


----------



## Mahdeew

TopamaxSurvivor, totally agree with you. Always have to rebuild after a world war; not sure if anyone will be left to rebuild if we had one of them.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

We don't need a war to return to sane and stable economic policies.


----------



## Mahdeew

Very true. We need growth and sane and stable economic policies, however, unfortunately the whole world is experiencing some sort of stagflation. People are not happy with their life situation at this time. The only reason we have not seen long bread lines as it was in the case of Soviet Union after its collapse, is extended unemployment a food stamp.


----------



## oldnovice

*mrjinx007*, I don't feel the same way I guess as I am fairly content and retired after 40+ years in high tech.
Yes I certainly would like more money but then I would assume that most people would like that but that should not be used as any indicator of "unhappiness"!


----------



## Mahdeew

oldnovice, yes sir money has never brought happiness into my life. Having little money is fine, but having no money (no job) is very difficult for families with debt. I guess I was trying to point out that in order to have something like post WWII boom, the economy has to cooperate which creates demand for labor. They just revised the GDP today and it does not look good. So many collage graduates work in service industry like Starbucks instead of what they were educated to do because the demand is not there yet.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I would love to see my kids and grand kids see the same opportunities I had when I started my apprenticeship 45 years ago.


----------



## Mahdeew

TopamaxSurvivor,
I know what you mean, I have 2 kids in collage both studying nursing. One will graduate in Dec of this year and the other in 2 years. They were betting on us getting old.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The way things are headed, they will have to work for free if they want to help anyone ;-(( My mom is a retired RN.


----------



## Mahdeew

TopamaxSurvivor, very true. They may earn $200.000 a year but McDonalds happy meal may cost $100. The retires always get screwed due to inflation as fixed income can not keep up with it. But inflation is something we all should pray for as it is a lot less painful than outright depression. By the way, Dan'um Style, love you projects.


----------



## MarkTheFiddler

I have avoided this thread for the simple reason that I don't like to get caught in the middle of a shooting match where everyone's sites are trained on me. They are usually trained on me for good reason. I'm not swayed by people who believe what they are shoveling.

David is one of the shovelers. If everyone in this world had a never say die attitude like David, this world would be a better place. If every one in this world thought like David, well we would all just lay down and die if we ever came to the end of our usefulness to the ultra rich. Far better to do that than complain right David? When they were passing out the cool aide, just exactly how much did you drink?

When people open a sentence with actually or frequently use words like "bottom line" they are quite convinced that they are right and their audience is wrong.

Some if us Know a lot of people. We know people who go to Disney when they can't make a car payment. We know people who would rather stay in welfare than work.

Get a load of this idiot: had 3.4 million left over for retirement. He lived for Enron. He had power lines running through his dreams. Up until 15 years ago every major power construction build in this world was positively swimming in his technological contributions. He was still working at 85 because they wanted him to and he loved it. This guy consolidated his wealth into one pot. Do you know which one?

When he got back a tiny check that was the final liquidation of his fortune and pension, he said Thank God I gave most of it away before it fell apart.

Oh - here's another moron for you. His first job after college was for AT&T. He would bend an iron bar over his head if they asked him to because the Fool knew they would do the same for him. But, the big folk weren't getting rich enough. He still bent those bars for them when they started pulling back. He kept bending bars when AT&T outsourced their entire data processing shop. He kept bending those bars when the outsourcing firm became an off shoring firm. He kept bending bars when he had to train his friend's replacements even though his heart ached. He kept bending those bars when the thousands of people he had worked with become a group of 20. But he was weary. He got fired.

See I told you I knew some slackers. They are all completely lazy /good for nothing welfare grubbing dregs of society.

The ultra rich still have their money even after I lost half of mine. They protect their share and build upon it with a vengeance. When they can't build on it by making a profit in a strong economy, they'll just take our money instead. I don't know exactly when I became this cynical. It doesn't help that I went to the car dealerships and saw that these junky looking cars are priced at $25k.

If we are going to talk about wealth distribution and all you can say is the poor bring it on themselves and are just sucking this country dry, grow up. Feel something for someone else. Learn that you may speak the loudest sometimes but that the people who offer differing opinions in a kindly way aren't trying to see what you think. They are offering a kind way to purge some of that toxic cool aide out of your system without ripping your head off,

By the way the idiot and the fool in my stories are 2 of the best people I have ever known. I'm ready for the firing squad. I think my anger is passed but if it isn't, i'll step away till I can clear the head and be decent before posting another one like this.


----------



## Mahdeew

MarkTheFiddler, good observations… diversify, diversify, diversify, and get to know your neighbor if they are willing to get to know you.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## woodbutcherbynight

lol


----------



## Texcaster

The oligarch game plan, it's working.

http://www.upworthy.com/an-economist-with-2-minutes-and-a-marker-explains-the-greedy-selfish-things-some-rich-people-do


----------



## oldnovice

*Texcaster*, I have never looked it it that way but it appears that is true!
It's a lot like government governing by/with fear!


----------



## Mahdeew

We can take it all back if we refuse to elect the boob tube people they put in front of us; but it will never happen. The alternative is either too short, too ugly, too unknown or too incompatible with the media's perception and comfort. I am afraid its too late to think independently. Lets see whom they put in front of us to elect this time around; and lets see how many people just do that.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Might be time to cancel H1B? http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/unemployed-you-might-never-work-again/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&


----------



## oldnovice

*Topa*, I have to agree wth most of that. I never liked H1B as we were training people who in many cases went back to their home country and helped build competition for U.S. companies. And, how many of them took back trade secrets?
Additionally, companies that layoff people should retrain those people for other jobs or, at least, pay for retraining, like they do in Germany.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

On Friday, Thom Hartmann's show reported GE's U.S. profits for the last 6 years to be $37 billion. They paid zero income taxes. They received over $3 billion in tax credits and subsidies making their effective tax rate negative 9%.

Mean while, the last budget passed in the House will raise the taxes on a typical family of 4 by $2,000 annually while giving billionaires a $200,000 / tax cut.

A month or so ago, Hartmann reported the typical tax payer in the US pays $6 / year to support welfare and $6,000 /yr to support corporate welfare.


----------



## oldnovice

*Bob*, even if these numbers are exaggerated to some extent, this is totally despicable.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Bob and Hans +10… adjusted for inflation.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

That is what Hartmann reported.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I might add Jefferson said it is time to tax when individual wealth threatens the free state. The time is now.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Most of us, U.S. don't have diddley ;-) http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/02/01/rich-o-meter-20/

Little wonder the people will not vote to support maintaining infastructure such as roads, ect.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## EPJartisan

What can be the problem with this??

Koch brothers are working to instill financial fear into States that are actually successfully building wind and solar power for individuals to be free of both government and corporations. The Republican Politicians are supporting them in this. IN Arizona… the people WANT and can easily have solar power now, but that takes money from the Koch brothers.. so now there are extreme taxes and fees just to own or rent a solar panel system. Taxes and fees the common family can not afford.

The Koch brothers won't clean up the black dust that they refuse to put in safe containers that line the canals here in Chicago.. causing health problems for whole communities.

The Koch brothers have so many small investment businesses for Fracking for oil which is killing people because they shirk off Federal regulations through contract loopholes… and then threatening or bribing local authorities, hospitals, and family into silence. Toxic fracking refuse has been found in abandoned buildings in Pennsylvania. Whole families in Texas with permanent damages are convinced that their suffering is a good thing for America.

Koch brothers. like Monsanto, are vey intrenched in our government.. they and their oil cabal affiliates from ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council … from England) run constant scheme into the American public. "Get rid of the FDA" they cry.. "that limits small business growth".. get rid of the EPA.. it stops growth.. They constantly distract the voting populace by inventing new things to hate..

A few years ago it was "The new Prohibition" that the liberal government is trying to take away your rights to alcohol. Such as.. legislation to force all cars to have breath analyzers installed to start your car…. I had to look into this. Oklahoma and a Republican politician was tired of repeat DUI offenders and passed a law requiring all DUI offenders to have this installed in their vehicles. Several other states have adopted this.

The law requires mandates judges to require interlock devices for any DUI conviction where the driver's blood alcohol content is .15 or higher, even for first-time offenders. The interlock will be required for 18 months for first-time offenders; second-time offenders will be required to use an interlock for four years if their BAC exceeds .08. Any additional DUI convictions will result in the use of an interlock for five years.

This is not what ALEC does wants you to know…Berman & Co. is the guy who makes all the rules for doing business in the restaurants or taverns. HE controls the business and heavily lobbies the government on Alcohol and food.. and has ties with Monsanto in the FDA, under the guise of the American Beverage Institute. He alone keeps the wages of bar tenders and waitresses far below living wages. He also owns most of TGIF, Uno Pizza.. oh the list is HUGE and also invested in the tobacco industry. After his loss in fighting the anti-smoking campaign.. he created this to enrage the public against the government, feeding mistrust and discontent.

And yet, these same people are solidly against Marijuana legalization for the Millions in taxes it brings in, that they do not own or have control in.

So this "new Prohibition" is a law supported and pushed by Republicans, but re-branded as a liberal effort to use the government to take away our rights. heya re doing the same thing with guns, god and marriage, and Benghazi.. just feeding fear and anxiety when people need to wake up and realize….Wealthy and Popular Republicans do not care about you! Corporations do not care about you! Adn they are repeatedly snowing you to vote for them again and again.

How do the Republican politicians keep people convinced to re-ellect the same guys who do this crap?
America is falling apart because of pure ignorance and mis-information… feeding fear into a populace that is increasingly feeling like they have no say.. Well we do and we NEED to have our say.. and yet the Republicans are worried about Voter fraud and making it harder to vote them out… DUH!!!


----------



## DanYo




----------



## oldnovice

+1 Eric, you hit one out of the park.

I would like to see your opinion on Grover Norquist!


----------



## Buckethead

I followed Grover Norquist on twitter. I must say its has been a disappointment. Hillary too. Deadpan.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Buckethead

Don't eat at mcdonalds. Even in Denmark. Have you noticed the right wing momentum over in them there parts? Downright ornery.


----------



## oldnovice

*Buckethead*, true but their crime rate is very low, the have virtually no homeless, and much better than average health care!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

When Thom Hartmann was in Denmark he was talking to a wealthy businessman about the high taxes. The guy said he did not mind paying the taxes. When ask why not, he replied he did not want to be a rich man in a poor country. Attitudes about the good of the whole are a lot different over there. Their 1% do not seem to be trying to destroy the middle class in order to hoard it all for themselves.


----------



## Buckethead

I think the focus of the right in European countries is nationalism.

Personally, I find any system appealing except a totalitarian system. Fascists or communists talk a game of being about the people, but never fail to serve themselves.

I find that a couple Scandinavian countries have nice systems in place. They have a different set of circumstances to work within, and a much more unified culture.

In our own government corruption has become prolific IMO, and some blame capitalism, while others blame socialism. I blame the terrorists. They hate us for our freedom.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Jefferson said when individual wealth threatens the free state it is time to tax them. We, the US, are past that point.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*"...Jefferson said when individual wealth threatens the free state it is time to tax them. We, the US, are past that point…."*

Absolutely.

*"...I find that a couple Scandinavian countries have nice systems in place. They have a different set of circumstances to work within, and a much more unified culture…"*

Buckethead, that "...more unified culture…" did NOT happen by accident. It was taught and administered into existence. America in the 1950s and 1960s, was on track to accomplish this as well but was thrown off course by unfettered corporate capitalism/fascism.


----------



## Bonka

fascism;

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Capitalism;
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

I will take Capitalism over all of the other "isims" everytime.


----------



## HorizontalMike

Jerry, sorry but you missed the most important words in my statement… "...*unfettered corporate* capitalism/fascism…"

Without those two words my statement would be false. Please make a note of it. *;-)*

*ADJECTIVE: an adjective is a 'describing' word; the main syntactic role of which is to qualify a noun or noun phrase, giving more information about the object signified.*


----------



## Buckethead

Many confuse capitalism and fascism. Fascism is where the state merges with various corporations. (While cannibalizing others)

Guess what…. 

Never Forget™

I should add that I am a ruthless capitalist bordering on anarchism. (Full disclosure)


----------



## HorizontalMike

*"...Many confuse capitalism and fascism. Fascism is where the state merges with various corporations. (While cannibalizing others)..."*

Looks like this country is guilty as charged… unfortunately.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*Fascism is where the state merges with various corporations.*

The corporations now own the gov't. As one of the Koch brothers said, politicians are like actors; they read from a script. I'm going to write the script. The Kochs are members of the oligarchy. Back to Jefferson, tax the [email protected][email protected]$ back into civility.


----------



## oldnovice

+1 Topa


----------



## Buckethead

When I read Koch brothers rants, I get the feeling the ranter is a partisan. If you didn't know, Buffet and Soros are the ideological counterparts.

And ideology is not the game. It's about something else… And it isn't capitalism. It is using the state monopoly on the coercive use of violent force to gain economic, legal, geographical, and physical advantage, and even control.

So yes… It is the Koch bros. and their counterparts. It appears to me that quite a few in this thread tend to toe the party line. I would obliterate both parties, if it was in my power. I'll need help.

But if we keep voting for the team that promises to adhere more to our preferred ideology, we'll get different results… Right gang?

Oh… Support the Troops™!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Just because one of the Koch brothers publicly stated politicians are like actors; they read from a script, I'm going to write it does not make the reporter a left wing bigot.

Research the facts objectively. You will find both sides are screwing us, U.S.


----------



## harveysoriginals

I said to myself, when I joined this community, that I would not put anything political on here and you guys have beat me to it!
LOL!!!!! My wife was very surprised!
Having said that, AmericanWoodworker is pretty much spot on.
As for one of the comments previous to his that said that "opportunity doesn't exist in America anymore", i think I would argue that "motivation" seems to be the problem. The idea of "earning" a living or a "standard of living" seems to be repulsive to many! Of course, that is caused by many things ans I/we could probably talk for hours on end about it, but, for sure, some one that "wants" something bad enough will be innovative and find a way to make it happen. That's what those wealthy people did! My only concession to the comment is that the govt does indeed put so many regulations in the way, that it is very hard to get past it. But, it CAN be done! Anyway, I am very glad that this type of discussion can happen on here and glad to see that at least some of my thoughts are shared! Some not of course, but that is the American way!


----------



## HorizontalMike

Topa +10


----------



## Buckethead

Topa. If you read my post, you might find that we agree on the latest point you made. I do not absolve the Kochs from responsibility. I just like to make clear, whenever I speak about politics and/or economics (the real politics) that I don't accuse one party of something both are guilty of. Republicans are not for the rich and powerful. They are for making themselves rich and powerful, and that often includes serving the richer and adding to their power. Koch brothers come instantly to mind as that has been a talking point for years.

Democrats are for the little guy though. Like Chris Dodd. Remember him and Barney Frank (senate banking committee)? They bailed out Goldman Sachs, JPM, BaC, AIG, DeutschBank , RBS, MF Global and other primary dealers (as well as non primary dealers). Anyone remember MF Global… And their CEO at the time of their dubious collapse? Hint: his name starts with Jon Corzin, and ends with e. (Goldman Sachs alumni, former NJ governor, and Obama fundraiser extraordinaire) I think he'll be getting a pass.

Heck. President Obama is more Bush than GWB. So sure… Pile on the republicans. They are as corrupt as the democrats and deserve your disdain. Just don't absolve the other side of the same coin. The only difference is talking points, and talk is cheap.

The only contest is a contest for control, conquest, and largess. By any means necessary.

I would not have even bothered, but man… This thread seems to take a dim view of one side, while ignoring the rest of the picture.

Then we come to the "bootstraps" worldview from Harvey. You seem like a fine chap, so please don't take this personally, but the truly rich are not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. They inherit wealth and seek rents. There are exceptions. Some do innovate, like sawstop dood. Then once they accumulate wealth, they seek to monopolize markets via government coercion. Free market zealotry flies right out the window… I'll be darned.

I'm not talking about mr $10mm in assets. The Ophthalmologist, or the plumbing contractor who gave his life to a company he built… They are technically in the top one percent of earners, but not part of the oligarchy.

I'm talking about those with far larger assets than that. Those far better connected.

I believe it was a Rockefeller who once said that true wealth is not in ownership, but control.

Ours is a fascist state, whether we will admit it or not.

But there is good news! We can ask those who have moved our system ever closer to totalitarian fascism, to make it more fair by taxing themselves! This can work! Seriously!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Buckethead, yes we probably agree on most points. I used to be a Republican Party officer. I was totally disgusted by the corruption and total lack of ethical values.

As far as the Kochs are concerned. William F Buckley threw their old man out of the R party. He started the John Birch society. They have been a primary source of funding and strategy for 2 generations. The have done a very good job of waging war against the middle class. The Bircher's principles permeate the the R party today but they now call it Tea Bagging. The economic terrorist activities achieve the same results and the jihadists. It is a little more subtle but the disruptions are equally effective. (Hartmann recites this history on a regular basis.)

The grassroots movement to amend the Constitution to define "people" as natural born, not corporations and removing money from the Supreme Court's definition of free speech will eventually return the power base back to the people or spark another Civil War ;-(

Harvey, Opportunity will always exist at some level, but only those over 50 remember the America where a job, any job, was the key to upward momentum. Today, even a college degree guarantees nothing but student loan debt ;-( A job guarantees nothing but a spot among the working poor.


----------



## harveysoriginals

A great part of the problem is, and again we could talk for hours I bet Topamaxsurvivor, that a job IS the beginning to development or upward mobility! You can't start at the top! We are not born with abilities or leadership! Those traits are developed! As far as a "degree" is concerned, there are many majors offered that have no demand in society! Young people that want to get ahead need to think of training or education that society NEEDS!!!!!!! I consider myself somewhat of an artist so hate to say this but how many art history majors do we need today???? Some! For sure! But not a lot! I have read somewhere, that this is a very popular degree! So, there is a glut of young people who study this! Our country has a huge need for machinists, welders, plumbers,etc and yet it seems no one wants to do those things! Everyone wants the big houses and cars their parents have right now, rather than earning those things with the years of labor that were required of their parents to get those things! So, while I am now retired and not contributing nearly as much to this redistribution that I was in the past, I have to admit that I begrudge every penny that comes out because I know or feel that someone else is going to be able to spend it! I DON'T begrudge people that are better off than me! Rather I give them credit for being smarter, working harder, or being luckier than I was! 
In the meantime, the wife and I will continue to live within our means and try very hard not to ask for anything we didn't earn! I think both you and I will be better off that way!


----------



## oldnovice

*harveysoriginals* based on what you said about college degrees, what do these men have in common?

Bill Gates, $58
Steve Jobs, $5.7
Larry Ellison, $18.4
Michael Dell, $17.2 
Sir Richard Branson, $8.6
Dean Kamen, $unknown
Paul Allen, $18
Ralph Lauren, $3.6
Kirk Kerkorian, $18
None of these people have a college degree and the $ shown are in billions.

However, to some extent you are still correct! High schools have virtually stopped vocational training by dropping industrial education courses and trade schools are poo pooed, not only as a means to getting a good job, but also by society in general.


----------



## Buckethead

We're talking labor now. Labor will continue to be made obsolete. Building houses? Counting paper money at a branch location? Making burgers?

Automation will displace more and more labor. Those who own the means of production will continue to prosper, but let us suppose my comment about automation is true. What happens when 50% of the currently working labor force is displaced due to automation? 60%... 70%

I'm thinking there will be a heaping helpin of "useless eaters" that will need to be housed and fed, or otherwise "dealt with".

So, a paradigm shift between labor and capital is forthcoming. It is inevitable. Exactly what the new paradigm will be is less certain. I'm not liking the current trajectory.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*Buckethead: "...I'm thinking there will be a heaping helpin of "useless eaters" that will need to be housed and fed, or otherwise "dealt with"…."*

Keep dreaming…

ue="true">


----------



## Buckethead

I'm not sure I understand the response. I am sure you don't see cannibalism as a viable solution, and I don't think you're suggesting that I do, and I really don't think that is the most likely outcome. I see the more likely eventuality being another war, and casualties will be the ultimate goal of that war, although it will be billed as "They Hate Us For Our Freedom™". Shared Sacrifice.

Those dad-diddly-doggoned freedom hating evil doers. They even ruin a perfectly good batch of Soilent Green.


----------



## Bonka

Automation, someone has to design, build, distribute, install and maintain the devices.


----------



## HorizontalMike

*"... I see the more likely eventuality being another war, and casualties will be the ultimate goal of that war, although it will be billed as "They Hate Us For Our Freedom™"…"*


----------



## Buckethead

Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*Automation will displace more and more labor.*

Yes, it will. I remember one fellow years ago who said he couldn't wait for me to finish wiring a piece of equipment. I ask, "Why?" He said, "When you finish, my job will be gone."


----------



## bigblockyeti

There are many skilled labor works that simply can't be replaced at least for the next 100yrs. Police, Fire & EMS, ironworkers, millwrights, maintenance technicians, electricians, carpenters. While robots are replacing many repetitive task assembly jobs, the capability and built in intelligence to act independently (not to mention size and power requirements) is still the stuff of sci-fi movies. Sure it's being pursued, but progress is slow and hindered greatly by current available technology.


----------



## Buckethead

If you say so…
Computing power continues to expand at an exponential rate, and much of the automation framework already exists. It will simply take cost feasibility before we see implementation. And doods. There will be doods to design, manufacture and maintain the robots that will design, manufacture and maintain robots that design, manufacture and maintain everything else.

A hundred years? This is a blink of an eye. Those who lived to experience WWII were just 75 years beyond the civil war. Remember the Great Depression? We're talking advanced civilization vs Stone Age in that timeframe. Currently, we are right at that same timeframe in relation to WWII. Chronologically and technologically.

Not to mention that we will continue to witness increasing surplus labor supply, information ownership consolidation, and ownership of the means of production consolidation. My guess is saying it will take a century to reach 50% labor force displacement is overestimating the actual timeframe.

So a complete, global economic collapse could certainly extend that timeframe. I just hope books still exist if our devices cease to be useful.


----------



## harveysoriginals

Part of all of this is attitude and common sense as well as pride of a job well done! We (society) frown on anyone being better at something than everyone else is! In other words, everyone gets a trophy no matter who won! So, there is no excellence! Society begrudges those who have an inspiration and goals! That is part of why I am liking this LJ blog so much! I can learn from each one of you and get encouragement to get to the point where I have earned a compliment without it being so much B$. as I said before, I didn't anticipate any subjects like this on here, but I think it's good!


----------



## oldnovice

One of the issues that Germany has come to grips with is the obsolescence of a job and the eventual unemployement of that/those persons as companies must retrain obsoleted employees for new jobs. This is not an option, it is a requirement!


----------



## Texcaster

oldnovice, that sounds something like " Player Piano " by Kurt Vonnegut, 1952.


----------



## oldnovice

*Texcaster*, what do expect from Kurt Vonnegut, after all he is a third generation German and saw this coming a long time ago!


----------



## Buckethead

"I have told my sons that they are not under any circumstances to take part in massacres, and that the news of massacres of enemies is not to fill them with satisfaction or glee." 
"I have also told them not to work for companies which make massacre machinery, and to express contempt for people who think we need machinery like that."

A couple Vonnegut quotes for Memorial Day.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## madts

Well said Napoleon.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

First off we are not a democracy. In a democracy the voters would take others wealth for their own. 
I still do not understand equating the rich to evil. Most all of them earned their wealth and by doing so created jobs/wealth for others.
Is this the "To each his need" credo? My wealth is spent on too many socialist follies and it impacts my life in a negative manner. Let the many states figure it out and leave the federal government out of it.


----------



## oldnovice

In my ooinion, the ratio of CEO to worker is the most sickening number!


----------



## Bonka

"In my ooinion, the ratio of CEO to worker is the most sickening number!" 
Why is that? What should be done about it? How and who should change it?


----------



## oldnovice

The investors should seek more equity between the CEO compensation and the worker … that being said, it won't happen as long as the companies make money for the investor.


----------



## Bonka

That is the way it works. Each job has its worth. What one brings to the table is what determines the wage. 
Each job description has a value. If, as an example, a company paid a janitor $100,00/year, that would be ridiculous. That position would not generate that amount of cash flow. I an MBA, again an example, was paid the same 100k he would probably generate a profit for the company or he would be replaced.
It is doubtful that "the worker" has invested the time and money and achieve the experience, that a CEO has.
It should also be noted that the talent and extraordinary work of CEO's have afforded the worker a livelihood. If the worker does not like the salary disparity let him do as high earners have done.


----------



## Buckethead

I'm thinking someone drank the koolaid.

Landing a CEO gig is largely a matter of connections and BS factor. It isn't the dunces landing the gigs, granted, but neither is it the best, brightest minds. It's the best BS artists, and their relatives/friends.

Of course there are exceptions, but venture into a corporation. Watch the disfunction. It is a wonder to behold.


----------



## Bonka

BS does not make profits. I would disagree with you. You would have to give me examples of these folks. People have been conditioned to sneer at success. A dysfunctional business will not stay above water for long.
I still do not understand people who disdain success. I guess it easier to name call and make wide accusations that it is to accept that everything you have done has put you where you are. This of course does not include insanity, birth defects, et al.


----------



## Buckethead

CEOs don't make profits either. They may contribute. I would imagine it would need to be judged on a case by case scenario. Winning a CEO slot is largely dependent upon celebrity status. Also experience, such as having been a CEO previously. The stock price of the former company weighing heavily as a deciding factor.

You assume I disdain success, and I'm also going to guess that you assume me to be a leftist/collectivist. I am not.

I've been in the corporate world, and there is merit at the executive level. There is also a heap of fluff. Some of that borders on fraud.

I liken a CEO to a professional sports coach or GM. Much of the results of their contributions are achieved through the efforts of others. Very often to a degree which makes the coach all but superfluous.

How's about Jamie Dimon, or Lloyd Blankfein? Are they worth the extra duckets? Jon Corzine? Was he worth the extravagant salary?

These CEOs are in cahoots with the big government so many on the right purport to oppose. It has become an aristocratic system. Again, I'm not referring to the CEO who founded a plumbing fixture distributorship. I'm talking major corporation CEO. Huge difference. One is a patron, the other a predator.


----------



## Bonka

What CEO's are worth is up to the stockholders. A CEO cannot run a corporation alone and he/she must surround themselves with bright people. 
At present this administration has taken crony capitalism to new levels. Yes business will be in "cahoots" with government. That is why there are lobbyist's. I am not for that but that is the way it is.
So, how can it all be changed for the better? I don't know. I do know Utopian pursuits only leave more of a mess.
I feel we have too much Federal Government in our lives and it never lessens. 
I would like to see all of the long time government elected officials gone. I would also like to see it made impossible for government agencies to enact laws by merely printing them in the Federal Register. I would also like to see the 10th Amendment adhered to.
But we all want someone's Ox gored but not ours.
I will still take big business over big government any day.
No I do not think of you as a leftist. It seems we disagree and can discuss it in a rational manner without name calling a personal attacks.


----------



## oldnovice

If other countries have much lower CEO/worker ratios something is really wacko in the U.S.! Germany's economy is as good, if not humming better, than ours and there CEOs are compensated without being extravagant. Japan is similar why are U.S. so way out of line? It because of many of the previous comments by *Buckethead* are true in this country.


----------



## freddy1962

I agree with oldnovice and buckhead completely.


----------



## Bonka

So, what is to be done about CEO's compensation? Next we have actors and sports stars to worry about. Do we go after all "greed?" 
France and Germany have put caps/ratios on CEO compensation. This was done by the government. Should we do the same? Remember there are always unintended consequences.
It is my feeling that class war fare is a method of deflecting what is really causing the problem and whom by deflecting attention else where.


----------



## oldnovice

Turn it around! 
Legislation that *does not cap* CEO pay but rather makes the employee compensation an appropriate value, i.e. a different take on a minimum wage law.


----------



## Bonka

Forced minimum wages reduce jobs. This can be validated by a Web search. The Federal Government and to a great extent, state governments, do two things well, grow and take something at the point of a gun.
No answer yet to what should be done concerning CEO pay, etc. 
What is an employee's appropriate value? I always hear about a living wage. How much is that? How much is too much compensation? Who says what it all should be? Who enforces it?
Wage and price controls have never worked going back to the Romans.
If a CEO of a huge conglomerate takes a 50% pay cut and it is spread out equally among those, say making under $100k/yr., will that impact them in a significant way? A company with 10s of thousands of employees would only be able to hand out few dollars. How about profit sharing? That puts skin in the game for employees.
I still do not have any answers as to what should be done and who should do it.


----------



## oldnovice

You haven't made any suggestions either! Profit sharing is a step in the right direction.
I believe that greed rules in big business at the top levels in many companies and as long as the shareholders make their "penny" they don't care. 
Companies like the old HP were run by men who were not greedy and treated employees equitably and now, for some reason, those kind of men no longer exist or are far and few between.


----------



## Bonka

My suggestion is leave it alone. "Fairness" does not exist. No matter what happens there will be a group crying "Not Fair!"


----------



## DanYo

*"If a CEO gets paid an average of $7000 an hour, or 350 times his or her workers, it could be said that those running our corporations are more like slave owners than fair, contributing members of society. For example, the CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt has a total annual compensation of just under $101 million, which breaks down to about $48,548 per hour, or about $809 per minute. It isn't laziness that has caused worldwide poverty, it is the disenfranchisement of millions through the perpetuation of corporate greed."* ....


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

Dan'um, what is the solution?


----------



## oldnovice

It may not be fair and it is not illegal but it sure is unethical to put one self way, I mean really way, above others.


----------



## Bonka

How is it to be rectified to your standards. A lot of people howl about it but I have seen few who pose a solution.
To garner or set limits on a persons income is not fair and not legal in my judgment. 
It is still the desire of the anointed to drag everyone down to the same level of misery because misery loves company.


----------



## oldnovice

*Jerry*,

I don't feel that I am trying to drag everyone, or anyone down to my level of misery as I do not have any misery. I spent 40+ years in high tech working for IBM, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, and Agilent Technologies which all had CEOs that had equitable compensation.

I have no financial concerns as I am now retired and living very comfortably, but I am concerned about the state of those who do and, for the bigger picture, the state of the country as we are "killing off the middle class".

Do we, as a country, want to be perceived as a greedy country by the rest of the world? 
Or better yet, what is the end game if this inequity continues?


----------



## Bonka

Greed is like fair. Neither can really be defined. They are both terms used by whomever to demagogue another ideology. The USA has always been the most generous nation on Earth. Yet it seems that no matter how much a person, nation or person gives it is never enough and soon forgotten.
I really don't care if other nations perceive us as greedy. If the people would throw out their repressive governments things would change.
I do not, for the most part, believe in foreign aid due to the rulers taking most of it.
look at all of the people supposedly "helped" by hand outs that go one forever. this ensures an entitlement class that soon becomes a voting bloc for the givers.


----------



## Buckethead

I agree with Jerry about the words greed and fair. Even fair wages. These are very subjective notions.

Any authority given to any person or group to make such determinations will be subjective as well. Also prone to corruption.

The idea of utopia does not appeal to me either. ANY form of governance is an attempt towards utopia. ANY form of government will act unfairly, with those in power serving self interest first.

So a world devoid of government? It doesn't sound like utopia either. Maybe we need a bit of that now, anyway. A reset.

Capital won. It might not even matter anyway. Have a looksee.

http://www.peakprosperity.com/discussion/85753/coming-great-wealth-transfer


----------



## Bonka

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and give it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." - Frederic Bastiat, The Law


----------



## Buckethead

But it's legal.


----------



## oldnovice

Cursor in aeternum … !


----------



## HorizontalMike

Yep, "fair" and "legal" all get confused when we look at politics.


----------



## DrDirt

The CEO versus average salary numbers are contrived.

Sure they will use average pay or even minimum wage… but compare it to an INDIVIDUAL high billionaire like Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg.









Median CEO salary is actually 739K.

If I divide that 739 by the CLAIMED 475:1 in the above post - - would require that the average salary of workers in the US would be *1556 dollars/year… so using a typical 2000 hour year, that graph would lead one to believe that the AVERAGE US worker makes 78 cents/hour.
*
Obviously they are cooking the books.

I most appreciate topa and buckehead on this, with the realization that it is not a Republican thing.

Somehow while the dems claim to be 'for the people' it doesn't seem to actually work that way. The Dems lead the charge to remove vocational education and push "college Prep" curriculum only.

ANd they are not exactly just getting by eating raman noodles and sitting on lettuce crates in an alley.

Somehow her "impecabble credentials" <cough> got Chelsea Clinton a 600,000 dollar/year contract with NBC.
For on air time - it worked out to *27,000 dollars/minute*.

Politics left or right is all Nepotism, backroom dealing, and power/control.

Political Commentators have already been talking about "WHEN IT IS CHELSEA"S TURN TO RUN" for president. We have created a permanent ruling class.

Same with the Bush's - - they talk about Jeb, and now the next generation of Bushes (little George P Bush) are working through the ranks of state legislatures.

Those that believe THEY have representation in DC are fooling themselves.


----------



## oldnovice

*DrDirt*, comments sense prevails again! *Thanks!*


----------



## DrDirt

Thanks Hans - - it is just one of those things that prompts me to look a little deeper - whenever there are statistics thrown out like that showing Japan and other countries ratios in the 10 -20:1 range…. then the USA is 475 to one.

I have no trouble believing that we are certainly on the "worse end" of the scale …just not by a *factor of 40*.

Those numbers trigger my 'mmmm… wait a minute there' response.

It becomes like the traffic accident statistics when we stopped the 55 MPH national speed limit…

You could get some statistics that showed that there were 2 fatalities for the month of say February… and 3 the following year when the limit changed..
WHile lots of factors may be involved..maybe even all 3 killed in a 1 vehicle accident.

there are those with an agenda who will write a headline about "FATALITIES UP 50% with new speed limits" 
The statement is true… but the conclusion one can draw from the data is not.
Context is everything.


----------



## UncannyValleyWoods

Wow…is this thread still happening?

Leave it to right wingers to have the unfaltering ability to never alter their perverse view of the world.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## oldnovice

*UncannyValleyWoods*, I don't believe that there is a right or left viewpoint are being discussed, it is just the state of things as we perceive them from either side of the of the table!


----------



## DanYo




----------



## bobkberg

That does not concern me nearly as much as accomplishing what I can toward my own goals.

Bob


----------



## DanYo

If it is on the internet in a blog it must be the truth…


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The ratio of CEO to typical worker really depends on the % of total CEO compensation under consideration. Actually salary is a very small part of upper management and CEO compensation packages. Most corporations go to great lengths to bury the actual amounts in the "books" so the shareholders will never find the real numbers, no matter how hard they try.

When I was a active investor, I used to just vote with the board of directors. Eventually, when I started to pay a little bit of attention to the annual meeting issues, I normally voted against them and with or for any reformers. There were quite a few efforts to curb the upward trend by share holders in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Most of the votes were declared as merely advisory by the boards of the companies and they ignored the share holders efforts. A big part of the problem stemmed from institutional investors who were not willing to rock the boat and generally remained neutral rather than side with individual share holders.

I speak from personal experience, not stats reported by someone with a point to push. I remember one instance where annual CEO package lowered my annual dividend by 5%. I could not determined what the rest of upper management was taking from the shareholders.

I wondered why there was no political will to correct the scams in today's markets and business world. I believe the answer lies in the small number of people who see the direct affects of these shenanigans on themselves personally. Everyone is affected, but the vast majority are totally ignorant and never have a clue. There is a large number who are affected and see it in their 401Ks and IRAs, but do not understand what is happening and really have very little access to the information to figure it out if they cared enough to make the effort or had the knowledge to understand it. There are a very few who see swings in their portfolios, but have such a high net worth, they pay little attention to it as it generally has no serious impact on them.

Finally, there is a small group of us, U.S., maybe 5 or 10%, who have or had significant holdings who have been or are being affected by market and corporate corruption. That brings us back to the question as to why nothing is ever really done about it. The 5 to 10% do not have enough political clout to demand and get reforms. We do not have the resources to buy Congress. Any one of the top 10 hedge fund managers could easily buy an entire Congressional election not to mention the normal contingent of notorious Congressional buyers.


----------



## DrDirt

Just because they have a tagline that "the truth shall set you free" doesn't make it the truth (whole truth). Just like sex in the missionary position doesn't make me the Pope either.

No argument that there is rampant corruption… is it really *10 times *worse than Mexico? One using critical thinking…. might conclude that if it were actually that bad… immigration would be southward not North.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

This probably means harder times for woodworkers making custom and speculative handmade items.

Despite a 6% lower unemployment rate, (Note: only 66% of the US work force is employed) "It's really hard to see in our business today that it's gotten any better… We've reached a point where it's not getting any better but it's not getting any worse - at least for the middle (class) and down," Bill Simon, Wal-mart CEO told Reuters news service recently.

In other news, even high end retailers report seeing a diminishing customer base.

The middle class is screwed! http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/08/22/the-lost-decade-of-the-middle-class/

The numbers extended out to 2014 for 2000 show 10% decline in income for middle class in real terms. The price of beef, coffee, gas, ........... continue their upward trends.


----------



## DrDirt

Topa - I think you just nailed what certainly I see out there.

Everyone talks about the 6.1% rate, the 17000close of the DOW, and how we are recovering, but I still see people in their 40's serving at mcDonalds, I don't see a lot of new cars around, nor 'sold' signs on houses and certainly no new construction (residential nor commercial).... things are stagnant.

Look at the Bacon prices… cheapo Oscar meyer is 5.99 at the Krogers. 6 bucks a pound for bacon… yet pork loin chops are 2.77.


----------



## HorizontalMike

The rich have the money to be a "customer/consumer" of goods. The poor under/un-employed do not.

Have a good time rich 1%rs. Just sit at home and toss all that paper money in the air and leap for joy. You broke the system, and YOU won. Too bad no one has any money to spend at YOUR business. Only YOU, the 1%rs can fix this, THIS time. Get off your ass and actually create jobs.


----------



## DrDirt

An entry ticket to the 1% starts with an annual income of about $394,000 (says Berkeley's Emmanuel Saez)

If you got half a mil, would you plan for your future, ensure your own retirement… or start a business?

If you were to perhaps go pro… how far down the line is it (time wise) before you start hiring people? Especially full time with benefits+health+liability insurance+self employment taxes+EPA (finishing materials) OSHA hoods and fans…tax id numbers to start quarterly or monthly tax filings.. on and on and on..

I certainly don't have the answers, but looking around today, I find it hard to imagine people wanting to start a sizable business here - - other than a solo operation, or perhaps a restaurant.

certainly not a new manufacturing company.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The few employees I had over the years were paid union wages complete with "Especially full time with benefits+health+liability insurance+self employment taxes+EPA (finishing materials) OSHA hoods and fans…tax id numbers to start quarterly or monthly tax filings.. on and on and on.." and endless safety issues and risks not to mention the liabilities associated with the customers facilities and operations. I always found business people to the the biggest detriment to my success, not the employees I had.

At the turn of the 21st century, I told everyone employment was dying in the US. The Dot Com boom was just ending and everyone thought I was nuts. Today, only 2/3 of the US workforce is employed. College grads flip burgers and would pump gas, but we have self serve.

People who start business other than solo or very small shops are looking to get a cash flow going and sell out.

I believe the answers are quite simple. Restore the principles laid out by Adam Smith and Alexander Hamilton over 200 years ago. They served us very well until 1980 when Laugher convinced the Reagan Administration he had reinvented economics and they repealed the post-Depression regulations that had stabilized and rebuilt the economy since WWII.


----------



## DrDirt

I think the 80's more represented foreign competition coming on strong.

Our post WWII success, were a result of being the worlds producer of nearly everything as Europe and Japan rebuilt.

Then the 80's were the takeover of the Auto industry by Honda and Toyota…. cheap cars with good reliability, coinciding with the late 70's gas lines.
Followed by consumer electronics…offshoring really took off in under Bush the elder and CLinton when the impacts of China Favored nation status and NAFTA drove industry off shore.

the 70's and 80's were about foreign compeitioin (Toyota, Honda, Suzuki,Yamaha, Kawasaki, Panasonic, Sony)
Magnavox died while everyone got "sony - - the one and only" Trinitrons.
The 90s we went for "we can't beat them - lets join them" and move all of the production of the American brands to low wage countries.

I think the global changes in competition are independent of Art Laffer.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

In 1980, we were the world's manufacturing floor and the world's creditor. Today, were are the world's debtor, the world's importer of finished product, and fast becoming a top exporter of raw materials. That translates into the only nation in world history to self liquidate our prosperity. Without free, open access to the US market, the world's competitors would be a moot point.

Art Laugher is the architect of the American economic suicide plan.


----------



## bigblockyeti

I always thought Ohio was a little chilly. Somewhere between Mexico and Columbia is looking more attractive everyday. In 10 years I'll be able to better provide for my family down there anyway.


----------



## DrDirt

True the trickle down has really been trickle up poverty….

I think the Laffer Curve concept is correct - what is debateable is what level of taxation yields maximum revenue to the government.

The Curve (rightly I think) shows that if taxes are 0% the government collects nothing.
If taxes are 100% nobody would work for free, so the government collects nothing.

Then as you progress in taxation from 0 to 1, 2, 5, and 10%.... you would linearly collect more in revenue is true (no real 'burden' or incentive to cheat is insignificant).

But there is a peak. but that peak is hotly debated.

Looking at the arguments both left (who say 60-70 as a top rate) and the right who want 25-30% as top.

All seem to agree that once taxation crosses 50% - - behaviours change, there is a mental break when the government takes more than half your earnings.

That is just on the federal side, if you live in California, and pay 12.3% Income +a sales tax BASE RATE of 7.5% but totals 10% sales tax with locality collection…..

So you pay current top rate federally of 29% for 400K and up (but 26.6% of the amount OVER 406750)

But assume you make 400K…so then you pay 29% federal + 7.65% for SS/medicare + 12.3% state +10% on everything you buy = 59%

so 29+7.65+12.3+10=59% in "taxes".

At a new federal income rate of 50% (been proposed), would make your total tax bill 80% or your earnings go to taxes.

I understand I have left out itemized deductions/child and dependents however, That level doesn't work either.

There has never been a 90+% tax rate paid….even though it was on the books until Kennedy lowered it in '61.

We had a balanced budget at Clinton Tax Rates…but Today that would require spending cuts.


----------



## Buckethead

What the laffer curve fails to account for are loopholes and wealth. There are means to preserve and increase capital sans taxation, which favor those who have means. I also think you missed the mark on the trickle up poverty comment as well. While poverty has reached into what might have become the middle and upper middle classes, those who enjoy a seat (and their proxies/insiders) at the Fed's discount window have fared quite well, as have those who played equities from their lows.

This is to say that the very rich have done amazingly well while the middle class has endured a decrease in lifestyle. To boil it down just a bit further: newly created currency did not introduce new wealth, value or prosperity, but it has served to further divide real wealth and distribute it amongst those with first access to said new, hot money.

I am a capitalist. (Full disclosure)


----------



## DrDirt

Bucket - agree completely the rich have done well, but the middle class is falling.
Median household incomes have dropped ~10% from nearly 55K to now 50K. WHile the rich have moved up the middle is falling, and that is exacerbated by REAL inflation.

Reported inflation is still 2-3%, but if you look at the real household spend…. electricity, gasoline, and groceries have skyrocketed. (and food and energy are excluded from inflation).
They do include durable goods… so the cost of a 25 cubic foot refrigerator coming from Korea (Samsung or LG) is equal or lower than the GE or Frigidaire in price…. so they report *"no inflation in durable goods"* even though those jobs are now gone from the USA. Cheap imports are lowering the 'measured inflation'.

Point in previous comment is that there are those that think that if we went after "Fair Share" arguments, based on how great things were post WW2 when the top tax rate was over 90% are missing much of what you describe with the new currency, hot money…. and I point more to offshoring.

I think tax policy is a small issue compared to a solid lack of jobs and record numbers of people on assistance.

There was a surplus under Clinton tax levels… so 90% should not be a goal. If people have decent jobs and are paying INTO the system instead of needing assistance and Snap cards to survive - - the "Revenue" issues become pretty small.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Laugher economics fail to consider the stabilizing affects of the lack of excessive speculative capital in the markets has on the economy. That capital does not necessarily flow directly to the government in the form of taxes. Rather than pay taxes, most of us, U.S., will expand the business or improve the pay of employees. This activity exponentially increases the economy, the growth of middle class, living wage jobs, and the tax base.

The U.S. currently generates nearly 50% of the world's economic activity and will for the foreseeable future. Our policies can dictate the shape of the future. Allowing the oligarchy to continue their destructive agenda will eventually turn us, U.S., into a third world country. The bottom-line is the ignorant, greedy [email protected]@rd$ are cutting their own prodigy's throats.

It is really too bad we do not have a leader that amounts to a pimple on one of the founding father's rear end. Our version of the American Taliban has turned Congress into little more than a dysfunctional disaster. As Jefferson said, when excessive private capital threatens the existence of the free sate, it is time to tax the greedy [email protected]@rd$.


----------



## DrDirt

Jeffersons time didn't ever have a 61,000 page taxcode….. so tax rates could/did have much more of a 1:1 impact.

There was no global implications for production then…your factory or mill or farm survived or didn't.

There was no EPA, DOE, DOT, HHS, etc. There was true cause and effect.

Today making changes is like trying to nail jello to a wall. the system has gotten so massive, that pressure in one are doesn't affect change.. the system just oozes around the new obstacle.

It is only the little guy that has to abide by the rules and pay the taxes.

The big dogs… like GE - - - pay nothing.


----------



## Bonka

Business's do not pay takes. The taxes are embedded in the price of the product they sell. If businesses did not pay taxes their products would be less expensive.
Do not say that they would keep the extra profit. This is a Capitalist society. Someone would blink and lower their prices and others would have to follow to stay competitive.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Jeffersons time didn t ever have a 61,000 page taxcode….. so tax rates could/did have much more of a 1:1 impact.
> 
> There was no global implications for production then…your factory or mill or farm survived or didn t.


The principles expounded Jefferson, Hamilton, Adam Smith, et al, are timeless. Truly a unique Golden Age of thinking. We will be lucky to get one leader of that caliber. There will never be another group who could come close to writing our Constitution or laying the ground work for our economic system.

Quite the contrary, global issues caused us, U.S., to come into existence. Washington nearly had to be inaugurated in an English made suit as it had been illegal to produce them in the colonies.

Nothing has really changed in the last 200 plus years. The cycle continues and every generation has to learn the hard way. The issues we are experiencing today happened in the 1920s. The response to that was stabilization of the economy that lasted until 1980. The economic response to abandoning those principles has been one disaster after another starting with the Savings and Loans in 1986.

The big guys will play by the rules again when there is a grass roots movement that demands it, but we have to have considerably more deterioration to trigger it. As the baby boomers retire, there no one left in the workforce who remembers the single wage earner family with a reasonable expectation of a secure retirement.

There was genuine concern that U.S. capitalism would be voted out of existence in response to the last Great Depression. Let's hope they only tax the [email protected][email protected]$ into submission again rather than destroy the system.


----------



## DrDirt

Agree mostly Gerry - - but if the taxes were as easy to pass on as you say… then the GE's of the world wouldn't be so vested in gaming the system.

As it is currently - Yes all taxes are passed along… but GE gets to be more profitable by not paying taxes in the first place, and having Equal pricing to its competitors.

So the competition to the big dog - - has to accept a lower profit margin to be price competitive with the megacorp that has bought it's tax loopholes.


----------



## Bonka

Sure businesses will game the system to lower their taxes. They can then sell their products at a lower price.
Crony Capitalism enables this. Do something for a political party, person or other government Nabob and breaks are sent your way.
I feel that businesses should not be taxed. That would generate all manner of howls from the masses.
Too few have read "The Fair Tax" book. All of the negative remarks I have read or heard are either lies or from people who have not read it.
Taking taxation away from politicians reduces their power too much for most of them to be in favor of simplification of the tax code.


----------



## craftsman on the lake

China owns 7% of the US debt… the rest is in house. SS and businesses.


----------



## Buckethead

Topo makes some good points. I would add that speculative capital would not be reduced by higher income taxation, or capital gains taxation. High taxation simply encourages re-investment of capital. It stays in the economy, rather than being stored as cash or commodity. It can be, and is used for speculation, as well as higher wages.

As far as debt, the US need only print new (fiat) currency to satisfy any debt. One of the many benefits of being the world reserve currency. (Coupled with the most powerful military) (QE was actually a form of default, and a breach of unwritten contract with the global elite and among governments… New dollars still serve as a claim on global resources)

As for greedy bastards, Elvis has left the building. Globalization has led to expatriation of capital, and wealth holders have hedged their bets globally. (Effectively subsidized by hot new money and US military expenditure)

China and Russia along with others, have a pact to trade in their own currencies. The US cannot allow this to happen. If the petrodollar/USD is subverted, look for global calamity. The US no likey when the power of money is relegated to a paper tiger. (Wealthy people understand this)

So unions. Yeah… That ship done sailt.


----------



## Bonka

I do not follow the reasoning of " High taxation simply encourages re-investment of capital." 
Higher taxation takes money from wage earners pockets. It also allows government to grow. This in turn takes more taxes to feed it as it takes away freedoms and quality of life.
The government can and is printing fiat money. It is worth less and is inflationary. Inflation is not measured correctly when they leave out food and energy to name a couple.
Money for the most part is not stored as cash. It is invested. Investing allows company's to grow and add jobs above all else.
I have yet to have anyone explain greed. If a man works and make huge amounts of money is that greed?
To me the person who does not work and takes money from him to live is greedy.


----------



## patcollins

One common theme that I see is that most people think if someone with a bunch of money has less money that means that they will have more. I have not seen a single argument that can convince me that this would be the case.


----------



## Buckethead

Gerald, high taxation does indeed serve as an incentive to reinvest rather than take profits or capital gains.

If I earn a million dollars in profit, taxed at 90%, I would legally yield a hundred grand. If I reinvest that money within my business, or in some other business or financial instrument, my million dollars can appreciate, stay mine, and hope for a more favorable tax climate in the future, while spending "company money" on lifestyle to the degree allowed. (Business lunches, corporate vehicles, wardrobe allowances, working vacations, etc.)

I hope I don't come off as advocating for high taxes. I'm a lunatic anarchist for crying out loud. I was brought here by the sad realization that power corrupts, and we've been through the full cycle. Time to reset, in my opinion.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

<


> I would add that speculative capital would not be reduced by higher income taxation, or capital gains taxation. High taxation simply encourages re-investment of capital. It stays in the economy, rather than being stored as cash or commodity. It can be, and is used for speculation, as well as higher wages.
> 
> - Buckethead


Higher taxation does result in less speculation as evidenced from the 30s until the 80s. It really doesn't have to be 90%, anything over about 50-55% will do the job. The income tax is progressive, so the highest rates were in the 70 to 90% range until Regan lowered the top rate down in the 30% range. One of the contractors I worked for during the 70s used to go see his accountant just before Christmas. In those days, I did not really understand why or how George could be so generous with his Christmas bonuses. With 90% going to the government, it was easy to reward his employees he wanted to keep or make investments to expand the business.

My uncle knew the Albertsons of Emmett, ID. Joe Albertson established the Albertson's grocery chain through out the west. My uncle told me he didn't really intend or want to grow as big as it did, but may as well grow the business as give 90% of the profit to the gov't. That is precisely what he did; reinvest to grow rather than give up 90
% of the profits.

Today, the profit would be only taxed at about 35%. It is much easier to take 65% of the profit and speculate than give 90% to the gov't and play with the remaining 10%. An additional benefit of speculating today is the 15% capital gains tax. Any fool that works for a living pays 6.25% FICA + 35% income tax ;-( That is over 40% off the top to the feds.



> One common theme that I see is that most people think if someone with a bunch of money has less money that means that they will have more. I have not seen a single argument that can convince me that this would be the case.
> 
> - patcollins


I believe you may be reading something between the lines that isn't really the intent. Taxing high incomes doesn't necessarily give anyone more; however, the stabilizing effect of controlling excessive spending on politicians and speculation in the markets does make nearly all of us better off.


----------



## Buckethead

One need not remove profits from a specific corporation to use it for speculation.


----------



## patcollins

*I believe you may be reading something between the lines that isn't really the intent. Taxing high incomes doesn't necessarily give anyone more; however, the stabilizing effect of controlling excessive spending on politicians and speculation in the markets does make nearly all of us better off.*

Not quite true, I make a bit more than the FICA cap and after I itemize my return am only in the 28% bracket, I happen to be single. Most people don't pay anywhere near this.

*I believe you may be reading something between the lines that isn't really the intent. Taxing high incomes doesn't necessarily give anyone more; however, the stabilizing effect of controlling excessive spending on politicians and speculation in the markets does make nearly all of us better off.*

Actually I think alot of people think that way. The way to get money out of politics is to stop making it about money. I think higher and higher taxes would make money even more of a factor in elections than it is now because even more would be at stake.

Oh heck, I just saw that Quote feature in the bottom right, that is new to me, haven't been around much lately.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Pat, I believe the level of wealth under discussion that is destructive to the economy and a threat to the free state is far beyond being subject to FICA. I only mentioned FICA to illustrate the disparity in levels of taxation between us poor folk and what the billionaires pay on dividends and capital gains.

There probably are people out there who believe they will be better off if the higher incomes are taxed higher. I was referring to those commenting in this discussion.

There are 2 ways to get money out of politics. One is a Constitutional Amendment. There are efforts in the states with an initiative process to send that to the state legislatures to get it done. The other is to tax the oligarchs to the point they cannot afford to buy politicians, but that is a long shot, eh? ;-)

I remember those days of the annual raise at the end of the year for a few weeks. I am happy to report I am free of FICA ;-)) Retirement income is unearned and reports with a 1099 ;-))


----------



## Buckethead

Looking for solutions within a corrupt system. I'm praying for you!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Looking for solutions within a corrupt system. I m praying for you!
> 
> - Buckethead


;-)) And that is only the start! ;-))


----------



## Bonka

I still do not understand wanting to tax "The Oligarchs." It appears to me it is the old saw that misery loves company. It still seems, to me, that it is forgotten that more money grows government. Pure evil exists in big governments as they become unanswerable to anyone. At present we have an Attorney General that is a good example of that. 
High taxes take away our freedoms. They increase the cost of goods and services and reduce our competiveness in the open market.


----------



## oldnovice

I my opinion, I believe that we need a fair and equitable taxation system and a congress that spends the collected money wisely. We have neither of these right now. Congress has way too much freedom as to how it spends money in many cases, down right stupid and definitely not equitably.

Corporations need to pay their fair share just as the middle class. Tax on gross income would be a good start.

*In other words, utopia!*


----------



## Bonka

Oldnovice;
What is "A Fair Share?" Once again I will repeat, businesses, corporations, companies, et al, do not pay taxes. The purchaser's of their products do.
We already have the highest tax on business, @ 35%, in the developed world. We, the purchasers pay it, each time we buy something.
We have yet to have a congress that spends money wisely and I doubt we ever will. Dollars spent by them are perceived as votes for them.
Read the "Fair Tax" book. No it is not perfect but it is better than thousands of pages of tax code we have now.


----------



## bigblockyeti

"Tax on gross income would be a good start."

I couldn't agree more, it's way to easy for corporations to have their net income equal 0 if that's what they want it to reflect, regardless of what their gross income and expenses are.


----------



## Buckethead

Income taxation is slavery.

We seem to have a group that thinks taxing oligarchs is the answer (politely asking oligarchs to tax themselves), while the others think there is no oligarchy.

Heaven help us.


----------



## Bonka

The money is not the governments. People earn it. The government appears to believe all money is theirs and they will let you keep some of it.
People rage against "The Oligarchy." It is the government that needs to feel our rage at the ballot box, but, the free riders want more of your money and the politicians will trade largesse for votes. America and the world have
been conditioned to damn the rich when the rich, for the most part, provide what we have by growing business.
What do you want? Radical Egalitarianism?


----------



## Buckethead

The government and the oligarchy have merged. They are one. Sure, there is still infighting for control of the largess, but make no mistake. The ones controlling tax policy are the ones with the money, and the ones who create currency.

The whole left/right squabble is a mere distraction.

There is no ideology other than economics.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

We no longer have a capitalist free market economy. About 6 multinational corporations control pretty much everything in the market place. That, by definition is an oligarchy.

The taxation of the oligarchy I speak of is not necessarily just for the purpose of raising revenue. Stabilization of the economic structure is the number one goal.

It really maters little at what level the taxes on business are collected for the purpose of raising revenue for gov't operations. If they are not collected at the corporate level, they will be collected when dividends (if any) paid to share holders. I believe most corporate taxes are now collected at a lower rate paid by upper management. They take the majority of corporate profits and structure the payments to minimize tax liability.

The rich do not provide jobs. Labor makes them rich. Bill Gates did not start Microsoft and hire thousands of employees because he had billions to burn. He hired thousands of people who who made him billions of dollars.


----------



## Bonka

A corporation does not pay taxes. You do when you buy their product as the tax is embedded in the price. Big government it the enemy they can take things at the point of a gun.
The rich do provide jobs. They took the risk of starting a business. If a business succeeds then jobs are provided.
Starting a business is not to provide jobs it is to make money for the person(s) with the guts to lay it on the line and risk capital and put in long hours to succeed.
The thousands of people Bill Gates hired would not have their jobs had he not started a business. What is wrong with anyone being rich.> I'll take rich any day.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

There is nothing wrong with being rich. You are right, I did not start my business for the purpose of hiring employees. It is really small business owners who carry the tax burden for us, U.S. The working poor do not make enough to pay anything but FICA and sales taxes. The rich have attorneys and accountants operating their scams. The small business owner pays 12.% off the top for FICA. Add in another 30% for income tax. Throw in State and local taxes and you are easily over 50%. Trust me, I have the cancelled checks to prove it. I'm not complaining; those tax dollars went to support the infrastructure that facilitated my operations. What I see happening today is excessive greed unwilling to support structure that propagates a thriving economy.


----------



## Bonka

The "Excessive Greed" I see is the Federal Government. The rich hiring attorneys and accountants are not operating scams. There are thousands of pages of tax code that allow taxes to be deducted. Smart people want to keep their money.
Money taken by the government, for the most part, would do all of us more good if we spent/invested it.
I still see people believing businesses pay taxes. They don't you pay their taxes you do by purchasing their goods and services. I feel businesses should not pay taxes. It would make them more competitive on the world market and provide cheaper products here at home.
The economically ignorant would jump up and down if that were to happen and the opportunistic politicians would be in the midst to get elected or keep office.


----------



## patcollins

> We no longer have a capitalist free market economy. About 6 multinational corporations control pretty much everything in the market place. That, by definition is an oligarchy.


I am not sure why people think this is new, it was how things were when the US was founded and it was the case long before the US was founded.

In colonial days it was the Dutch East India company that controlled damn near everything, the company actually still exists btw. Roll back several hundred years and it was European royalty, a few more hundreds of years and it was the Roman Catholic church. We may actually have more diverse group in control today because no company today controls as much wealth as Standard Oil or the Dutch East India company did in their hay days.

That is pretty much how the world works, always has and always will.


----------



## RobS888

> First off we are not a democracy. In a democracy the voters would take others wealth for their own.
> I still do not understand equating the rich to evil. Most all of them earned their wealth and by doing so created jobs/wealth for others.
> Is this the "To each his need" credo? My wealth is spent on too many socialist follies and it impacts my life in a negative manner. Let the many states figure it out and leave the federal government out of it.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


We are definitely a democracy. A republic is a form of democracy. Like a human is a primate.


----------



## patcollins

> We are definitely a democracy. A republic is a form of democracy. Like a human is a primate.
> 
> - RobS888


In the strict interpretation we are not, we are a democratic republic.

In a democracy everyone votes on everything, that would be a logistics nightmare today, 240 years ago it would have been impossible.

So we elect people to represent us, unfortunately these people some how think they are beholden to political partys, donors etc ahead of voters. It is really our own fault, while the generic "congress" has a horrible approval rating, nobody seems to think it is their guy that is bad. People vote on name recognition, am arbitrary party after the candidates name, personality, and even attractiveness before they consider if that person really represents them.


----------



## Bonka

In a democracy everyone votes and the object voted on passes that has the most votes. It would not take long before voters would vote themselves a good life and "Break the Bank" so to speak. They would vote to take other's money etc.
Democracy was feared in this country and the term was used in its true meaning. The term was used correctly in this country but the real meaning faded out in FDR's time. Today the USA is often called a Democracy. In fact it is a Republic with a Constitution and a representative form of government.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Thom Hartmann makes a really good case for our current situation being a constitutional monarchy with the monarchs being the 9 members of the Supreme Court. He lays the historical time line of the power grab beginning shortly after the republic was founded.


----------



## RobS888

A pure democracy has everyone voting on what concerns them. We have a representative form of democracy. I read that Republic meant no king.

I believe I read that the first USA tried a pure democratic approach and after what two years and 7 presidents reformed to a representative democracy.

There are several types of democracy, saying we are not a democracy is myopic.

Next you'll tell me America and USA are the same.

I'm not looking to fight it just annoys me when people say we are not a democracy.

I don't know who Thom Hartmann is, but SCOTUS aren't monarchs. A senator filibustering is the closest we have to a single individual deciding what happens.


----------



## Buckethead

A Nonarchy? (Whereas Nona=9)

I enjoy political and economic discussions generally, but in this thread, we seem to lack dialogue. Nearly every post is a monologue with any responses being no more than grounds for rebuttal.

Something about old dogs and new tricks.

Perhaps we need a well grounded communist to participate? (I love some of these guys on twitter. I say this in earnest.)


----------



## DrDirt

> In a democracy everyone votes and the object voted on passes that has the most votes. It would not take long before voters would vote themselves a good life and "Break the Bank" so to speak. They would vote to take other s money etc.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Unfortunately that is already where we are - - people have all voted in Santa Claus to bring the bacon home, and the bank is BROKE!

Wouldn't it be something to go back to electing presidents the old fashioned way, where the senate just votes, and the #1 vote getter is President and Second place is Vice president, regardless of party?

And Senators are sent by the states as delegates, not votes from the public at large either (until the 1914 election).


----------



## oldnovice

Eliminate congress, do what California does have the people make propositions and the vote on those by the internet! Then lobbyist would be out of the picture and the money paid to the "do nothing" congress would be also be saved.

*Like this would work?*


----------



## RobS888

> Wouldn t it be something to go back to electing presidents the old fashioned way, where the senate just votes, and the #1 vote getter is President and Second place is Vice president, regardless of party?
> 
> And Senators are sent by the states as delegates, not votes from the public at large either (until the 1914 election).
> 
> - DrDirt


Sounds parliamentarian with appointed Lords (upper house) and the elected choosing the next leader.

You are right about Santa Claus being elected, it just wasn't by the people, but the 1%.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Eliminate congress, do what California does have the people make propositions and the vote on those by the internet! Then lobbyist would be out of the picture and the money paid to the "do nothing" congress would be also be saved.
> 
> *Like this would work?*
> 
> - oldnovice


That would probably be a lot better than the current system until the hackers took over and started re-appropriating money to themselves;-(


----------



## fatandy2003

> Wouldn t it be something to go back to electing presidents the old fashioned way, where the senate just votes, and the #1 vote getter is President and Second place is Vice president, regardless of party?
> 
> And Senators are sent by the states as delegates, not votes from the public at large either (until the 1914 election).
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Sounds parliamentarian with appointed Lords (upper house) and the elected choosing the next leader.
> 
> You are right about Santa Claus being elected, it just wasn t by the people, but the 1%.
> 
> - RobS888


Actually it sounds kind of Constitutional  Sorry, I had too…

I am torn on an electoral college electing the president for the people because this would allow for another level of corruption in the system. But the original intent was not for the President to have as much power as he has today.

As for the Senate elections prior to 1914, I would love to see the US return to that process. The idea is that the States need individual representation in DC to protect the rights of the States (hence each State only having 2 Senators). This would allow for more balanced power between a group of lawmakers to represent the people elected by the populace (House of Reps), a group of lawmakers to represent each State and check the laws proposed by the H of Rs (Senate), a person to enforce execution of the law voted on by the national populace (President), and a group to check the legality of actions of the 3 aforementioned groups (Supreme Court). By varying the how these groups gain power helps to balance the powers. Now we have a system where there are no real checks and balances because the entire bunch is elected by the same people for the same reason (what are they going to do for ME?).

The original process limited the continual campaigning about how the politician is going to give stuff out if elected.

I am not a hardline "term limit" guy, but I can see that helping (maybe?). I also see the need for a third-party to at least get us out of this rut we are stuck in. I also see a need for a balanced budget (but I understand the economics of nations running deficits).

Cheers,


----------



## patcollins

I've always thought the term limit people were simply trying to get someone out of office that they couldn't vote out. Term limits are built into the process, by the vote.

I think the original way US Senators were chosen was probably better, it was an added layer of insulation to keep them drifting with the whim of the populace. The legislative branch of the government was designed to purposely slow processes down and meticulously weed out the crap.

I don't think it was ever intended to have unrelated things riding on bills either, say a controversial new environmental law thrown into an unemployment benefits bill.


----------



## fatandy2003

True, but the original intent was never that a person could spend 50 years in Congress. The longer a person is in government, the farther from reality they get. It is not their fault, per se, but a result of being insulated from "the real world". Term limits could do a couple things: 1) They stop big business from latching onto a rep that will protect a company for decades, 2) They get fresh ideas into the system, 3) "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," this become even more dangerous when politicians can vote themselves more power in consecutive terms - term limits can force politicians to consider what kind of powers they want to leave to their successors (basically, they do not allow for career politicians).

I think I just talked myself into being a "term limit" guy 

Cheers,


----------



## RobS888

The problem with term limits is that you need to be pretty wealthy to take 12 years out of your career or away from the farm to be a politician. Then you go home and try to pick up where you left off. You would end up with only rich people running for office.

End lobbying and any kind of profiting from your time in office, that would help.


----------



## patcollins

> End lobbying and any kind of profiting from your time in office, that would help.
> 
> - RobS888


This is something I see alot and I have to wonder if people even realize what lobbying is. All it is is trying to convince someone of a certain side of an argument. I am not sure how you end this, put lawmakers in a bubble and not let them talk to anyone? Yes there are registered lobbyists and they have certain perks, but you starting a twitter campaign is also lobbying. Heck with the recent Russian-Ukraine situation it seems wars have moved to using social media as another battlefield.


----------



## RobS888

Thanks pat

I needed a good laugh.


----------



## oldnovice

Maybe we cannot eliminate all lobbying but we could limit the amount lobbying by any one group.

The rate of lobbyists per congressman is currently 25.8, considering there are 432 congressmen (data provided by the Office of the Clerk website) and 11,140 lobbyists in Washington (data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics). In addition, the US House of Representatives is the top lobbying agency, with 10,833 reports filed in 2010 '" against 10,727 by the US Senate.

Source of info above


----------



## RobS888

I found several references to billions of dollars spent on lobbying. One assumes that direct payments are illegal, so is that all spent on wining & dining congress to get what you want?

I also read about laws being word for word what lobbyists proposed. Again something that shocks me.

The house deciding not to disclose trips paid by lobbyists earlier this year makes it seem like they really consider this a perk. I see it as corruption.


----------



## DrDirt

> Sounds parliamentarian with appointed Lords (upper house) and the elected choosing the next leader.
> 
> You are right about Santa Claus being elected, it just wasn t by the people, but the 1%.
> 
> - RobS888


Rob - the difference is that the appointing body is the state congresses… which are directly elected by the people to represent them.

So really that is more similar to the Senate confirming cabinet secretaries. We the people didn't elect John Kerry to be Secretary of State.

It was run this way until 1914 (During WW1 under Wilson)...was the first group of senators directly elected by the state constituency. Not coincidently Wilson also started the personal income tax, and the IRS. The country rant through the 19th century without the IRS


----------



## oldnovice

Some companies do not condone gifts, given or received, with immediate dismissal. I saw this first hand with my first employer with one of the companies best customers.

*This would be a good policy in DC but it will never fly or even get off the ground!*


----------



## patcollins

> Thanks pat
> 
> I needed a good laugh.
> 
> - RobS888


So you don't actually have an answer?


----------



## Buckethead

I don't think limiting access to congress (aka lobbying) is a realistic option. Limiting the power of congress is. The constitution supposedly does that, yet here we are.

The revered US Constitution either condones our current political system, or fails to prevent it.


----------



## patcollins

Here is a pretty good description on how it got where it is. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/01/whats_the_diffe/

The last paragraph, especially this part is most telling.

*When the federal government can influence what happens in your business or your backyard or your bedroom - you are quite properly going to want to influence it right back.*

As with the people calling for term limits I suspect what they really want is to eliminate lobbying for stuff they don't agree with vice everything.


----------



## RobS888

> Thanks pat
> 
> I needed a good laugh.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So you don t actually have an answer?
> 
> - patcollins


I didn't see a question,

I find your equating a tweet to the 4 billion spent on lobbying very funny.


----------



## RobS888

> *When the federal government can influence what happens in your business or your backyard or your bedroom - you are quite properly going to want to influence it right back.*_


Only problem is we don't have influence, companies do. Lobbyist get what they want, then the politicians, then the people. Sad way to run a country.


----------



## patcollins

> Thanks pat
> 
> I needed a good laugh.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So you don t actually have an answer?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I didn t see a question,
> 
> I find your equating a tweet to the 4 billion spent on lobbying very funny.
> 
> - RobS888


Its right there plain as day, *" I am not sure how you end this, put lawmakers in a bubble and not let them talk to anyone?"*

Tweets have helped bring down governments in the middle east, to dismiss it is foolish.


----------



## patcollins

> *When the federal government can influence what happens in your business or your backyard or your bedroom - you are quite properly going to want to influence it right back.*_
> 
> Only problem is we don t have influence, companies do. Lobbyist get what they want, then the politicians, then the people. Sad way to run a country.
> 
> - RobS888


You say lobbiests get what they want, you realize for everything someone is lobbying for, someone else is lobbying against it.


----------



## RobS888

> Its right there plain as day, *" I am not sure how you end this, put lawmakers in a bubble and not let them talk to anyone?"*
> 
> Tweets have helped bring down governments in the middle east, to dismiss it is foolish.
> 
> - patcollins


A question mark does not a question make.

Still thanks for the laughs, and perhaps there are points between the extremes. Think about it.


----------



## RobS888

> You say lobbiests get what they want, you realize for everything someone is lobbying for, someone else is lobbying against it.
> 
> - patcollins


Not at all true. Now you are taking both extremes.

I say ban lobbying of any kind. Public funds for elections and puhleeze specified campaign periods, so they don't have to spend 2 years trying to get re-elected.


----------



## patcollins

> You say lobbiests get what they want, you realize for everything someone is lobbying for, someone else is lobbying against it.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Not at all true. Now you are taking both extremes.
> 
> I say ban lobbying of any kind. Public funds for elections and puhleeze specified campaign periods, so they don t have to spend 2 years trying to get re-elected.
> 
> - RobS888


I just don't think there is any practical, effective way to accomplish or enforce it. Like McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform and the law of unintended consequences things could simply be made even worse. Could you image every time you turned on the radio or TV there was an infomercial about how great X is and how Y should be made into a law and how you should write your congressman about it?

I think the longer campaigns are a result of the 24 hr news, the first step was the cable news networks, and then the internet made it even worse, then smartphones piled more onto it that. Now an elected official choosing brand X over brand Y toilet paper seems to make the news.


----------



## DrDirt

Lobbying - - by Eddie Murphy.


----------



## RobS888

Yup, seems pretty one sided to me.


----------



## DrDirt

Not just corporations lobby…










*Words to live by*










*DC Vacation plan I support!*


----------



## oldnovice

*DrDirt*, you hit the nail on the head and provided a good laugh at the same time!

*The opposite of progress is congress!*


----------



## DrDirt

Hans - you got it….

Sometimes just have ease… into the weekend, without getting the blood pressure up.

At the end of the day, what we post on lumberjocks…. is not changing the world, but it is fun to discuss..


----------



## RobS888

DrDirt,

Those last two are pretty funny.

I had to look up what the NEA was. It seems the 133 million is for lobbying and political donations amongst 17,000 branches. I think a union at least represents a lot of people and the heads of the union are elected by the members.

A corporation may only represent the board or CEO. Most employees have no say.

But still so what? Even if half of the 4 or 5 billion reportedly spent on lobbying is unions. It is still wrong, to me.


----------



## patcollins

Wouldn't have expected the Chamber of Commerce left everyone else in the dust over the amount spent.

#1 US Chamber of Commerce $25,385,000
#2 National Assn of Realtors $7,147,853

Here is the source https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2014


----------



## RobS888

Where does it go?
Trips, food, payola?


----------



## patcollins

> Where does it go?
> Trips, food, payola?
> 
> - RobS888


Well back in the 90's when my father was running for president of his union's local the guy he was running against wanted to spend $2k of the locals money to send a bus load of representatives to DC to protest something or other. My dad's stance was he wasn't going to spend the locals money on something that some of the members may or may not be against, he won the election btw.

So I imagine a lot of it is spent on crap like that.

I live about an hour and half from DC, have been there quite a few times and you wouldn't believe the bus loads of people protesting for or against something every day of the week.

The county I live in just spent $80k for a "professional" to prepare a report to lobby the federal government so they know how important the military base here is. I think the military already probably knows more about it than the county does but it is the only thing in this county job wise and if it closed it would be a waste land here.

Do you do much air travel? Airports have ads in them that I have never seen elsewhere targeting certain professions. I fly out of DC or Baltimore so I figure some of this is part of that money.

It is pretty easy to throw money around when it isn't yours to begin with.


----------



## RobS888

Pat,
I was wondering about all of the lobbying money not just the union portion. 2k isn't even a rounding error for the amounts spent lobbying.

I'm a million miler on delta, so yes I fly a lot. Not sure I have ever noticed the ads for professionals you mentioned.

I guess in my limited way I want my rep to represent me, not people that buy him lunch.


----------



## oldnovice

That lobbying is only the tip of the iceberg. Each state's congress probably has lobbyist of their own and I wonder how many people are actually involved in lobbying in the U.S.? It is probably an outstanding number!

I also wonder if other countries allow lobbying and if so, to what extent?


----------



## patcollins

> That lobbying is only the tip of the iceberg. Each state s congress probably has lobbyist of their own and I wonder how many people are actually involved in lobbying in the U.S.? It is probably an outstanding number!
> 
> I also wonder if other countries allow lobbying and if so, to what extent?
> 
> - oldnovice


A lot of other countries it is more blatant. The official name escapes me but we actually have people specifically for bribing local officials, police etc in other countries. There are a lot of places the police expect a "tip".


----------



## patcollins

> Pat,
> I was wondering about all of the lobbying money not just the union portion. 2k isn t even a rounding error for the amounts spent lobbying.
> 
> I m a million miler on delta, so yes I fly a lot. Not sure I have ever noticed the ads for professionals you mentioned.
> 
> I guess in my limited way I want my rep to represent me, not people that buy him lunch.
> 
> - RobS888


That is what we all want, I think political parties get in the way of that.

That $2k seems like a small amount but it was out of a local of less than 100 people so we are basically talking about/more than an hours pay for everyone in the local.

Really all people have to do is vote them out, but when they won't vote out one that actually took a bribe, cash was found in his freezer…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson_corruption_case


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

As long as corporations are people and money is speech, these problems will only worsen. The constitutional amendment to the WA legislature failed to get enough signatures this year, but it will be back next year. It took us 3 tries to get 3 Strikes on the ballot, when we did it was a landslide ;-)

On another note, wealth distribution, looks like trickle down continues to move the middle class down, no only in the U.S. but in the world wide standings. Typical net worth in the US is $38,700 while it is nearly $200,000 in Australia. http://www.alternet.org/economy/americas-middle-class-27th-richest


----------



## patcollins

> On another note, wealth distribution, looks like trickle down continues to move the middle class down, no only in the U.S. but in the world wide standings. Typical net worth in the US is $38,700 while it is nearly $200,000 in Australia. http://www.alternet.org/economy/americas-middle-class-27th-richest
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


To be fair though you have to compare the amount of "stuff" people have.

Of course the US is very near the top of these two lists. 
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

And finally some perspective needs to be put on things 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

There is little doubt the average 4000 sq ft house is excessive, but as long and bankers make excessive profits on the loans and other toxic assets they sell into the financial system and we, the taxpayers, and the Fed continues to bail them out, nothing will change.

Easy access to consumer credit does not mean wealth. There was an article in the paper here a several years ago telling about all the "Microsoft millionaires" living on Lake Samamish with a million dollar house,2 - $100,000 cars, a motor home and a yacht that are only on paycheck away from bankruptcy. Many had a negative net worth with excessive tax liabilities on the stock options that were supposed to be a big part of their compensation packages.

I'm not really sure what the cited links prove other than we have excessive debt loads due to the easy consumer credit. It has been a number of years since I was actively researching stocks. At that time, credit card companies were extremely profitable. I do not recall the exact percentage of their portfolios they wrote off as bad debt every year, but is was in the double digits.

What is the point of acceptance, and even support for, continuing to consolidate American assets into the hands of fewer and fewer billionaires? Eventually, it can only lead to a serious revolt. It could easily come in the form of socialist or even communist take over of the U.S. Those who accumulate it all could easily be left with nothing ;-)


----------



## patcollins

Topa, my point is that people that should have a pretty high net worth have negative net worth and that there are quite a few people that I know living the life but have negative net worth.

I just turned 40, i grew up in a very nice 1450 sq ft house. Nobody now would even consider building a house that size. My parents paid it off in 11 years.

I think more people need to focus on what they have, what they do with their money etc than how much someone else has, their life will be much better in the end.

A few days ago I asked why people thought if someone had less why they thought that would mean that would have more. Your logic also seems to follow thinking.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

You are the rich!! I grew up in a 576 sqft house ;-) It did have a full unheated basement. It stayed warm enough my brother and I slept down there without freezing even when it was 20 below.

I agree Americans should be very thankful to be in this country. Even the lowest levels are better off than most of the world. That does not change the fact the opportunities I had at your age do not exist today. More and more people are working longer for less and less. There will be a few exceptions including my own kids, but your generation will be the first to not do as well or better than their parent's generation. They may accumulate more convenient consumer products, but there is little real expectation of a financially secure retirement.


----------



## patcollins

You wouldn't believe the opportunities I have seen here go to waste. Where I worked up until a year ago they would hire some young kid with no skills for about $20-$25 an hr and we had trouble with them even coming to work. The only real requirement was the ability to come to work, to listen to what people told them to do, and to learn a few simple skills.

I think we had a real problem with ones named Jason, had three in a row that just wouldn't come to work. One even pretended to come to work every day until his boss called looking for his set of keys and his parents answered the phone and thought he was at work. I have a hard time accepting that opportunities don't exist when we couldn't beg anyone into a job.


----------



## RobS888

> A lot of other countries it is more blatant. The official name escapes me but we actually have people specifically for bribing local officials, police etc in other countries. There are a lot of places the police expect a "tip".
> 
> - patcollins


Pat,

I've worked all over the world and outside of North America and Northern Europe graft is expected. I had to take classes on what is legal to pay and what isn't. One doesn't get reimbursed for the illegal stuff.

As I recall, paying someone $5,000 to get a business license is illegal, paying $5,000 to expedite a business license isn't illegal. Pretty fine line. To me, it was paying someone to do their job is bad, paying them to do it faster is ok.

Interesting fact, companies could deduct bribery as a business expense until the mid '70s.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

What business are you in Pat?

There will always be a certain number of slackers who are lazy and just don't care. There will always be a certain number who are just not capable.

What I am referring to is the business landscape of the past where nearly anyone with a little bit of determination and ability could start a successful business. Today, consolidation has limited the number of potential B2B customers. Those that are out there seem to have corporate goals that are not compatible with small start ups. There is no long term thinking, everything managed for the next quarter's earnings for Wall Street. Just before I retired the payment policy went from 30 days slow to 300 days if you are lucky. One needs a long, long line of credit or a solid financial foundation to operate under those terms.

In my early years, I just told those kinds of operators I would be happy to do their work on a CIA policy; that would be Cash In Advance. I was very fortunate not to get tangled up with one by surprise. Some of the largest operators in the area just happened to be on my do not work for list.

I suppose I see the landscape a little different after starting out on my own in 1985 with 2 kids to feed, a wife that was a stay at home mom and housewife, and a mortgage to pay. Most of those who asked for advice, ect had a wife with a second income, but they never took the plunge. I would not do it today, nor would I go into the trade.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

One other thing on bribes in B2B affairs. Thom Hartmann reported that VP Dick Chaney was on the wanted list for bribery in some country in Africa. He was wanted before , during and after his term as VP! Hartmann reported that after Chaney had left office, Halliburton was able to settle the affair by paying another bribe ;-))


----------



## patcollins

Topa, I am in the aerospace industry.

There are some really talented and incredible people working in aerospace but I would say about 50% of total are completely worthless.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie)

Dose anybody know where the coffee machine is ?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I would agree there are a lot of people in over their heads. I told my son when he was a kid that if he really knew how to do his job, he would not have a lot of real competition out there. He said that didn't make sense, everyone should know how to do their job. During the dot com bust, he had several companies go bankrupt out from under him. When he he got interviews, the interviewer would sort of come to an uncomfortable pause. At first he wondered what the problem was. They had never had anyone answer all those hi-tech questions before. They didn't quite know what to ask next or say ;-)) He's 42 now. He says he found that to be pretty much the way things are.


----------



## patcollins

> I would agree there are a lot of people in over their heads.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I think a lot of it is people were never required to think and when they run into a situation where they have to they don't see a negative consequence so they generally don't care. I think back in high school of my classmates that did absolutely nothing and still managed to be passed along I am astounded.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

They do do it to themselves in many cases. I started college to find myself in a math class with a kid that graduated a year ahead in high school. He spent the first year of college doing catch up I guess. It is amazing how most never really consider the long term and unintended consequences of their actions.

I dropped out because my math prof who had a Phd on the end of his EE said he was teaching because he couldn't make a living as an engineer. He advised me to get into the trade and I did. I suppose after the race for the manned moon landing, there were a glut of engineers at that time.

*eddie*, It is behind the beer cooler. It is too hot for coffee. We put it there until summer is over.


----------



## patcollins

> I dropped out because my math prof who had a Phd on the end of his EE said he was teaching because he couldn t make a living as an engineer. He advised me to get into the trade and I did. I suppose after the race for the manned moon landing, there were a glut of engineers at that time.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


He most likely didn't want to move. There always seems to be jobs in aerospace for engineers …..if they are willing to move. We joke around that we are a bunch of nomads because the people I work with followed a path around the country like the pioneers. Actually unless you are lucky and live in an area that has a lot of industry someone getting an engineering degree should expect to have to move.


----------



## DrDirt

I have to agree with Pat that a lot of our net worth gap is tied to a huge indebted lifestyle, where we take out second mortgages to buy cars…. so other countries have a modest house half paid for… while the USA has a McMansion that is underwater to the bank.

Net Worth - from Washington Examiner today. we were doing OK at ~100K net worth til the bubble burst.

-------------
http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-median-american-household-lost-a-third-of-its-wealth-in-the-last-10-years/article/2551380?utm_campaign=Fox News&utmsource=foxnews.com&utmmedium=feed

The median American household saw its wealth decline by more than one-third in the past decade, according to a new estimate published by the Russell Sage Foundation.

Researchers writing for the left-of-center think tank found that median net worth declined from $87,992 in 2003 to $56,335 in 2013. The study examined data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, a longitudinal survey of American households run by the University of Michigan.

Median household wealth peaked at just under $100,000 in 2007, right before the housing bubble burst and the financial crisis began. While the researchers for the Russell Sage Foundation found that households in the top 10 percent have recovered the wealth levels of 2003, lower-wealth households have not.

"There are very few signs of significant recovery from the losses in wealth experienced by American families during the Great Recession," they wrote.


----------



## DrDirt

JOSH BOAK, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A study by the Urban Institute shows that more than 35 percent of Americans have debts and unpaid bills that have been reported to collection agencies.

These consumers fall behind on credit cards or hospital bills. Their mortgages, auto loans or student debt pile up, unpaid. Even past-due gym membership fees or cellphone contracts can end up with a collection agency, potentially hurting credit scores and job prospects.

The study by the Washington-based think tank released Tuesday points to a disturbing trend: The share of Americans in collections has remained relatively constant, even as the country as a whole has whittled down the size of its credit card debt since the official end of the Great Recession in the middle of 2009.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

With retail spending comprising 71% of the U.S. economy, 35 percent of Americans with debts that have been reported to collection agencies is a lot of people probably being in subsistence mode and not having discretionary income. That number is interestingly close to the 30 some % drop out rate of the work force who is not unemployed, just can't find any work.

A few posts back, I mentioned CC companies wrote off about 10% +/- of their portfolios back 15-20 years ago. I wonder what they write off today? Back then they were making more money on fines and fees than they did on interest charges. My guess is those figures are buried in the financials of the too big to fail, too big to jail, mega-monster banking conglomerates.

Looks like the few of us, U.S, still paying taxes will be doing some more bailing out.


----------



## Dark_Lightning

I've lived a scrupulous lifestyle in terms of indebtedness, saving and not spending, very conservative. My newest (and only one purchased new) automobile will be ten years old in a few days. I went to my financial adviser yesterday to see how my portfolio looked. The worst case scenario has a 99% success rate for my investments, based on a 10k Monte Carlo analysis. I will be able to retire this year, at age 62, and finally get more woodworking in! I don't consider myself wealthy, by any stretch, but it looks like I will have enough, no matter what…as long as my health holds out, of course.

Pat Collins-

I also work in Aerospace but have been fortunate not to have to move- I just live 46 miles from my current employer. I haven't worked with a foreign country/company, so have never had to think about payola. Crazy stuff. If we did that here in the US, we'd go to jail.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The worst case scenario has a 99% success rate for my investments, based on a 10k Monte Carlo analysis.
> - DarkLightning


DarkLightning, That is an intriguing comment. What do you mean by 99% success rate?

I trusted Merrill Lynch. That was the 2nd worst disaster of my life. The first being trusting the idiot that prescribed Topamax for migraine prevention. It is a good thing we were always very conservative financially too. Those two events were not able to destroy our retirement or put us out on the street.


----------



## oldnovice

Some CEO's are getting a pay cut! 
Larry Ellison, of Oracle, will get his stock options reduced from 7 million to 3 million, a better than 50% reductio; last year he earned a mere $78 million!
Co-President Mark Hurd's options were scaled back from 5 million to 2.25 million.

According to the "San Jose Mercury News", the Oracle compensation board decided that this pay was out of line with the 177 local CEOs. Ellison was ranked as #1 of the 177 and the stock price/profit did not warrant that compensation.

The next closest was Don Matrick of Zynga, a game software company, at $57.8M.
Brian Krzanich, Intel, $9.5M.
Tim Cook, Apple, $4.2M.


----------



## DrDirt

> The worst case scenario has a 99% success rate for my investments, based on a 10k Monte Carlo analysis.
> Pat Collins-
> 
> - Dark_Lightning


Vanguard (who handles our pension and 401k) makes similar projections. I get updates quarterly, where they model your current salary, you can load in other accounts, any Roth IRA's, pension plans etc, and set an expected/desired income level and retirement age….










Presume that Pat's advisor has a similar tool where you can load your assumptions and retirement goals and it will plot the Likely "Average" but then a Best case performance and worst case…. it showed that the worst case projection still will be enough for meeting his (anticipated) needs and without running out of money later..


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

This is a running out of money odds calculation rather than market risk, eh?

You are lucky your company uses Vanguard. Too many of the 401K, IRA and SEP programs set up by mutual fund companies take 1/2 the lifetime returns out of people's accounts ;-(

*Some CEO's are getting a pay cut! *

I wonder if this is the beginning of a long over due trend? With all asset classes grossly overpriced and interest rates and dividends virtually nonexistent, there really needs to be a return other than share price appreciation into the bubble.


----------



## patcollins

> The worst case scenario has a 99% success rate for my investments, based on a 10k Monte Carlo analysis.
> Pat Collins-
> 
> - Dark_Lightning
> 
> Presume that Pat s advisor
> - DrDirt


You read/quoted that wrong, not my advisor.

I handle all my stuff myself because nobody cares as much about my finances as I do.


----------



## patcollins

> Pat Collins-
> 
> I also work in Aerospace but have been fortunate not to have to move- I just live 46 miles from my current employer. I haven t worked with a foreign country/company, so have never had to think about payola. Crazy stuff. If we did that here in the US, we d go to jail.
> 
> - Dark_Lightning


OMG 46 miles would kill me, I live just a couple miles away from work.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> You read/quoted that wrong, not my advisor.
> 
> I handle all my stuff myself because nobody cares as much about my finances as I do.
> 
> - patcollins


I went that route too, after the extremely expensive Merrill Lynch lesson. It is a lot easier today than it was in the mid 80s. I told my kids, "If you know enough to know if you are being lied to or not, you know enough to handle it yourself."

I only met 3 advisers/brokers I can say I trusted in the last 40 years. The first did well, but quit and went back for his masters or PhD.

The second was fired for making non-company approved trades. When I found out about that, I withdrew my account. The FBI knocked on my door a year later wanting to see all the paper work I had and interview me. I never was called to testify in court.

The last one put me into the current fixed income program when I got too old to have significant market risk.

Elliot Spitzer, Atty General of NY, identified 15 of 17 of the nation's largest retail brokerages as criminal operations. Then, he went after the squeaky clean mutual fund industry and took them down too. David Komansky, Merrill's CEO, went on Wall Street Week with Lewis Rukeyser in June of 2000 to explain his top analyst's email. Henry Blodgent had sent out an email urging his peers to sell the fools garbage for $200/ share. Komansky said it was a few employees joking around. Spitzer exposed a totally corrupt industry, not a few employees joking around. Rukeyser seemed to have lost his credibility. After decades on the air, he was dropped by PBS shortly after that. Blodgent was bragging on TV about a book about his Wall Street days he was going to write. Seems to have lost his nerve under investigation that resulted in being banned from securities business for life. He did write a book a couple years ago.


----------



## DrDirt

My Apologies Pat, thought it was a more 'standard' option you were getting. They load everything and your savings rates.. they assume that the past 10 years return rate average and project….. (7.4%) then have a best/worst case to say if it only grows at 3% or if it grew at 10% how would it look.

Don't see where they have anything to gain by telling me that everything is on track….vs doctoring the result to try to sell me some kind of annuity or whole life insurance product.

I tend to have a follow the money skepticism, and consider whether their answer is helping THEM.


----------



## MrRon

What a load of crap. Americans live in the best country in the world and still they complain because they can't afford a new car and have to settle for a used one. We are the most spoiled people on earth. People die by the millions all around the world from hunger, disease, civil unrest, war, etc. NO one in America has ever gone hungry (unless they wanted to). There are so many resource available for whoever wants them. This is not the case in 3rd world countries or war torn countries. My advise to all Americans is to COUNT YOU BLESSINGS and thank God that you live here and not in Iraq, N.Korea or other bad places. Remember, if you had the smarts, you too could be another Bill Gates.


----------



## SCOTSMAN

FWIW I disliked Reagen disliked Thatcher like Obama think Fox news is as we all do in the UK a joke and a mouthpiece for zionist Israel and all of it's argumenmts are a total Joke.Many people are now coming to the correct IMHO conc;lusion that Israel and the zionists therein have too much to say in the running of the USA and UK too.All of the top politicians are required to sign up to the friends of Israel before they can advance in politics.I find Jewish people to be some of the nicest people in the world but not zionists in Israel who are up to no good.The non Israeli jews are crying out re the current cdrisis NOT IN MY NAME.And being ill treated tortured for expressing their views we here in the UK and the Usa must seperate ourselves from Israel if we are to get back onto an even keel in the world where we are in many places currently hated.Sad but true see zionism yourself many many topics on youtube where normal god lovong Jews good people speak out against whats happening to Palestinians and the robbery of their land by the israelis.I received a prospect recently from amnesty international and the reported israelis coming at 6.30 in the morning with giant bull dozers outside palestinian farms and homes telling the people they have twenty minutes to get out before demolishing their property and later on rfebuilding homes apartment blocks for israelis with no compensation.And yet the Usa whilst condeming the Israelis give them curently three billion dollars a year despite them being already a rich country>on top of this the Usa condemned the current killing of children and continued to supply the israelis with fresh amunition and weapons.You may not like what I say but this is causing our two countries global condemnation in our continued support for the zionist Israelis see youtube it is absolutely full of sad accounts of what they are up to check up what the friends of israel is all about ?.All right minded people should disasociate themselves politically from this repressive children killing regime and support ordinary jews who are ashamed of israel Sorry my feeling are very bad re this as well as many many more people today.Good people are desperate to show whats really going on including most Jews Alistair


----------



## oldnovice

*MrRon*, I totally agree with!

*The U.S.A. is is the best country in the world!*

Yes we do have our problems, yet we like to and are even allowed to complain about anything.
But what country, state, county, city, family, and person doesn't have problems.
It may take time but in the end we do solve our problems.


----------



## madts

MrRon 
"What a load of crap" 
You should get in your car and drive through rural America. You will see more poverty than you can shake a stick at. Tennessee, West Virginia and South Texas to name a few.
So what a load for crap. You are full of it.


----------



## NormG

Each shall have the same opportunities. Some people take advantage of this and others try to take advantage of these who have worked for what they have obtained. They have no desire to succeed unfortunately and will be a burden on society all their life


----------



## patcollins

> MrRon
> "What a load of crap"
> You should get in your car and drive through rural America. You will see more poverty than you can shake a stick at. Tennessee, West Virginia and South Texas to name a few.
> So what a load for crap. You are full of it.
> - madts


I am from West Virginia never saw a single person there go hungry, did see quite a few people that never worked a day in their life driving new $40,000 pickup trucks, had a dirt bike, quad etc. I went to school with a lot of kids whose parents fit that bill.


----------



## oldnovice

*madts*,

*What a load of crap,* I lived in rural America and the distribution of poor and wealth is no different than anywhere else in the country. Take a tour of Sudan or Ethiopia or even China if you want to see poverty!

I have also been a witness to exactly what *Pat* said as some people have different values and/or priorities!


----------



## madts

When you live in the so called greatest country in the world, and 20% for the kids live under the poverty level I would say that something is very wrong. Look at the same numbers for Germany or Denmark.
Kids are the future of any country and when 1/5 are handicapped from the very start, you are not off to a very good start for future generations.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview


----------



## Dark_Lightning

To answer the question about the 99% certainty, I have enough cash in reserve to weather a 22% decline in the value of my portfolio two years in a row, which is an extreme case. I've busted my butt for decades, living frugally, fixing my own cars and doing all my own home repairs and upgrades (with about $40k in exceptions in the last 30 years). I've only ever bought ONE new car, and have mostly bought used ones that I can repair myself. I bought that one new car 10 years ago next week, and I don't intend to ever buy a new car again. It's a matter of where I want my depreciation to be, not a mark against the current selection of transportation offerings. As has been mentioned, some people have gamed the system and have all kinds of goodies that they didn't earn. For myself, I am too stinkin' proud to go looking for things for free (well, maybe a wood gloat), and ducking my financial responsibilities. I was raised poor and hungry, but I had it a ton better than a huge amount of the world's population. Our house had indoor plumbing and fresh water from the tap, and only the occasional mosquito. Am I rich? I'll have to go see if I'm in the top 1%, but I doubt that mightily.


----------



## patcollins

> When you live in the so called greatest country in the world, and 20% for the kids live under the poverty level I would say that something is very wrong. Look at the same numbers for Germany or Denmark.
> Kids are the future of any country and when 1/5 are handicapped from the very start, you are not off to a very good start for future generations.
> https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview
> 
> - madts


"Poor" people tend to breed like rabbits and why not it is no skin off their back since someone else is paying for it.


----------



## RobS888

Other than opinion, what criteria is being used to designate us the best country in the world? The facts just don't support that statement unless "best" means spends the most on military or greatest number of murders.

I travel a lot and the most depressing place I have seen in the US is Shreveport, LA. The thing is people are probably proud of it, if it is all they know. I believe that if one travels around the world you won't have that opinion of the US anymore.

You may feel that way, but objectively it is very hard to prove top 5.

When did we go from "speak softly and carry a big stick" to screaming our "superiority" from the mountains.

Recently, I head a few politicians call us "the greatest country that ever existed" was there a ceremony I missed. How many eponymous titles can we have?


----------



## DrDirt

Our 20% in poverty - - are still in the top doing well globally.

There is no poverty here, like there is in central America, equatorial Africa, or southeast asia.
A good book reviewed in the NYT called the "Haves and have nots" had the following graph. You see even the bottom quintile is still doing well.
I think the 20% poverty is all a matter of defining poverty to suit a political story, and a poor measure of suffering or a real struggle to survive and eat. I too see a lot of what Pat points out… the trailerparks full of new boats, trucks, ATV's sitting out drinking beer. but they are counted as "starving huddled masses" - by politicians.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0


----------



## RobS888

Dr dirt,

You can't compare poverty between states let alone countries. That is just silly.

Countries with the highest income also have a very high cost of living. See how that works?

Are you suggesting that the poverty level isn't based on purchasing power?


----------



## DrDirt

Show me the Somaili mother with an apartment and flat screen TV and food stamps and Medicaid…. that represents "poverty"

You are right about not comparing countries… yet the discussion was one of* "how is the USA versus the rest of the world" 
*

Madts contends that our poverty level of 20% precludes any claim of the US being great. that 1/5 of the population is starting in a handicapped position

So how do I respond without comparing countries?

Starving to death and not affording an new Escalade… are not the same measures of 'POVERTY';

The countries with the highest income - also take care of the poor.
However - based on statistics…. there will *always* be a bottom 20%... even if those at the bottom are all millionaires.
Somehow at the end of the day 50% of the population makes less than the median wage…. and always will - it is impossible to change that. But people use percentiles to beat a political drum.









which African country are you chosing as a better place to live than here? The countries in Red have real poverty. It is subjective, but the people squatting in the streets, looking for a cup of rice are struggling and truly oppressed. Not Detroit.

The USA is yellow - because they find it a human rights violation that kids are allowed to feed the cows or climb ladders and drive the "dangerous tractor" on the farm. And not we are a throwback to 'Oliver Twist'.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

You can't compare African poverty to US poverty, just like you can't compare Appalachian poverty to Greenwich, CT poverty. You Could compare poverty in a place to wealth in a place, but anything else is silly.

This whole thread is about how close income clusters around the median, you are correct, 50% will make less than the median, but how much less/more is what concerns some of us.

Hmmm, squatting and begging for rice is your definition of poor? What about someone that works all day for a cup or two of rice for the family? You seem to get upset about the visuals of begging for rice or buying an escalade, yet are ignoring the rest, I imagine those are both outliers.


----------



## DrDirt

Rob - - Starving is Starving….

However if we want to scream from the mountaintops that we have 60+million living in poverty in the US…. therefore its standing amongst other nations is poor…

then we need to say exactly what is POVERTY.
Perhaps you should visit a country that has (my feeling of) real poverty and look around a bit. Then decide if there really is poberty in the US.

I like this definition myself: 
*Absolute poverty *or destitution refers to the deprivation of basic human needs, which commonly includes food, water, sanitation, clothing, shelter, health care and education.
*Relative poverty *is defined contextually as economic inequality in the location or society in which people live.

Your focus on the relative poverty is fine - but what then does poverty mean in a real sense. I don't have anywhere near Warren Buffet or Bill Gates' wealth… but to *label that poverty *seems ridiculous.

You literally have several BILLION people in the world that can only DREAM of being at the US poverty level, have housing, education, clean water, health care, and food.

This to me is poverty - - the Capital City of Indonesia - - Jakarta… population 30 million. 
Wife lived there in Indonesia (Bukittinggi) for a year…. so when people talk about high levels of Poverty here… I just laugh at them.








However in the end- it is always your personal reference point….as I said there will ALWAYS be a top 20% and a bottom 20%....we can make the gap smaller, but the better question is "what level of comfort/luxury/etc is owed" - based on the income redistribution?
If say the bottom 20% all had 2 cars and a 1800 square foot house… is that still an "at risk" population that we need to do something about?
Welfare in Hawaii is 64K/year…..what is enough? What is the personal responsibility that kicks in above some level, where we say our government will guarantee X…. if you want to get to Y or Z, that is up to you?
Is 64K POVERTY?


----------



## CharlesA

I'm a late entrant in this discussion. We'll see if I stick around. The U.S. may, or may not, be the best country in the world, but I find our commitment to American exceptionalism to be a better, more equitable, freer society.

There are many ways in which the U.S. is indeed exceptional, but when any issue comes up, there is a chorus of, "America has the best in the world." There is no argument made, no comparisons made-it's an article of faith. The funny examples are when we call the Super Bowl champs the "world champions" when American football is not an international sport. It gets more serious when talking about something like healthcare. We hear, "America has the best healthcare system in the world." To question it is to somehow not be patriotic. And our healthcare system is exceptional in a number of ways. If you have good health insurance and/or if you need the most cutting edge treatments in the world, we're great. But in many other ways, we're one of the worst among industrialized countries.

And when we say that we have the best healthcare system in the world, are we really clear how it works in Switzerland, Germany, or Sweden? The Swiss are not trading their system for ours, I can tell you that.

So, my point is not so much to say we're the best or not, but that we can't let that patriotic cheer blind us to the realities we face. And we cannot reflexively question the patriotism of folks who disagree in part or in whole.


----------



## DrDirt

> When you live in the so called greatest country in the world, and 20% for the kids live under the poverty level I would say that something is very wrong. * Look at the same numbers for Germany or Denmark*.
> - madts


Well looking at Germany - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Germany

During the last decades the number of people living in poverty has been increasing. Children are more likely to be poor than adults. There has been a strong increase in the number of poor children. In 1965 only one in 75 children lived on welfare, in 2007 one in 6 did.[1]

Poverty rates differ by states. While in 2005 in states like Bavaria only 6,6% of children and 3,9% of all citizens were impoverished in Berlin 15,2% of the inhabitants and 30,7% of the children received welfare payments.[2]

The German Kinderhilfswerk, an organization caring for children in need, has demanded the government to do something about the poverty problem.

Wikipedia tabulated the results by country - for UN defined poverty.

I am not seeing such a stark night and day difference.

Denmark at 13.4%, Germany at 15.5% and the USA at 15.1% living in poverty.


----------



## CharlesA

Isn't a little unfair to compare West Germany to the reunited Germany with all the economic/social problems that East Germany brought with it as an apples to apples comparison?


----------



## RobS888

Charles, I agree with most of what you said, and apologize if I questioned anyone's patriotism!

Dr Dirt,

I've worn out 2 passports, in fact I had two US passports at once, so I could send one off to get a visa while travelling on the other, so I'm not speaking out of personal ignorance.

You seem to go back and forth between poverty and starving, they are not synonymous.

You defined and seemed to have known exactly what I was saying, poverty is relative to where you live (as in relative poverty), however you are arguing about absolute poverty. I would suggest that to most people poverty is relative to where they are, so you should drop the vividness until after you tell them you are referring to absolute poverty based on a global scale.

64K is probably poor in Monaco, basic in Greenwich, but pretty good in Shreveport.


----------



## CharlesA

Rob, I wasn't referring to you or anyone else in this thread-just in general. No worries.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

Those percentages are RELATIVE poverty percentages based on each countries poverty level. If the US has a low threshold then of course it looks good on this.


----------



## RobS888

Thanks Charles!


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> Those percentages are RELATIVE poverty percentages based on each countries poverty level. If the US has a low threshold then of course it looks good on this.
> 
> - RobS888


Thought you were defining poverty now on a relative scale…. So when Madts says to compare our poverty level to Germany and Denmark… how do you propose to do that?
Reunification was nearly 25 years ago - and all Germans have access to the same education jobs and healthcare. True the first datapoint mentioned was from 1965… but to go from 1 in 75 to 1 in 6, is more than reunification.

Germany too now faces its issues with a multicultural society.

Point that was being pushed was that the USA is an embarassment, and Germany/denmark is the Gold Standard….when it comes to managing poverty, and the facts do not support that assertion.

If we use the UN standard for poverty which is <2 dollars/day - - there is no poverty in the USA nor the other countries listed.

Relative poverty CAN be an ok metric - but like I said, what is the acceptable gap? 
More specifically - how do you define a poverty PROBLEM? Most associate poverty with some level of suffering? What is that level? At some point we have to talk about ABSOLUTE poverty… or some measure of quality of life an not just point at the bottom 10-15%.

Specifically is the Statisltical Policy Directive #14 from 1978 still the right metric?
https://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/ombdir14.html


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

I'm pointing out each of the country statistics you showed are based on each counties national poverty level, not the UN.

"Global poverty rates are based on the international poverty line of $1.25 day measured at 2005 prices and cannot be directly compared with national level poverty rates, which are derived using country specific poverty lines estimated in local currencies."

http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=0&SeriesId=580

I'm using, and the statistics you showed for Germany, Denmark, & the US are using relative poverty, so I'm not sure why we are back to the vividness of the absolute. Could we stay with relative?


----------



## CharlesA

My understanding is that Germany is still struggling with the weight of the former East Germany-the two countries were dramatically, dramatically different.


----------



## patcollins

The thing about relative poverty is you can make it mean whatever you want so you will always have a significant percentage of the population you can call poor to use as political pawns.

Poor people in the US have been voting for those that claim to be champions for the poor for over 50 years now and guess what they are still poor but the people they vote for, want to speak for them, etc have gotten filthy rich from it (Al Sharpton would be one example).


----------



## CharlesA

Patcollins,

Replace Al Sharpton with Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn and your analysis is closer to the mark.


----------



## patcollins

> Patcollins,
> 
> Replace Al Sharpton with Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn and your analysis is closer to the mark.
> 
> - CharlesA


When have they ever claimed to be for the poor?

It's the guy that claims to be your friend but picks your pocket while embracing you that you really have to watch out for.


----------



## CharlesA

Two things. 1) you're right. 
2) They claim to be for a free economy that will bring wealth to us all through the free market. And the states they represent end up with a widening wealth gap with millions of conservative white folks on the government rolls, all the while thinking that it is other people who are dependent on the government.


----------



## CharlesA

You want to see how someone who serves the people can go from a net worth of $30,000 to $30 million while never making over $200,000/year? See Mitch McConnell. Al Sharpton is child's play.

Mitch has never had a private sector job in his adult life, I don't believe.


----------



## patcollins

> They claim to be for a free economy that will bring wealth to us all through the free market.
> - CharlesA


I have never seen this claim made by anyone, where is your source for this?

I also don't think either one of them are really a conservative.


----------



## CharlesA

By wealth I do not mean everyone will be rich. But if you haven't heard the claim that the unfettered free market will bring a higher standard of living to all who work, then you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## patcollins

> By wealth I do not mean everyone will be rich. But if you haven t heard the claim that the unfettered free market will bring a higher standard of living to all who work, then you haven t been paying attention.
> 
> - CharlesA


I think you are filling in the blanks here. If it would or wouldn't isn't an issue because that is what the constitution intended and that is the only thing that should matter.

Not being from KY or TX and not being able to vote for either one of those I don't know that much about them. I do know anyone that thinks they are any different from their democrat counterparts is a fool because the exact same thing happens with them. Unfortunately most people treat their politicians too much like their favorite football team and route for "their side" no matter what instead of actually holding them accountable for what they are, their representatives.

Recently Hillary Clinton made news for claiming to be broke after her and Bill left the white house, I don't think she understands the concept of broke.


----------



## CharlesA

What does the Constitution intend? I'm lost.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

CharlesA, That is a great quote in your tag line. The timeless wisdom of Jefferson never ceases to be a source of amazement.


----------



## CharlesA

He also had an interesting take on the constitution.


----------



## RobS888

Charles don't forget Mitch got 2.3 billion for KY, to end the shutdown. I believe there were 6 earmarks on the bill that ended the shutdown.


----------



## RobS888

Pat Collins does the constitution intend for us to be capitalists?


----------



## RobS888

> The thing about relative poverty is you can make it mean whatever you want so you will always have a significant percentage of the population you can call poor to use as political pawns.
> 
> Poor people in the US have been voting for those that claim to be champions for the poor for over 50 years now and guess what they are still poor but the people they vote for, want to speak for them, etc have gotten filthy rich from it (Al Sharpton would be one example).
> 
> - patcollins


I don't follow are you saying the government changes what the poverty line is for political gain?

I believe the 1%s get bribed as well, so where is the difference?

Vote for me and I'll do X, how is that not a bribe?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I really fail to see how extreme, survival level poverty in 3rd world countries can be used to justify continued consolidation of American assets in the hands of a smaller and smaller oligarchy to the detriment of the shrinking middle class and working poor. Are we supposed to condone this until there is a significant segment of the U.S. population reduced homelessness and malnutrition?


----------



## patcollins

> Pat Collins does the constitution intend for us to be capitalists?
> 
> - RobS888


It intends for the federal government to have very few powers, one of those things it did not give power of would be control of the economy, no government control of the economy is the definition of capitalism. This is not to say it allows for illegal activity, people tend to go down that route when talking about things.


----------



## CharlesA

"no government control of the economy"-care to revise that statement?


----------



## RobS888

> It intends for the federal government to have very few powers, one of those things it did not give power of would be control of the economy, no government control of the economy is the definition of capitalism. This is not to say it allows for illegal activity, people tend to go down that route when talking about things.
> 
> - patcollins


I think, perhaps you are referring to free markets. Capitalism is the accumulation of capital.

So, if we want we could become communistic?


----------



## patcollins

> "no government control of the economy"-care to revise that statement?
> 
> - CharlesA


Why would I?

By the way the quote in your signature is taken out of context, the full quote is

*This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor. *

Another good Jefferson Quote is

-a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.*


----------



## patcollins

> It intends for the federal government to have very few powers, one of those things it did not give power of would be control of the economy, no government control of the economy is the definition of capitalism. This is not to say it allows for illegal activity, people tend to go down that route when talking about things.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I think, perhaps you are referring to free markets. Capitalism is the accumulation of capital.
> 
> So, if we want we could become communistic?
> 
> - RobS888


The full definition of capitalism according to webster is 
*an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market*

If we wanted to become communistic we either have a revolution or amend the constitution. An actual violent revolution would probably be an easier route, however if the communist supporting side won the revolution they would fall in the end. Communism may sound great on paper but it has never worked long term in the history of the world. Most countries have abandoned the communist economic model by the 1990's. China is no longer communistic, they are an authoritarian-capitalistic society now.


----------



## CharlesA

I'll accept your full context of the Jefferson quote-and I'll note that Jefferson was not a big fan of a constitution since those who sought liberty for themselves should not impose their vision of liberty on future generations.


----------



## CharlesA

double post


----------



## DrDirt

> I really fail to see how extreme, survival level poverty in 3rd world countries can be used to justify continued consolidation of American assets in the hands of a smaller and smaller oligarchy to the detriment of the shrinking middle class and working poor. Are we supposed to condone this until there is a significant segment of the U.S. population reduced homelessness and malnutrition?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Topa the challenge is what is the real level- (absolute or relative) of poverty. no matter what there will be a societal stratification of 5 quintiles….20% each.

We will call the bottom 20% the poor. Challenge is that no matter what, there will *ALWAYS be a bottom 20%.*

So there needs to be some more "absolute" metric to define what is poverty - - as a problem to be solved - or an action level where government needs to step in.
I don't think the fact of being in the lower quintile is the defining point for needing help through redistribution..

We can talk income inequality, and the concentration of wealth - - however I think the concentration of wealth is more damaging to the middle class, and pretty irrelevant to the poor who are not in the workforce.

Defining poverty as a "dollar distance" between a hobo and Bill Gates, makes a pretty chart. real question becomes what level of Support - moves the welfare system from being a safety net to a Hammock?

Relativism is a keen dagger for dividing the population. You just convince one group that they are "in Poverty" and that they are owed something from others.

-----------

Really the question is simple - - what does "Winning the war on poverty" look like? What has to be in place before the president can hang a "Mission Accomplished" Banner?

As Jesus said.. "The poor will always be with us" As a society they will always need help, but how much should the bottom 20% contribute to their own success?


----------



## RobS888

> The full definition of capitalism according to webster is
> *an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market*
> 
> If we wanted to become communistic we either have a revolution or amend the constitution. An actual violent revolution would probably be an easier route, however if the communist supporting side won the revolution they would fall in the end. Communism may sound great on paper but it has never worked long term in the history of the world. Most countries have abandoned the communist economic model by the 1990 s. China is no longer communistic, they are an authoritarian-capitalistic society now.
> 
> - patcollins


Correct, the accumulation of capital.

I'm not a historical scholar Pat. Could you show me where the constitution defines our economic system?


----------



## RobS888

> We can talk income inequality, and the concentration of wealth - - however I think the concentration of wealth is more damaging to the middle class, and pretty irrelevant to the *poor who are not in the workforce*.
> 
> As Jesus said.. "The poor will always be with us" As a society they will always need help, but how much should the *bottom 20% contribute to their own success?*
> 
> - DrDirt


Are you equating the lowest 20% to X number of able bodied people that don't want to work? I would hazard that no more than a 1/4 of them are even old enough to work.

Do you remember during the last presidential election about how 300,000 people per month were leaving the workforce? Do you think they became poor?


----------



## patcollins

> The full definition of capitalism according to webster is
> *an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market*
> 
> If we wanted to become communistic we either have a revolution or amend the constitution. An actual violent revolution would probably be an easier route, however if the communist supporting side won the revolution they would fall in the end. Communism may sound great on paper but it has never worked long term in the history of the world. Most countries have abandoned the communist economic model by the 1990 s. China is no longer communistic, they are an authoritarian-capitalistic society now.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Correct, the accumulation of capital.
> 
> I m not a historical scholar Pat. Could you show me where the constitution defines our economic system?
> 
> - RobS888


It is capitalistic by default because the federal government was not given the powers by the constitution for the economy to be any other form. Would you not agree that the government needs a legal basis to control things or is "they ought to" good enough for you?

I think you are starting this with an automatic assumption that the term capitalist is an insult. I can open a company, pretty much give everything away, accumulate no capital at all but I have still operated in a capitalistic way.


----------



## DrDirt

> Are you equating the lowest 20% to X number of able bodied people that don t want to work? I would hazard that no more than a 1/4 of them are even old enough to work.
> 
> Do you remember during the last presidential election about how 300,000 people per month were leaving the workforce? Do you think they became poor?
> 
> - RobS888


Um-the bottom 20% is not all children - IF that were as you are claiming, that 75% of the first quintile is made up of people too young to work, then we have ZERO poverty issue. 
That for sure is NOT THE CASE If the bottom 20% are children, how would you ever define income inequality, for a group that is too young to even participate in the labor force? Suddenly in your example essentially everyone old enough has a job and is at least middle class…..

Poverty is set by HOUSHOLD…. not individual. What is harder - is determining what these levels equate to in terms of meeting needs/lifestyle.

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html
---------copy/paste-------








Updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

Although the thresholds in some sense reflect families needs,
•They are intended for use as a statistical yardstick, *not as a complete description of what people and families need to live.*
•Many government aid programs use a different poverty measure, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines Link to a non-federal Web site , or multiples thereof.

Poverty thresholds were originally *derived in 1963-1964*, using:
•U.S. Department of Agriculture food budgets designed for families under economic stress.
•Data about what portion of their income families spent on food.

Computation
If total family income is less than the threshold appropriate for that family,
•The family is in poverty.
•All family members have the same poverty status.
•For individuals who do not live with family members, their own income is compared with the appropriate threshold.
---------End Copy/Paste-------------
So is what they are doing "RIGHT" to define poverty? Does it miss things? - - it only looks at urban areas?
Is the world/inflation/food/Cost of living, different now than back in 1964 when everything was made locally instead of imported from China?


----------



## RobS888

> *It is capitalistic by default *because the federal government was not given the powers by the constitution for the economy to be any other form. Would you not agree that the government needs a legal basis to control things or is "they ought to" good enough for you?
> 
> I think you are starting this with an automatic assumption that the term capitalist is an insult. I can open a company, pretty much give everything away, accumulate no capital at all but I have still operated in a capitalistic way.
> 
> - patcollins


I have nothing against capitalism, I just don't think it is the default of the constitution, nothing in the constitution or bill of rights has an understood default.

This is like the argument that when the constitution says creator it is "understood to be Christian", and that is not the case.

I believe most regulations are written in blood, the 18th century was pretty free wheeling economically and hey didn't we end of with massive consolidation of wealth? One Robber Baron bailed out the US government 7 times.

Free markets are anti-competitive, market share accumulation leads to monopolies.

Consider Microsoft, pretty neutral to most people if they even gave them a thought. Yet they were merciless in their business practices and we only have Apple today because Bill Gates bailed them out (400 million, I recall) to maintain some competition. They destroyed the rest. If we didn't have anti-trust laws, no Apple.


----------



## patcollins

I think the 10th amendment is pretty clear.

*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people*

How could we have any other system without the federal government having been given that power?


----------



## RobS888

> Um-the bottom 20% is not all children - IF that were as you are claiming, that 75% of the first quintile is made up of people too young to work, then we have ZERO poverty issue.


I'm sorry I can't get past this point…

Tell me if I have this correct:
20% that are poor are households, ok?

At the national average of 2.01 children per woman, *at least* 50% of the people in poor households are children. Ok?

So are you saying somewhere between 50% and 75% of a household being children poverty ends?

I just don't follow at all.


----------



## RobS888

> I think the 10th amendment is pretty clear.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, *or to the people*
> 
> How could we have any other system without the federal government having been given that power?
> 
> - patcollins


So if Maryland wanted to, they could become communistic? It says the state or the people decide. Right there, you posted it.

I, in no way, want that, but you are claiming something that isn't there, you have called it an intent and a default, but I don't see any proof.


----------



## patcollins

> I think the 10th amendment is pretty clear.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, *or to the people*
> 
> How could we have any other system without the federal government having been given that power?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> So if Maryland wanted to, they could become communistic? It says the state or the people decide. Right there, you posted it.
> 
> I, in no way, want that, but you are claiming something that isn t there, you have called it an intent and a default, but I don t see any proof.
> 
> - RobS888


I suppose they could, communism is an economy owned by a central government though, so if you say the people want to be communistic then they own the economy and you are back to capitalism…

What exactly makes you think the economy could be anything other than a capitalistic economy?

Government Sponsored (or supported) Enterprises like Fanny Mae are skirting on the edges of capitalism.

We, of course, are not a purely capitalistic economy. There are also no completely socialistic economies in the world either.


----------



## RobS888

> I suppose they could, communism is an economy owned by a central government though, so if you say the people want to be communistic then they own the economy and you are back to capitalism…
> 
> What exactly makes you think the economy could be anything other than a capitalistic economy?
> 
> Government Sponsored (or supported) Enterprises like Fanny Mae are skirting on the edges of capitalism.
> 
> We, of course, are not a purely capitalistic economy. There are also no completely socialistic economies in the world either.
> 
> - patcollins


Just to be clear, you agree that the constitution does not actually address an economic system, correct?

I don't think your definition of Communism is correct, it sounds more like Fascism.

I have a question. Is socialism, capitalism + or communism lite?


----------



## RobS888

A new report says inequality is causing slower growth. It is not a novel conclusion. The surprise is the source: Standard & Poor's.

http://nyti.ms/1zRet2k


----------



## CharlesA

PatCollins,

Your economic interpretation of the constitution is a good example of what happens when we fetishize the constitution. You say that since it includes the limitation of federal power, the economy must be capitalistic. At one level, you have a point. On the other hand, modern economic categories don't make a lot of sense. The argument wasn't socialism vs. capitalism, the argument was whether or not the King was in charge. The Wealth of Nations wasn't published until 1776, and the kind of industrial capitalism that we now recognize as capitalism didn't exist. At this point ownership of land, not capital, was the means of wealth. And socialism, a response to industrial capitalism, wouldn't come on as a real option until the next century.

So, it is clear that the Founding Fathers (using that term loosely) did not want the King to run the economy, and they thought individuals should profit from their labor, etc., but this didn't require that there be no national bank or currency, not did it address issues of worker rights in an industrialized economy, etc.

So, you're right at a certain level, but that is followed by a very big but.


----------



## RobS888

Good points Charles,

Did you come up with Constitutional Fetishist?

Now, if we could only get Pat to acknowledge the US is a democracy.


----------



## DrDirt

> I m sorry I can t get past this point…
> 
> Tell me if I have this correct:
> 20% that are poor are households, ok?
> 
> At the national average of 2.01 children per woman, *at least* 50% of the people in poor households are children. Ok?
> 
> So are you saying somewhere between 50% and 75% of a household being children poverty ends?
> 
> I just don t follow at all.
> 
> - RobS888


20% are NOT in poverty. There is however ALWAYS a bottom 20% and a Top 20%.

Is EVERYONE in the bottom 20% fully destitute, and 100% dependent on the government to meet basic needs?
I think not.

You point out a great issue - because there is a big focus on "INCOME" inequality.
What does that mean to a 6 year old? How will governemtn fix the income gap of first and second graders…. and should it even try?

You still don't address - if the system that DEFINES what poverty is - - which has a STATED VIEW - that it is not a description of what families NEED…. then frankly what good is it.

What is the relevance of the USA moving from 15.1% to 13% in an arbitrary metric?
Is that 2% improvement, just that the people that were 'right at the limits' have now gotten over the bar, or have we helped the truly destitute and needy - - which would be a more helpful outcome..


----------



## RobS888

> *We will call the bottom 20% the poor*. Challenge is that no matter what, there will *ALWAYS be a bottom 20%.*
> 
> As Jesus said.. "*The poor will always be with us*" As a society they will always need help, but how much should the *bottom 20%* contribute to their own success?
> 
> - DrDirt


I'm trying to use your definition of poor.

Since the wealth is concentrated at one end, the vast majority are chasing fewer and fewer dollars, so to a 6 year old *income inequality* means nothing, to the parent that can't provide for the child, it means a lot.

I don't have a definition for what the relative poverty level should be in the US, but I think that every child in the US should get the same access to schooling (education budgets should be spent evenly on all children in a state) and healthcare until 18, regardless of income.

The past couple of years I have heard a lot about breaking the cycle of poverty. This makes sense to me and I would vote for programs that try to do that.


----------



## DrDirt

> I don t have a definition for what the relative poverty level should be in the US, but I think that every child in the US should get the same access to schooling (education budgets should be spent evenly on all children in a state) and healthcare until 18, regardless of income.
> 
> The past couple of years I have heard a lot about breaking the cycle of poverty. This makes sense to me and I would vote for programs that try to do that.
> 
> - RobS888


We are closing in on agreement -
what I am sayin is it is fine to say the bottom 20% is poor…. but perhaps wrong to claim the bottom 20% represents poverty.

I am OK with battling poverty and support educational opportunity….that is why I ask - what does Winning the war on poverty mean… because at the end of the day, for Political gain, and divisive 'Santa Claus' politics, we always carve out a segment to label as disenfranchised, and explain that through punitive taxation and redistribution "We" the government will ensure a fair share.

If we won't identify what that is…. how do we ever get there - we just have some nebulous relative metric to say the income gap is too big. Great - Ceasar was richer than the roman senate,.... didn't mean the senate was eating rats, and sleeping under the aquaduct.

the Gap is the gap…. real question is how is the middleclass and the poor actually doing? and less about what Bill Gates or David Koch or Larry Ellison are earning.


----------



## patcollins

> Good points Charles,
> 
> Did you come up with Constitutional Fetishist?
> 
> Now, if we could only get Pat to acknowledge the US is a democracy.
> 
> - RobS888


It is not a democracy, calling it a democracy is the 1st grade simplification of it. The US is a democratic republic.

While the differences aren't large there are differences. It is very similar to people on here calling the portable job-site table saws contractor saws because contractors use them.


----------



## patcollins

> PatCollins,
> 
> Your economic interpretation of the constitution is a good example of what happens when we fetishize the constitution. You say that since it includes the limitation of federal power, the economy must be capitalistic. At one level, you have a point.
> - CharlesA


I think it is very important to hold it up because we have some complete nutbag extremists on both sides of the fence and the constitution is the rule book that they must adhere to. Sadly a lot of people don't care about violating it if it is something they are for, but as soon as the other guy violates it in regard to something they are against they are yelling and screaming.

I always thought it was funny when you present a set of rules for something, anything really, the very first thing people do is try to skirt the rules.


----------



## RobS888

> It is not a democracy, calling it a democracy is the 1st grade simplification of it. The US is a democratic republic.
> 
> While the differences aren t large there are differences. It is very similar to people on here calling the portable job-site table saws contractor saws because contractors use them.
> 
> - patcollins


From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
de·moc·ra·cy
noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\

: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

: a country ruled by democracy

: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights
plural de·moc·ra·cies
Full Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2
: a political unit that has a democratic government
3
capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from>
4
: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5
: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

I suggest that in 1787 they saw two types of government *monarchy and republic (no monarch)*.

When Ben Franklin said "a republic if you can hold it" he was probably referring to a monarchy forming.

Apparently we seem to have made up our own meaning for Republic. We seem to use Republic the same way the rest of the world uses representative democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance, a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.[44] Also, there is evidence that contemporaries of Madison considered the meaning of the word to reflect the definition found elsewhere, as is the case with a quotation of Benjamin Franklin taken from the notes of James McHenry. Where the question is put forth, "a Republic or a Monarchy?"[45]

So what are these minor differences, other than the name?

*This guy Ronald Reagan said: *

In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what *democracy* is all about.

For two hundred years we have been set apart by our faith in the ideals of *democracy*, of free men and free markets, and of the extraordinary possibilities that lie within seemingly ordinary men and women.

The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight.

And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, put it eloquently…

But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy.

Was he a first grader?


----------



## RobS888

> I think it is very important to hold it up because we have some complete nutbag extremists on both sides of the fence and the constitution is the rule book that they must adhere to.
> 
> - patcollins


There is nothing wrong with holding it up, but we need to try to stay with what it says and not urban legends of what it says.

It doesn't say the US is capitalistic,
It doesn't say the US is Christian, 
It doesn't say the US is a Republic. Each state is supposed to be a Republic, though.


----------



## patcollins

> I think it is very important to hold it up because we have some complete nutbag extremists on both sides of the fence and the constitution is the rule book that they must adhere to.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> There is nothing wrong with holding it up, but we need to try to stay with what it says and not urban legends of what it says.
> 
> It doesn t say the US is capitalistic,
> It doesn t say the US is Christian,
> It doesn t say the US is a Republic. Each state is supposed to be a Republic, though.
> 
> - RobS888


Where did I ever say anything about Christian?

By your own argument about capitalism and the constitution where do you get that each state is supposed to be a republic?

I think you are just arguing for argument sake now and thinking that I am something or arguing for something that I am not.


----------



## patcollins

> I don t have a definition for what the relative poverty level should be in the US, but I think that every child in the US should get the same access to schooling (education budgets should be spent evenly on all children in a state) and healthcare until 18, regardless of income.
> 
> - RobS888


Not sure where you live in Maryland but that would be wonderful. I live in St Marys county. Baltimore and PG counties spend way more than we do and well…..


----------



## RobS888

> Where did I ever say anything about Christian?
> 
> By your own argument about capitalism and the constitution where do you get that each state is supposed to be a republic?
> 
> I think you are just arguing for argument sake now and thinking that I am something or arguing for something that I am not.
> 
> - patcollins


I was listing what I see as constitutional urban legends. You have only mentioned 2 of them.

Article 4, section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

That would be Southern MD, correct? I think I went there for a Celtic festival once.


----------



## patcollins

> Where did I ever say anything about Christian?
> 
> By your own argument about capitalism and the constitution where do you get that each state is supposed to be a republic?
> 
> I think you are just arguing for argument sake now and thinking that I am something or arguing for something that I am not.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I was listing what I see as constitutional urban legends. You have only mentioned 2 of them.
> 
> Article 4, section 4:
> 
> The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
> 
> That would be Southern MD, correct? I think I went there for a Celtic festival once.
> 
> - RobS888


Yea southern Maryland, go south through PG, south through Calvert or Charles and you hit St Marys.


----------



## RobS888

> We are closing in on agreement -
> what I am sayin is it is fine to say the bottom 20% is poor…. but perhaps wrong to claim the bottom 20% represents poverty.
> 
> I am OK with battling poverty and support educational opportunity….that is why I ask - what does Winning the war on poverty mean… because at the end of the day, for Political gain, and divisive Santa Claus politics, we always carve out a segment to label as disenfranchised, and explain that through punitive taxation and redistribution "We" the government will ensure a fair share.
> 
> If we won t identify what that is…. how do we ever get there - we just have some nebulous relative metric to say the income gap is too big. Great - Ceasar was richer than the roman senate,.... didn t mean the senate was eating rats, and sleeping under the aquaduct.
> 
> the Gap is the gap…. real question is how is the middleclass and the poor actually doing? and less about what Bill Gates or David Koch or Larry Ellison are earning.
> 
> - DrDirt


The Roman senate were the wealthiest land owners weren't they? That makes your vivid comparison more like Bill Gates compared to Mitch McConnell. Like comparing a .00001% to a .01%.

I feel that the middle-class and the poor do as well as the rich let them.

Costco gets a lot of money from me because I like their corporate approach. They start people at $11.50/hour and they get medical!

If other companies followed Costco's approach to employee compensation, poverty/the poor/bottom 20% would be reduced. Does McDonalds really need 5 Billion in profits?


----------



## RobS888

> Yea southern Maryland, go south through PG, south through Calvert or Charles and you hit St Marys.
> 
> - patcollins


Long way. I think it took me 3 hours to get to Mechanicsville.

Did you read the Reagan quotes?


----------



## patcollins

> If other companies followed Costco s approach to employee compensation, poverty/the poor/bottom 20% would be reduced. Does McDonalds really need 5 Billion in profits?
> 
> - RobS888


You realize that most of the people in the US that work for McDonalds don't actually work for the corporate McDonalds but local franchisees don't you?


----------



## patcollins

> Yea southern Maryland, go south through PG, south through Calvert or Charles and you hit St Marys.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Long way. I think it took me 3 hours to get to Mechanicsville.
> 
> Did you read the Reagan quotes?
> 
> - RobS888


Yes I did, but having something and being something are two different things. You can have democracy even without government or any form of government for that matter. I never once said we did not have democracy, I said we are not a true democracy.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> We can talk income inequality, and the concentration of wealth - - however I think the concentration of wealth is more damaging to the middle class, and pretty irrelevant to the poor who are not in the workforce.
> 
> Defining poverty as a "dollar distance" between a hobo and Bill Gates, makes a pretty chart. real question becomes what level of Support - moves the welfare system from being a safety net to a Hammock?
> 
> Relativism is a keen dagger for dividing the population. You just convince one group that they are "in Poverty" and that they are owed something from others.
> 
> -----------
> 
> Really the question is simple - - what does "Winning the war on poverty" look like? What has to be in place before the president can hang a "Mission Accomplished" Banner?
> 
> As Jesus said.. "The poor will always be with us" As a society they will always need help, but how much should the bottom 20% contribute to their own success?
> 
> - DrDirt


Little doubt there will always be poor and destitute for a variety of reasons. There will never be a shortage of those willing to game the system from both the top and bottom ends. The best welfare program is a job that pays a living wage. All able bodied should be making their own way, but the system has to allow them a fair chance. That means oligarchs have to relinquish ownership of their prostitutes in Congress.

Teddy Roosevelt said in 1900, a man working 40 hours a week should be able to buy a home, feed his family, save for retirement, take a vacation once in a while, and educate his kids. That was a very radical statement at that time, but we achieved it post WWII. The 70s were the beginning of the end and drastic policy changes starting in the 80 are totally destroying the middle class and those achievements.

Winning the war on poverty will look like the 50s and 60s if it ever happens again. There were really only 3 periods in history with an affluent middle class. The first was the Renaissance in Europe. The plagues and barbarism of the Dark Ages left a severe labor shortage which drove the price up.

The second was colonial America just prior to the Revolution. The third was post WWII. It will be interesting to see if it gets rebooted, if the younger generations accept their diminished lot in life or if they vote in socialist or even communist reforms. Widening inequity only serves ripen the lust for revolution.

The Supreme Court would declare any nationalization of private property unconstitutional. The Supreme Court serves at the pleasure of Congress. They can be impeached and should be. We now have an activist court that does not rule on law, it writes it as it sees fit. The top 1% seem to be willing to play with fire. They could very easliy get burned by unintended consequences.


----------



## RobS888

> - patcollins
> Yes I did, but having something and being something are two different things. You can have democracy even without government or any form of government for that matter. I never once said we did not have democracy, I said we are not a true democracy.
> 
> - patcollins


So what are the differences 'tween the two. And not a pure democracy, I don't believe there are any of those. 
So please use the modern sense, democracy is representative democracy.


----------



## DrDirt

> Little doubt there will always be poor and destitute for a variety of reasons. There will never be a shortage of those willing to game the system from both the top and bottom ends. The best welfare program is a job that pays a living wage. All able bodied should be making their own way, but the system has to allow them a fair chance.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Topa -
That snippet sums up what I have been ineloquently trying to say.
Our challenge is really to design a better SAFETY net, that is harder to game, but also not a way of life.

Healthcare is I believe a huge piece… particularly how medicare gets structured. If one does work and apply themselves, they lose their kids health coverage…. now are forced onto the Exchanges, which for the poor, has a premium that is a sizable chunk of their pay.

Loss of benefits, is presenting itself as a roadblock to those who might otherwise apply themselves, but instead experience advancement or promotion, as a net loss to their household.


----------



## RobS888

Has this been shown already?

It seems we are only slightly more mobile than an aristocratic country.

The mobility or lack thereof helps maintain the existing groups we have.

I saw a version of this on TV last year, but they stopped at the UK and the news reader/pundits were pleased because we had almost the highest mobility. They were reading it backwards.

I have a suggestion, nobody should get free money. They should have to go to school or work in some way for the money.


----------



## DrDirt

> I have a suggestion, nobody should get free money. They should have to go to school or work in some way for the money.
> 
> - RobS888


Agree completely - - I wonder how much this affects the graph you present…. there is variation by race, but if 35% of kids are in single parent homes…. what becomes the correlation between Fathers and Sons income as a measure of mobility compared to other countries - - when dads in the US are gone for more than 1/3 of households.?


----------



## RobS888

I don't believe race has anything to do with anything, except appearance. Culture and perception do, but race does not.

This graph shows that for example Canada has slightly less single parent households than the US, however it has more upward mobility. So I don't think that is a factor.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Healthcare is I believe a huge piece… particularly how medicare gets structured. If one does work and apply themselves, they lose their kids health coverage…. now are forced onto the Exchanges, which for the poor, has a premium that is a sizable chunk of their pay.
> 
> Loss of benefits, is presenting itself as a roadblock to those who might otherwise apply themselves, but instead experience advancement or promotion, as a net loss to their household.
> 
> - DrDirt


The cost of healthcare is definitely a major roadblock.


----------



## RobS888

> The cost of healthcare is definitely a major roadblock.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Not for most industrialized countries.

Our cost is twice the next highest and we don't get the best results, in fact we are 14th. Of course if every single person along the foodchain needs to make a huge profit…


















One could say Capitalism is killing us.


----------



## DrDirt

Rob - in the graph I was focused on the TOTAL SINGLE PARENT households is 35%.

The authors additionally broke out difference by race… but 35% was the overall population.

it is well known that single parent homes are more at risk - - if per your graph you are measuring only fathers to their sons… you automatically discard 35% of families that are single parent…. and then 50% of the remainder since half the kids are females… so not included in the mobility study.

http://depts.washington.edu/wcpc/Family

Looks to me like addressing single parenthood, would make a big dent in poverty and dependence. ESPECIALLY if we are addressing *children growing up in poverty*

If we are only measuring middle and upper middle class kids mainly from 2 parent households - - and looking at how much more money those kids make then their parents…. that will show a small improvement.

If we instead look at ALL children (boys and girls) versus their parents… we would see that quite often the children (like the DREAM Act kids) are doing MUCH better than their parents who arrived, with a large language barrier and poor education, but got their kids into the US schools.
I think the mobility study misses a lot of that.









Healtcare spend is also realated to our being a bunch of diabetic Hippos, riding rascal scooters around the local Walmart…. you don't see a "people of Walmart- Italy or France edition" 
It takes a ton of money to keep Honey Boo Boo alive until 82.


----------



## RobS888

Dr. Dirt

That is meant to show intergenerational mobility, so I don't believe it is limited by gender, in fact most descriptions say parents or generation, no gender is mentioned. Please don't grab onto the plural of the description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The cost of healthcare is definitely a major roadblock.
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Not for most industrialized countries.
> 
> Our cost is twice the next highest and we don t get the best results, in fact we are 14th. Of course if every single person along the foodchain needs to make a huge profit…
> 
> One could say Capitalism is killing us.
> 
> - RobS888


Yes, capitalism is killing not only health care but the majority of us, U.S. The oligoarchy has been playing a long term well thought out game plan. It is working phenomenally well in creating an oligopoly. There are only 6 multinational corps that control nearly everything in the market place. Thom Hartmann pointed this out and it is all on a website named something like "theyrule." I can't find it right now, but that site has a lot of boring info about how they all set on each others boards of directors, ect.

I have noticed in the last couple of years, the local Chase Bank Branch is falling all over themselves with customer service reps. I can't help but wonder if their participation in the global economic crisis and housing bubble
with associated loss of customers due to the economic stress they, themselves caused those people has caused a loss of clientele? I will go out on a limb and predict that bankrupt, unemployed customers will have a difficult time maintaining deposit balances and making minimal credit card payments. Chase is not alone, I just cite them because I witnessed their aggressive marketing and public relations campaign first hand.

Looking back at the last 15 years with all the corporate corruption filing of fraudulent financials with the SEC, lying to share holders to drive share price in the market, and on and on….......... They have literally killed more Americans than foreign terrorists could ever hope to kill. Millions of Americans whose economic lives and retirements have been destroyed will surely perish as they choose between healthcare, food, or shelter and heat. I do not believe we have seen this level of purposeful destruction in our country since Sherman cut a 60 mile wide swath of scorched earth destruction across Dixie to end the Civil War.

If these corps are people, they should spend time in federal detention, or at least their CEOs should serve the time. Since a life sentence would not be sufficient, the CFOs and boards should probably go too.


----------



## DrDirt

Rob - the title of the graph is International correlation between the earnings of FATHERS AND SONS…. which is why I questioned it.
The link is interesting - one of the other representations they showed was this one.
Which is kind of counterintuitive, in that one would think that in a society with very little gap between rich and poor…like finland, that MOBILITY is high. So in a society where there is essentially nowhere to really go socially… you are more likely to get there? Kind of like having More freedom in a small cage, than in an open field.

But as I read it - - it is movement between the quintiles…. so to move from "bottom 20% to the Next 20%" is easy when that step is for example a 5% increase in pay… versus the US where making the same step socially is a 25% increase in pay.


----------



## RobS888

Correct DrDirt,

Moving in a more equal society is easier than in a less equal one.

I think we agree now on this as well!


----------



## DrDirt

> Looks to me like addressing single parenthood, would make a big dent in poverty and dependence. ESPECIALLY if we are addressing *children growing up in poverty*
> 
> - DrDirt


What I struggle with for the war on poverty to succeed is how we structure things and have a desired outcome… We agree that everyone should be trying to better themselves, that there should be some work/school requirement on their part.

I think we have to address the issue above for child poverty. Averaging the male and female led single income households you are at basically 35K (90% of single parents are women).... while a two parent household is in the low 70's. 
I expect this is driven by it being a two income household, instead of one.

But the Child in that two income household is going to be in a better position w.r.t. poverty/income.
With now more than 1/3 of all kids being born into single parent households, there isn't a way to effectively close that gap from the government side - - and from an income mobility side, family status is a big driver of future poverty.
There is the OPPORTUNITY to move up, but no real examples/role models - so the kids grow up doing what the know/observe all their lives… They know nothing else.

http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=37&articleid=106&sectionid=686

*The Estimated Effects of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing *
During the 1960s and 1970s, most of the rise in single parenthood was related to divorce. But over the past quarter-century, by far the most important cause of the rise in single-parent families has been out-of-wedlock childbearing. A large body of evidence demonstrates that children born to unmarried mothers are more likely to be poor than are other children. Some studies have attempted to control for the possibility that these mothers would have been poor regardless of whether they had had a child outside marriage. For instance, one group of researchers finds that even after controlling for race, family background, age, education, and employment status, women who have had a child out of wedlock are between 2 and 2.7 times more likely to be poor than other women.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The social ills cited have always been a plague of the lower income tiers. I fail to see how to they are more detrimental now than they have been in the past. Are any of you saying they are a significant contributing factor in the current decline of the middle class?


----------



## DrDirt

Not the decline of the middle class, however I see the increasing percentage of single parent households, which earn 1/2 what a 2 parent household does.

That is a big driver of what we report as child poverty rates.
If we are going to compare relative poverty amongst other countries - e.g. comparing to Germany or Denmark - I don't think they have a 35% rate of single parent homes overall, nor a 67% rate for Blacks, and 42% for Hispanics.

That societal piece, is not driven by consolidation of wealth, or low specific wages, rather the chosen family situation, gives a skewed picture of the US compared to other developed countries, who have lower rates of teen pregnancy, and a more "monochromatic population" if you compare Denmark to the USA.

Look at the rates for post WW2 when we had a thriving middle class through ~1970… then from 1970 to present.

It isn't about shaming - but rather if we are going to scream about the percentage of children in poverty being 20% as a national tragedy to be fixed - and an embarrassment compared to other countries, and 35%-40% of all children are in single parent situations… which have low household incomes. It shapes/defines where the greatest and most immediate areas where we can have a positive impact should be.


----------



## RobS888

Wait! 
Single income families make 1/2 as much as 2 income families!

I reject your single parent statistics as other sources say the US is around 27% and Canada and many industrialized nations are in the low twenties. Yet they have more social mobility, so this not a factor.

Why not look at what successful nations do to work on poverty?

There is no need to fractionate the total, the 40% should be enough. Your multiple displays of the components is troubling.


----------



## RobS888

> The social ills cited have always been a plague of the lower income tiers. I fail to see how to they are more detrimental now than they have been in the past. Are any of you saying they are a significant contributing factor in the current decline of the middle class?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


No the main attack on the middle class is from corporations.

Remember the walmart in NY that paid as little as they could? The employees at that walmart used over $900,000 /year in social assistance. They were working, but couldn't survive without help.

Walmart doesn't get my money or anything made in China if I can find another source (not easy with tools)! Costco gets a lot. Lee Valley as well.


----------



## patron




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> No the main attack on the middle class is from corporations.
> 
> Remember the walmart in NY that paid as little as they could? The employees at that walmart used over $900,000 /year in social assistance. They were working, but couldn t survive without help.
> 
> Walmart doesn t get my money or anything made in China if I can find another source (not easy with tools)! Costco gets a lot. Lee Valley as well.
> 
> - RobS888


Absolutely agreed and Wal-Mart's transgressions are trivial.

Thom Hartmann lamented today about Bill Koch's wine dealer
getting 10 years for selling a fake vintage wine yet Citicorp, Bank America, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and others
get nothing after destroying millions of people financially. Jamie Dimon even took a bonus when he pulled the wool over the justice department's eyes and Chase walked away with a meager fine. Worse yet, they all got trillions in interest free loans to cover the consequences of their fraud. Where is the public outrage? Looks like fraud, by definition, is only prosecutable as a middle class or lower level crime.

Public pressure keeping Walgreen in America is a trivial encouragement, but I believe "economic treason will continue for the foreseeable future. Congress could change the tax code that encourages desertion but the Tea Baggers will never allow it. One little bit of encouraging news is a meager VA funding bill has passed. After the Senate has filibustered the last 13 $30 million VA funding bills in a row to death. I suppose the minority decided they better allow something after the recent scandals. At some point, the half dozen owners of the corporate media would have to eventually fess up and tell the truth, eh?


----------



## patcollins

> - patcollins
> Yes I did, but having something and being something are two different things. You can have democracy even without government or any form of government for that matter. I never once said we did not have democracy, I said we are not a true democracy.
> - patcollins
> 
> So what are the differences tween the two. And not a pure democracy, I don t believe there are any of those.
> So please use the modern sense, democracy is representative democracy.
> 
> - RobS888


That was my original point, that the people do not wield direct political powers but representatives they choose do.

There are pure democracies still, they are just of smaller scope such as town governments etc. I believe Switzerland is very close.


----------



## RobS888

Patcollins,
I was enquiring about the difference between the US republic and a representative form of democracy. I believe they are the same.

You said only a first grader would think that, so I'm curious how they are different?


----------



## Bonka

Topa;
How did Citicorp, et al, destroy all those millions of people financially?


----------



## patcollins

> Patcollins,
> I was enquiring about the difference between the US republic and a representative form of democracy. I believe they are the same.
> 
> You said only a first grader would think that, so I m curious how they are different?
> 
> - RobS888


No, what I said was

*It is not a democracy, calling it a democracy is the 1st grade simplification of it. The US is a democratic republic.*


----------



## patcollins

Topa

Not quite sure how old you are, but when I was in High School and College in the late 80's and early 90's I remember being taught that the US is no longer going to be an industrial based economy and instead we are moving to one based on providing goods, services, and information. Even then I remember thinking how can this be a good thing, but all of the books seemed to paint it as good and the next step of evolution.

One of my favorite professors in college couldn't emphasize enough how this was a bad thing and how GDP is directly related to how much of the economy is based on making things vs other. Nobody wants industry in their back yard, it is dirty, it smells, it causes too much traffic etc.

I often wonder if these people that thought it was a good thing, if they are still alive have changed their minds yet.

I am of the opinion that the only way to have a healthy economy is to bring in more money than you send out and to do this a country either needs to make use of (or exploit) its natural resources, make things to sell to the outside, or to take by force from the outside.

Every day we have a net import of 7.4 million barrels of oil, so every day we send approximately 740 million dollars out of country, every day, just for oil. (source)


----------



## RobS888

> Patcollins,
> I was enquiring about the difference between the US republic and a representative form of democracy. I believe they are the same.
> 
> You said only a first grader would think that, so I m curious how they are different?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> No, what I said was
> 
> *It is not a democracy, calling it a democracy is the 1st grade simplification of it. The US is a democratic republic.*
> 
> - patcollins


I don't see the difference in the first grader crack, but whatever.
So how are they different, US type republic and representative democracy?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Topa;
> How did Citicorp, et al, destroy all those millions of people financially?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Any time you have corruption in financial institutions that causes a world wide Great Recession, millions of people get destroyed financially. Many will never recover.

Selling worthless mortgage backed securities to pension funds, health and welfare funds, state institutions, institutional investors such as mutual funds and to individual investors has devastated many of those institutions and individuals. Many of the beneficiaries of those plans do not even know how severely their benefits and retirements have been impacted.

I used to see mortgage back securities paying 2 or 3 times the mortgage rate. Merrill Lynch's incompetent brokers taught me about junk bonds many years ago. I knew these must be similar, so I stayed out ;-) Glad I did!

The due diligence auditors within many of those financial institutions reported the substandard rates as high as 80%. The mortgages were bundled and sold as investment grade securities anyway. Those [email protected][email protected]$ knew precisely what they were doing. Goldman Sachs even bet against their own securities as they knew they would fail. Others may have to, I do not recall.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Topa
> 
> Not quite sure how old you are, but when I was in High School and College in the late 80 s and early 90 s I remember being taught that the US is no longer going to be an industrial based economy and instead we are moving to one based on providing goods, services, and information. Even then I remember thinking how can this be a good thing, but all of the books seemed to paint it as good and the next step of evolution.
> 
> One of my favorite professors in college couldn t emphasize enough how this was a bad thing and how GDP is directly related to how much of the economy is based on making things vs other. Nobody wants industry in their back yard, it is dirty, it smells, it causes too much traffic etc.
> 
> I often wonder if these people that thought it was a good thing, if they are still alive have changed their minds yet.
> 
> I am of the opinion that the only way to have a healthy economy is to bring in more money than you send out and to do this a country either needs to make use of (or exploit) its natural resources, make things to sell to the outside, or to take by force from the outside.
> 
> Every day we have a net import of 7.4 million barrels of oil, so every day we send approximately 740 million dollars out of country, every day, just for oil. (source)
> 
> - patcollins


You are probably about the same age as my kids, I'm 65. When I was in school in the 50's and 60's, it was drilled into our heads there were financial regulations put in place so the Great Depression could not ever happen again. When the Reagan Administration adopted the laughable polices of trickle down economics, they also began dismantling the economic regulations. My opinion was those guys who made them after the Great Depression knew a lot more than Reagan did and we would suffer for it. Reagan didn't even get out of the White House before the first disaster caused by his administrations's polices struck; the Savings and Loan crisis

There is little doubt we, the U.S., were the world's creditor in 1980 and the world's exporter of finished goods. The difference between a vibrant economy and a third world country is just what you just said. The policies of Reagan, Clinton and the Bushes pretty well seal our fate. The R's met on the day of Obama's inauguration to devise a plan to destroy his presidency. They have done a very good job of it. Obama may have done it on his own with being stabbed in the back, but we will never know. Their policy is to cause as much pain and suffering as they can so the people will blame Obama and elect a R. It didn't work out too well, so we got 4 more years saying "no" to cause us, U.S., more suffering.

I doubt if most of them are bright enough to figure it out. After derivative market collapse, Greenspan did admit to Congress he was wrong about it needing regulation. His position had been there were responsible people running the markets. I guess he knows what a stupid, naive fool he had been. Brooksley Born tried to warn Clinton that the derivative market could destroy our financial system, but Greenspan and his cohorts prevailed. She resigned since there was nothing she could do about it and Lehman Brothers collapsed just as she had warned. AIG got caught up in it too. I really have to wonder how the U.S. financial system has been resilient enough to survive Regan, Clinton and the Bushes?


----------



## Bonka

Did the Community Reinvestment Act, started buy President Carter and doubled down by President Clinton have much to do with it? I remember Barney Frank was asked by the Bush administration more than once about the solvency of Freddie Mac and Fanny May and Frank said they had no solvency problems.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Did the Community Reinvestment Act, started buy President Carter and doubled down by President Clinton have much to do with it?


According to Federal Reserve research
, no. "Responding to concerns that the CRA would lower bank profitability, a 1997 research paper by economists at the Federal Reserve found that "[CRA] lenders active in lower-income neighborhoods and with lower-income borrowers appear to be as profitable as other mortgage-oriented commercial banks".[94]

There were probably a few inappropriate loans made in order to achieve CRA "quotas" but the facts support greedy banksters moving into sub-prime loans due to their high profitability. Housing advocates opposed these practices as it was artificially inflating housing prices.

The end of enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act in the early 80's, the repeal the Great Depression financial regulations and of evolution of the financial services sector from a business service entity to a industry in and of itself comprising 8% of GDP are far greater forces than an anti-discrimination act.



> I remember Barney Frank was asked by the Bush administration more than once about the solvency of Freddie Mac and Fanny May and Frank said they had no solvency problems.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Bush could easily have done anything he wanted to do in spite of any statement by a minority representative with only one vote. W's concerns do not seem to be consistent with his actions. It would seem to me that all 50 state's attorney generals opposing the administration's preemption of state laws protecting the citizens against predatory lending by major banking interests is not consistent with any concerns about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac solvency. The incompetent and criminal activities of the executives of those corps is consistent with other companies the administration turned a blind eye to, like Enron for example.


----------



## Bonka

A good book to read on the subject is, "The Housing Boom and Bust: Revised Addition." by Thomas Sowell.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I'll find a copy. What does he say in a nutshell?


----------



## RobS888

It sure wasn't small loans under $150,000 that caused so much trouble or the bundling of them, it was larger loans abusing the program and the bundling of them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we bailed out the banks when they lost money on the derivites (bundled mortgages), but we also bailed out AIG. AIG paid out insurance to the banks for their losses on the derivatives. Is that not double dipping? They get us anyway the wind blows.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I'm not sure of the exact amounts, but I'm sure Countrywide and others were selling loans of any amount and they were all bundled together. They were committing fraud just processing the loans. Us, U.S. taxpayer and future generations, will be paying for this fraud for generations. It must be at least half the national debt by now.

A person who I am very close to who worked in an IT department of a major mortgage player said he saw a mortgage trade worth billions of dollars on a screen he was working on. The trader told him it was just one trade and he made many of them every day!

Check out this They claim we have been gaining 200,000 jobs a month for a couple three years or more. It takes nearly 300,000 to keep up with population growth. Rickards claims the gains are the transfer of full time to part time ;-( Reaganomics better start working pretty soon or there will not be anything left for the trickle down to trickle down on to.


----------



## Bonka

Topa;
There is not really in a "nutshell." He takes things that occurred one by one. He is noted for taking the complex and explaining it in a manner that is understandable to all. I consider him a national treasure.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It will be interesting to see what he says. I am sure there was at least some inspiration caused by the Community Reinvestment Act to commit fraud. After all, when they get caught they could say it was required my law to meet compliance goals.


----------



## Bonka

Here is some of his writing in 2009.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/upside-down-economics.html


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Interesting article. I have little doubt there were many abuses of authority and process on all sides. Community Reinvestment Act certainty was not the bulk of the cause for the housing bubble or the bulk of the sub-prime lending. There are simply not enough minority borrowers to occupy all the houses financed. We had subdivisions with thousands of 1/2 million dollar homes foreclosed and/or abandoned here. The processes required to facilitate meeting HUD quota may very well have been an initial inspiration for the exponential expansion of sub-prime lending.

It would be great if enough of us would behave ourselves that we could actually employ the Libertarian ideology. I lean more towards the Robert Frost idea of "Good fences make good neighbors." The late, great Paul Harvey, reported only 13 per cent of us live by what we claim to believe in on Sunday mornings. In my experience, I would say the statement was naively optimist.

I met a fellow who started in the mortgage business as a receptionist. Soon, he became an account executive. He pointed out to his boss they they could get 2, 3 or even 4 mortgages on a piece of property. His boss would have nothing to do with it, so he went out on his own. With money easy to get, he had 30 properties in various stages of construction and on the market when the bubble broke. He told me if it would have lasted another year he would have been cashed out and retired with $13 million in the bank. He was bankrupt, living in a small rental house and driving school bus.

Cheers, Bob


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

No. The many that take our money through government largess will speak by voting to get more.


----------



## DrDirt

The subprime Mortgage crisis being RESPONSIBLE for the Economy crashing doesn't add up to me.

Indeed there was a balloon and property flipping became all the rage, with many TV shows on the process.

However how many mortgages (fraction) were written in those peak 4 or 5 years? Versus how many (like myself have a mortgage from 2002?

It seems that maybe 30-40% of folks bought and/or Refinanced homes in any given 5 year period.

out of those say 40%....how many got these screwy No money down, or Interest only loans?

I think the majority got traditional 30 year mortgages, some as ARMs, but I would think again that only at most 30% of the mortgages were "subprime"

So we have 30% of 40% of mortgages being of the subprime bubble - *-~12% of mortgages*

Lets assume that 60% of all the subprime mortgages went into foreclosure. That is only 7% of the HOUSES in this country. Some are still in homes and paying their mortgage.

Certainly when the crisis hit, property values dropped. Some folks were and some still are Underwater. however, although underwater, that is not the same as the home being "worthless".
Add to that that only 32% of the population are renters not owners.
68% of 7% is under 5%.

What money did the banks truly LOSE on 5% of the houses in the USA? Because the bank still recovered at least part of their loans when sold at auction or short sale.

It just doesn't add up that the losses in the mortgage business would be enough to crush the economy.
There are broad swaths of the country that were hardly affected by the mortgage crisis - - in terms of dropping values and foreclosures.

The whole crash when we were losing 800,000 jobs per month… doesn't seem to link-up as being caused by bad mortgages under the CRA.


----------



## Bonka

DrDirt; It will add up if you take the time to research it. There are many, many books and articles written about it. It is still the same as it has always been, the government will screw things up time and again. The government only does two things well, take things at the point of a gun and grow.


----------



## DrDirt

> DrDirt; It will add up if you take the time to research it. There are many, many books and articles written about it. It is still the same as it has always been, the government will screw things up time and again. The government only does two things well, take things at the point of a gun and grow.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Not disagreeing totally - but it seems that the whole derivatives market, and banking tricks are much deeper than just a really rather small percentage of bad mortgages.

When you look at foreclosures - vs Bank losses - - - if you take homes that sold for 200K, with 5% down. The bank was holding 190K in debt. Of course they made 10K/year in interest…. and some principal was paid down for 5-6 years.

When the bank sells it off at 125K…. the owner lost all they put in. But how much money was actually LOST by the bank. If you were in for 5 years, you paid 50K in INTEREST to the bank.
So the bank only truly LOST the remaing 15K - - I know there are salaries to be paid etc, that the interest is not all profit.

But to get to 787 Billion dollars??? just how many MORTGAGES are held by AIG?
In reality how many mortgage holders really stopped paying at all vs the bailout.

There are 125 million houses in the USA.
http://understandingthemarket.com/?p=15

Some of those are paid off - 
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704610904576031632838153532
The foreclosure crisis that erupted four years ago has claimed more than *five million American homes-about 10% of all homes with a mortgage*. It began in lower-income neighborhoods and has spread to some of the most exclusive addresses in the U.S.

So the 787 billion amounts to 157,400 dollars for each foreclosure.
But the foreclosures weren't burned down or bulldozed - - they were sold.

They idea that 5 million houses going into foreclosure will crash the banking system is a certain amount of smoke and mirrors, to cover some much deeper evils in the Fed and Investment banks.
It is not a lack of reading on my part - perhaps I should have said "*I DON"T BELIEVE *Tim Geitner and Hank Paulson's explanation" rather than I don't understand.


----------



## Bonka

I don't believe much of anyone that was involved. The involved, e.g., Geitner, Paulson, et al. 
those subprime mortgages had to be made by the banks at the governments behest. The banks would be accused of red lining as an example. The loans were made although they flew in the face of acceptable lending practices.
These loans as well as others were bundled into derivatives and sold to Fanny May. The banks didn't want them so Fanny May took them. 
The housing bubble finally happened. Too many houses were built for available buyers. The housing prices went sky high with the sales going as fast as they were built. Then excess inventory did to the housing market what it does to other markets the prices dropped. People were suddenly upside down and many just left. The borrowers who were of the high risk class due to the banks being forced to lend to them got to the point they could no longer meet the mortgage payments. They defaulted. There on followed scores of foreclosures.
It is my feeling that banks should have followed the natural flow of things and been allowed to fail, e.g., bankruptcy.
One bank did fail. It seems they had not please, whomever, in the government. The rest? Well you know the story.


----------



## CharlesA

> DrDirt; It will add up if you take the time to research it. There are many, many books and articles written about it. It is still the same as it has always been, the government will screw things up time and again. The government only does two things well, take things at the point of a gun and grow.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Nonsense. You have benefitted from the government so many times you have lost count. Here are some things government does well (not perfectly, but then again who does?):

Roads
OSHA regs (look back on how many people died in construction accidents 100 years ago compared to now)
FDA drug approval
health inspections on restaurants
EPA mileage requirements for autos. The new F-150 will get the same mileage as a Civic did 25 years ago
ever had an FHA loan?
ever work for a business that got tax incentives to expand/start a business?

We only think the gov't is stealing when other folks benefit from its work. When we do, we think it is the result of our own hard work.


----------



## Bonka

How is that "Highway Fund" working out?
OSHA is a thuggery. Look at how it was handled before OSHA. Just what is the difference? Where is your research?
FDA? Take a look on how long it takes to get a drug on market. How many drugs do not work. harm, kill or cause deformities
EPA and mileage? How many deaths has that caused due to small and light weight vehicles? Plus they are now an arm of anti-capitalists and pass mandates with no voted on legislation.
If taxes were not so high incentives would not be needed. No I have never worked for such a company.
Most of the forgoing are extra constitutional at best.


----------



## CharlesA

"Extra constitutional". Give me a break. See above (somewhere) for my discussin of the fetishization of the constitution. Just bc you refer to the constitution doesn't mean you are constitutional in your arguments.

And it is you who haven't done your research, noticing only the failures and overreaches and missing what works.


----------



## Bonka

Not enough works in proportion to the money poured into the agency. Then there is the loss of freedom.


----------



## CharlesA

Noticed you didn't mention FHA loans. You didn't turn down that social welfare program?


----------



## Bonka

No, I got a conventional loan that is now paid off.


----------



## CharlesA

Go to public schools? A state university? Trade school that accepted gov't backed loans?

You completely underestimate what OSHA had done for good (I know why they get a bad rap-much of it is their own doing). 100 people died building the Hoover Dam. Think that would happen today? Safety regs are a big reason why.


----------



## oldnovice

*Charles*, I agree with your comments about OSHA!
It is nearly impossible to determine how many limbs and lives have been saved due to OSHA.


----------



## Bonka

No one has presented any pre and post OSHA statistics. Public schools are a joke as are many universities. The appear to be mainly indoctrination centers.
I am and always will be an opponent of the Federal Government intruding into our live. The Constitution was written to prevent the government from becoming the behemoth it is and entwined in almost every facet of a person's life.


----------



## CharlesA

Nice to live in your own universe. I actually did give a statistic, a one-off statistic, but still a statistic. When was the last time 100 folks died on a construction project in the United States? is that all do to OSHA-course not. But gov't regs do things like that.

Here are stats on pre and post CAFE standards:
1970 Chevelle SS 454 cubic inches 0-60 6.1 seconds 1/4 mile 13.7 seconds 10-12 mpg
2013 Honda Accord Coupe EX-L (Manual) 202 cubic inches 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter Mile 13.8 25-30 mpg

You have noted that your stance is an article of faith ("I am and always will be"), so you've shown that facts, stats, reason don't really matter.


----------



## CharlesA

Oh, and the point of all this, from my end, is that you are actually the beneficiary of government intervention, but like many folks, you either take it for granted (my food is safe?) or you chalk it all up to your own effort.


----------



## Bonka

How many lives were lost due to CAFE standards? We need less Federal Government as expressed in the Constitution and let the states manage those things not expressed as the Federal Government's legal responsibility.
FDA is acceptable as it is part of interstate commerce. There id no provision for the Department of Education as an example.
The powers of the Federal Government are greatly limited in the Constitution. Since it was written politicians and others have evaded and tromped on it. Another example is Social Security. Where is the Constitutional provision for that? Why is it in such poor shape today. Its revenue was put into the General Fund so the deficit would not be so large. Then our elected officials borrowed it and left Treasury notes as IOU's. 
The whole country is in debt beyond comprehension from big government. most of it, in my opinion, has been used to by votes and pay off for large political contributions.
We, as citizens have lost a great deal of freedom due to the onus of taxpayers having to pay off this debt which will take generations. The government never gives it always takes. Usually wealth from one entity to another to achieve political power and more control.
No I am not a big government person and would love to see it contained as was planned by our Forefathers.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## oldnovice

I believe strongly that the federal government has the obligation to protect the citizens of the country and that OSHA, for one, was not started as another means to control people but as an outcry by the people to enforce a uniform level of safety in many dangerous jobs. The armed services is another example as they were also formed to protect our citizens.

All industrialized countries have safety standards with some being much more controlling than ours! Many of the third world countries do not have safety regulations and that is one contrubuting reason a lot of our jobs were outsourced.

Sometimes the government does get carried away, i.e. the limit of large sodas in NYC, which was overturned by the courts.


----------



## CharlesA

> How many lives were lost due to CAFE standards?


 Okay, I'll bite. How many?


----------



## CharlesA

Btw, when you get your number together, compare it to the number of lives not lost bc of required seat belts and airbags.


----------



## Bonka

Dan'um;
Corporations/Businesses do not pay taxes. The taxes that everyone seems to think they pay are added into the price od their goods and services. 
If we rank 27th as a middle class I would think one reason is we are regulated and taxed to death.


----------



## Bonka

CAFE Standards :http://greenhellblog.com/2009/05/19/cafe-obama-proposed-mileage-standards-would-kill-more-americans-than-iraq-war/
Read that for starters.


----------



## CharlesA

Jerry, you keep asking for real data, but then responding in terms of ideology.


----------



## CharlesA

On the CAFE standards, when I google I find right wing sites repeating the same stats, but no links to the studies themselves. If you've read those studies, did any of them ask how the presence of airbags in those same vehicles related to the number of overall fatalities?


----------



## CharlesA

okay, found another link. Turns out that CAFE standards may lead to higher fatalities for smaller, lighter cars if taken in isolation, but that is equalized by the lower number of fatalities caused by lighter trucks, SUVs, and other factors (airbags, road construction, etc.) means that fatality numbers have been continually falling since the adoption of CAFE standards. Try this: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/14213

Next?


----------



## CharlesA

Last post for awhile: Jerry, what you're arguing on the CAFE standards is that the drop in fatality rates in vehicles, brought about by, in part, government rules, regulations and activities (safety standards, road construction, highway design, etc.) could have been higher if not for CAFE standards. So, you're arguing good regs vs. bad regs. If that's you're argument, you've already lost the larger point. (and it's a bad argument)


----------



## Bonka

The article said it "could" result in lower fatalities not will.
Read further down next paragraph:
"Recently, a special committee of the National Research
Council reviewed the empirical evidence about the safety
effects of CAFE standards. Most of the committee concluded
that declines in the size and weight of cars that
have occurred since those standards took effect have led
to increased fatalities. The committee offered an alternative
design for CAFE standards intended to enhance
safety. That design would discourage automakers from
reducing the weight of cars as a way to comply with fuel
economy standards while still encouraging them to reduce
the weight of light trucks."


----------



## CharlesA

OK-all kinds of things have unintended consequences-but without gov't requirement of seatbelts and airbags, fatalities would have been even worse. Were those regs wrong?


----------



## Bonka

It should be the choice of the individual state, moreover, the adult individual. I don't feel the regs were wrong it is who makes them and how they are forced upon the states. IIRC the states have had to enact and enforce regulations made by the Federal government or see highways funds with held or other forms of black mail.
The Federal Government is all about control. Get a pocket Constitution and read the limits placed on a central government. Almost all power is delegated to the states.


----------



## CharlesA

Give me a break. The whole point of the CBO study was not that CAFE standards were bad, but that they should be adjusted to cause fewer fatalities. You're on my turf in your argument.

"forced upon the states."

Did you see that Rand Paul wants to get rid of all executive orders when he "takes" office, only to find out that the emancipation proclamation and the desegregation of the military were executive orders?

The fetishizaton of the constitution must stop.


----------



## Bonka

The Constitution is the law. Getting rid of ALL executive orders is BS. There is a provision for EO. However not all executive orders meet the criteria of the legal provisions. I don't know which ones are iffy or outright illegal. I have read some about it but I have never seen any movement to repeal any.
Getting rid of all of boggles my mind why anyone would say that. Yet there are some who never question what is said or done. With the vast amount of information only a mouse click away it seems anyone who opines on anything should know hell will come down on him if he spews idiocy such as Paul did.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

+1 CharlesA.

I read "The Housing Boom and Bust: Revised Addition." by Thomas Sowell mentioned by Gerald in post 1216 above . I do not know if it was not within his scope or if he purposefully ignored all the corruption by Wall Street firms. There is very little mention of those factors. Certainly the Community Reinvestment Act may have been a catalyst and contributing factor, but even Sowell put the amount of sub-prime loans at 1 trillion over the 30 some years of the program. While that is a significant number, it would not crash the world economy. The total capitalization of the stock market is about 18 trillion and the total value of US real estate is about the same. We have absorbed significant disastrous bankruptcies before. The S&L crisis adjusted for inflation should be about 200 billion and there wasn't even a hiccup on the world stage. It is simply not reasonable to blame the housing bust and world economic disaster solely on the Community Reinvestment Act.

OSHA - I started my apprenticeship walking 6 and 8 inch steel beams 40' above a concrete slab with bundles of conduit on my shoulder. Yeah, I survived it and nobody died on that job. It was before OSHA was past. Probably a bit risky at best. The workplace is much better with it than without.

Like CharlesA, I get a kick out of those who claim they did this and that totally on their own independently. Most really won the lottery! Born white in the U.S. with a fee education. A stable country with the world's premiere economy full of opportunity with all the infrastructure in place to facilitate business ventures and employment opportunities. It really sickens me to see that all slipping away as monopolies continue their destructive consolidation.

Edit: All of Sowell's 1 trillion of sub-prime loans did not default.


----------



## Bonka

Topa;

There have been over 300 books and what all written about the financial crisis, according to one site I visited, yet no one can point to any one thing that caused it. I do not think one thing caused it all. 
Here a Forbes article that names a lot of players.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

Shakespeare said it best.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I do not think one thing caused it all.
> Here a Forbes article that names a lot of players.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


That Forbes article is a nice summary. Criminal activities and incompetence at all levels destroyed millions of people financially. Many of them will never recover. I hope the [email protected][email protected]$ are proud of themselves, but I doubt if they much give a hoot about any of the grief they caused. I guess it proves every generation has to learn the hard way. Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton leaving the regulations enacted after the Great Depression would have prevented it. It is ironic that Bush, the dumber, wanted to further loosen corporate accounting standards just before his Big Bust caught him still in the White House.


----------



## oldnovice

We have been spending so much time on our government lately and I think this forum needs some fresh air.
Lately we have heard a lot about the NFL and it's problems.










*Gotcha!*

This is from the website


----------



## DrDirt

> +1 CharlesA.
> 
> I read "The Housing Boom and Bust: Revised Addition." by Thomas Sowell mentioned by Gerald in post 1216 above . I do not know if it was not within his scope or if he purposefully ignored all the corruption by Wall Street firms. There is very little mention of those factors. Certainly the Community Reinvestment Act may have been a catalyst and contributing factor, but even *Sowell put the amount of sub-prime loans at 1 trillion over the 30 some years of the program.* While that is a significant number, it would not crash the world economy.
> Like CharlesA, I get a kick out of those who claim they did this and that totally on their own independently. Most really won the lottery! Born white in the U.S. with a fee education. A stable country with the world s premiere economy full of opportunity with all the infrastructure in place to facilitate business ventures and employment opportunities. It really sickens me to see that all slipping away as monopolies continue their destructive consolidation.
> 
> Edit: *All of Sowell s 1 trillion of sub-prime loans did not default*.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


That was my point about this being a "sub prime mortgage crisis" the Total Failures, and losses don't add up to attribute a 787 Bailout to be solely "Underwater mortgages"

Blaming the 'unworthy homebuyers' just cannot make that big a hole in the economy….. especially because the as Topa said… "THEY DIDN'T ALL DEFAULT/FAIL"


----------



## HorizontalMike

Holy ********************! Thanks guy!

I needed a target list. THANKS!

I'll let you know how that goes… *;-)*


----------



## DanYo




----------



## madts

Very well said President Truman.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Very well said President Truman.
> 
> - madts


Yes, but the tide of the battle was altered in 1980. It is all but lost ;-(

If money is now speech, then speech is no longer free.


----------



## HorizontalMike

But if money IS PEOPLE, can we send it to JAIL?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Corporations are people they say, so it is time to put the worst of them in jail ;-) Lets start with, say, the top 10 worst most criminal and see how it goes.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/1002706_601595813218112_1912191864_n.jpg?oh=ab92da48837b82f7b616b427b1cdc743&oe=54C55E63&__gda__=1422723891_70971c1528f7cd417975a5d91ecf03e4


----------



## Bonka

What was the dollar worth then? Use the rule of 72 and find out.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

2/3 of American retailers are worried as the holiday shopping season nears. The middle class has no money to spend any more ;-(

Meanwhile, states struggle as middle class revenue collection stagnates or fall and the wealthy invest elsewhere.


----------



## Bonka

Where do the wealthy invest?


----------



## bigblockyeti

The cost of living in 1962 was enlightening. It would be more so if it included the percentage of net income relative to gross income.


----------



## Bonka

The average annual income in 1962 is about $40,000 in todays dollars. So half make less and half make more.
The taxes in 1962, as I recall, had higher rates but there were more items one could deduct. An example of one is the interest paid on credit cards.
We as consumers are paying very high taxes each time we buy something. Business taxes are about the highest in the world. Therefore we pay those taxes when we buy goods and services as the businesses bake them into the price of their product.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Where do the wealthy invest?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


A substantial amount of U.S. wealth has been given and transferred to China. Significant amounts are hidden in the Cayman Islands and in Switzerland. Of course, the Swiss say they ain't doin' that no more, but one would have to be an awfully naive fool to believe them.

However, I think the gist is the rich are not trickling down or creating jobs the way Laugher, Reagan, et all promised it was going to happen.


----------



## oldnovice

*Topa*, I believe that the offshore banks have reached an agreement with the U.S. to disclose tax burdens on these accounts.

*Trickle down is what happens over a urinal or toilet as history has proven!*


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> *Topa*, I believe that the offshore banks have reached an agreement with the U.S. to disclose tax burdens on these accounts.
> - oldnovice


Yes, but money is involved, primarily their profits. Do you really believe they will? Studies show only 4% of Americans are truthful. Most cultures accept lying as a necessity in the normal course of business.


----------



## DrDirt




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Might be risking your life if you mention Friedman in Chile ;-)

Meanwhile, it looks like the some of the world's largest corps have just about milked trickle down dry. Wonder how much longer before they figure out trickle up works better, especially on their bottomlines ;-)


----------



## DrDirt

Topa - no doubt the trickle down hasn't been as advertised.

However I like friedmans point about what is really the difference between "political self interest" or financial self interest or "Greed"

good question he asks about Who are the angels that are going to plan everything out and DECIDE for others.

Political appointments are made based on influence, power and money, not who has the best ideas, or sound judgement.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> good question he asks about Who are the angels that are going to plan everything out and DECIDE for others.


A. Hamilton and Adam Smith are the best we have seen so far.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Crime pays very well at the top ~~ http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/07/giant-penalties-are-giant-tax-write-offs-wall-street-279993.html


----------



## HorizontalMike

> The average annual income in 1962 is about $40,000 in todays dollars. So half make less and half make more.
> ..........
> - Gerald Thompson


I believe what you are trying to explain would actually be the *median* and NOT the average. With an "average", just one Billionaire would skew the dollar amount higher, much higher.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Forbes reported"..a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers."

Read it yourself ;-)


----------



## DrDirt

Surprised that 12.50/hour is still poverty (25K/year)

Mean family of 4 incomes are about 50K….

http://www.usdta.org/the-average-income-in-the-usa.php
In 2008, about 47 percent of people had incomes of less than 25,000 dollars. Twenty-eight percent of people had incomes of between 25,000 and 50,000 dollars. Thirteen percent of people had incomes of 50,000 to 75,000 dollars. About five percent had incomes between 75,000 and 100,000 dollars, while just six percent had incomes that were more than 100,000 dollars. However, many households have more than one income.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Surprised that 12.50/hour is still poverty (25K/year)


I made 25K in the 70s and my wife stayed home with the kids instead of stock piling them in day care. Time marches on bringing inflation with it. Today in Seattle, after paying FICA (no wage earner gets out of that) and renting a 1 bedroom apartment, that would leave $6400 for utilities, transportation, food, clothes and the sacred WW budget. Probably not going to be a Lie Nielsen tool collector ;-(

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. ;-)


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DrDirt

But Topa, Poverty wages will vary by city. you are describing almost 1500/month for a 1BR apartment… :^P

1BR apartments in Wichita Kansas, is in the 500/month range.
http://www.apartmentguide.com/apartments/Kansas/Wichita/The-Shores-Apartments/24468/

My surprise comes out of gap, was that with 50K being the median salary for the HOUSEHOLD -( often 2 earners) . I am surprised that the median family income is only 2X poverty wage for a single person… I would have expected a larger differential between the two.

When I finished college in Anchorage, and worked for the Corps of Engineers in 1989-90 and had a new car I bought after graduation (payments) and a 1 bedroom apartment, and I was just a GS-07 step 1
So I was making 18,726. That is 25 years ago now. But still College grad salaries were under 20K…inflation and such is a real bitch… poverty wages has overtaken new graduate pay in STEM.

FOr reference the 2012 GS7 level is 33979. (less than double)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Yes, it certainly will. I'm sure there are a lot of people here in the Pacific Northwest that would love for you to send some of those $500/ month 1 bedroom apartments to them. I think the average in Seattle was around $1600 when I checked the rates the other day.

Two poverty level jobs being required to provide the median income just proves the point that the middle class is in rapid decay and an endangered specie ;-( Why should it require 2 to make a living? Kids stock piled all day in day care with overwhelmed parents is a real serious social issue.

*"But still College grad salaries were under 20K…inflation and such is a real bitch… poverty wages has overtaken new graduate pay in STEM."*

That is the point of this thread. Middle class has been loosing or stagnant since about 1980. Morningstar, one of the few sources of financial analysis with any remaining credibility, recently reported the Consumer Price Index that inflation adjustments are based upon had been so compromised in recent years, it is now irrelevant. I believe the true inflation rate is probably nearly 2x what the gov't says, but I can't put my finger on the exact statement right now. It really doesn't matter; any casual observer who had been paying any attention at all for the last 40 years can see that for themselves.

Additionally, college grads came out of school in 1990 to a booming economy, relatively debt free. Today, they come out with a 50% chance of finding a job saddled with a lifetime student loan payments. This is a further drain of the economy as they have no capacity to create the demand for products and services that the 1% need to continue building their empires. Soon, they will either have to begin to trickle down to create some demand or more aggressively cannibalize each other.


----------



## roman

Consumption
by the United States

In the United States:

Reducing consumption without reducing use is a costly delusion. If undeveloped countries consumed at the same rate as the US, four complete planets the size of the Earth would be required. People who think that they have a right to such a life are quite mistaken.

· Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy.

· On average, one American consumes as much energy as

o 2 Japanese

o 6 Mexicans

o 13 Chinese

o 31 Indians

o 128 Bangladeshis

o 307 Tanzanians

o 370 Ethiopians

· The population is projected to increase by nearly 130 million people - the equivalent of adding another four states the size of California - by the year 2050.

· Forty percent of births are unintended.

· Americans eat 815 billion calories of food each day - that's roughly 200 billion more than needed - enough to feed 80 million people.

· Americans throw out 200,000 tons of edible food daily.

· The average American generates 52 tons of garbage by age 75.

· The average individual daily consumption of water is 159 gallons, while more than half the world's population lives on 25 gallons.

· Fifty percent of the wetlands, 90% of the northwestern old-growth forests, and 99% of the tall-grass prairie have been destroyed in the last 200 years.

· Eighty percent of the corn grown and 95% of the oats are fed to livestock.

· Fifty-six percent of available farmland is used for beef production.

· Every day an estimated nine square miles of rural land are lost to development.

· There are more shopping malls than high schools.

Seems to me, that even the poorest americans, aren't doing to bad compared the poorest of the world.


----------



## Mahdeew

Keep voting democrat and/or or republican expecting some thing different is the perfect meaning of insanity; doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Although there is no guaranty that a third party will produce something different.

Funny and sad at the same time


----------



## Mahdeew

TopamaxSurvivor, 
Try this for some realistic figures.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

mrjinx007, About 10 years or so ago, 60 Minutes on CBS or Dateline on NBC did a piece about civil forfeiture along I-10 or 20 through the south. The point seemed all minorities driving a nice car were loosing them.

The rate that is 2x the official rate is about what Morningstar was saying was more realistic as I recall.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Moron, The criminal activities of and the Justice Department's assistance to the targets of this thread are exploiting and suppressing the world's poor even more that they do us, U.S. Thom Hartmann makes a compelling case for their responsibility for the situation in southern Europe and the Middle East.

It has been a long time since I read about it, but the picture of the Native American reminds me of a trust fund the US Gov't is holding for them. I do not remember the amount, but it will never be paid because it is about the level of our Gross National Product or some asinine figure! I'm glad my ancestors were honest of forthright when they contributed a few pecks of corn towards the purchase of the land for Stamford, CT.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

Fakahontas. She is too far left for me.


----------



## madts

I think she is a little too far to the right for me.


----------



## muleskinner

But do you have anything to refute 'Fakahontas'?


----------



## Bonka

Not really but she had preciouses little if anything proof of her claimed blood line. She is a big government controller.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Ronald Reagan would be a "Big Government Liberal" by today's standards.


----------



## Bonka

Easily said. By today's standards he would miss the mark by a long ways. The White House and the PPACA alone is the biggest grab for control and freedom I have ever seen. 
To put things in perspective I can still remember DDE. I became acutely aware of radical leftism when LBJ foisted the Great Society upon us.


----------



## dbray45

Some interesting notes - I take on things -

During the 1800s and early 1900s, many congressmen and senators were stock holders in the railroads, this is why they could go anywhere they wanted. Same thing in the coal, lumber and oil industries.

There has always been corruption and always will.

Minimum wage is an entry level wage, it is not a career path. I made minimum wage - then I decided that this was not acceptable and I studied, changed jobs, studied some more, changed jobs - several times. I put myself through college - at 40 something. I worked hard to get where I am in life and I find it especially annoying that some clown that doesn't want to get off their backside wants me to subsidize them so they can live the "good life!" I did everything I could to make a few extra dollars - odd jobs, sold Amway, I even worked in a orange grove for a season (that is a hard way to go). Now I am one of those evil people because I have gotten to where I can afford my townhouse (it is not a big house but it works for me).

Every time you raise the minimum wage, the argument is that you are bringing these people up. The reality is that you are not, you are raising the minimum cost of everything. When you raise the minimum wage by $2.00, the people that are making the $5.00 now make $7.00, the people that already made $7.00, still make $7.00, as do the people that made $9.00, 10.00, and 11.00. The only accomplishment is that instead of 5 million making minimum wage, you now have 9 million - and all those people that worked their a$$ off to get from $5.00 to $9.00 have just been set back 5 or maybe 10 years in their career paths - nice!

The #s used are for example. When I went from $2.00 an hour to $2.25 and hour (minimum wage increase), I lost money because it put me in a higher tax bracket.

The idea that minimum wage is a living salary is not sustainable and will not happen. The Soviet Union tried to make everyone equal - didn't work for them and will not work for us.

Getting everyone employed - this is something that REALLY needs to be addressed and taxing to ridiculousness to even up the incomes and regulating to extinction is not going to work either. There is no way that I would start another company (had one for years) in this economic climate because there is no potential for personal growth. Why should I work my backside off working 60-100 week to be told that if I make any money that I am an evil person - hiring and employing people? I would be taking 100% of the risks - for what - seriously???

This is what happened in Mexico where companies were taken away from the owners and turned into employee owned companies, many did not survive and left a large unemployment.

Added as an edit - I do not understand how looting, setting a building on fire, ganging up on a person and murdering him with hammers will improve my position in life - unless my career choice is to be a criminal! Someone needs to explain that to me.

Have a good day!


----------



## CharlesA

> Why should I work my backside off working 60-100 week to be told that if I make any money that I am an evil person - hiring and employing people?
> 
> - dbray45


Next time that actually happens, let us know.


----------



## dbray45

Already has. I was told, when I had my business, that I was not paying enough in taxes and that I was an evil capitalist. It is the law that I must pay my employees before I am paid, and when I had to pay salaries out of my own pocket, the federal govt does not pay very promptly at times, and my family didn't eat - it was a hard nut to swallow.

When I started to make some money, I was told that as a rich business owner, I was a bad person and didn't pay my people more - didn't matter that even though I made $50K for the year, there were 3 months that I not only didn't get paid but I took money out of my checkbook to pay others. Some of the people that worked for me got paid more than I made - but that is the cost of doing business and that is fine.

When my business first started out, I worked the company and another full time job. To make things worse, when I did shutdown, I was not eligible for anything - my employees were, but I was not.


----------



## CharlesA

Okay, David, I'm going to go out on a limb and call you on this.

Who told you, 1) that you did not pay enough taxes; and, 2) that you were "an evil capitalist"?

Who told you 3) that you were a "bad person"?

Charles


----------



## dbray45

When I called my state taxing authority to inquire why a new tax was required (if I remember, it was a cell phone tax but it was a long time ago) that was going to cost a significant amount of money. Between the 1/2 dozen people or so that I spoke to, I was told that as a business (a sole proprietor at the time), I SHOULD pay more and the idea that I didn't want to, was evil and not doing my fair share. It wasn't long after this that I was audited - may or not have been related, no way to know and don't care. (I live in Maryland and this was 20 years ago - now they tax more and I shut my business down 15 years ago)

I got the same attitude when I called my congress woman's office and the SBA to inquire how I, a small business, was not entitled to at least be on the same competitive basis as an 8a company. The company that I was inquiring about was a 10 Billion dollar 8a company that was given no interest lines of credit for 6-8 months the handle their receivables (I had to pay 10% per month); they had the purchasing power to negotiate 30% lower prices than I could get, and then they could (and did) charge 15% more than I and still be awarded the contract as competitive. I was trying to have my quotes be considered competitive because I was the lowest bid. I was told by one person as they hung up that I was evil and should be grateful.


----------



## CharlesA

They used the word "evil" to describe you? Really?


----------



## dbray45

I think the way she put it was that it was evil to not want to do more and give back - to me, same thing.


----------



## Bonka

I have never understood "Give back." What has a person taken from anyone or thing when they are successful?
If I earn millions a year is your bank account lighter because I took money from it? My success has created many jobs. Another guilt trip people take without thinking.


----------



## CharlesA

David, It is not the same thing, actually. I've been through a lot of things in my life, and I've never had anyone in such a situation ever use the word "evil." I find that very hard to believe.

I'm guessing from your tone that you might have had a lot to say in an intense way before that statement. Care to let us know what kind of language you used with her?

Charles


----------



## dbray45

Charles - I used English! This has gone far enough. You are free to guess any way you wish. You are free to believe anything you wish. Whether you believe what I say or not - does nothing for me in any way shape or form. You want to infer that I am lying - with your innuendos and inferences, I guess it is your prerogative. You were not there, all you can go by are your experiences and summations which in fact may be a very narrow perspective. I have been around more than a few barns and maybe you have actually led a very sheltered life by my standards - I have no idea where you have been and what you have done - nor do I care.

I do know this - I have been around enough that if you tell me that x and y happened, whether I believe it or not, I have no proof (unless it is to me). Even if I did, I personally don't care what you do or did unless it involves me and I am real sure that that will be extremely limited in the future. The tone that you have elected to take, your condescending manner, your innuendos - I find offensive and very confrontational. Do I think you are "evil" - no, I think that in your perspective and mindset that you only believe - you know, I am not going to go down the same road that you do because - I AM better than that.

Please block me - common, you can do it! Won't hurt me a bit. Sad thing is, when you block people, you limit your exposure to people that may actually teach you something and open your horizons.

Take care Charles and have a great day!


----------



## dbray45

Charles, I have a question for you - your tag line from Thomas Jefferson

"Man is the only animal which devours his own, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor."

Where did you get this? exactly

The only reference that I can find that is close to your quote was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Jan. 16, 1787. The extract is as follows:

"under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate. this is a true picture of Europe. cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. if once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress, & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. it seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor."

In the letter, he is discussing the governments of Europe and the public affairs of the government. You have taken his "term" out of context - what he said was " for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe," that you have left out - changing everything.

Unless you are one of those privileged enough to question others but you are exempt.


----------



## dbray45

Jerry - the term "Give Back" was coined by those nice liberal folks that feel that you do not earn what you have but are allowed to keep what they think you should have. In gratitude, you are supposed to "give back" some (actually everything would be the preferred amount) because they live off and use your money to do for you what they want you to have. They do not use their own money, that is sacred. I think they feel that they are better than the church and there you are requested to tithe.

In various government offices, especially in a secure liberal environment, they take this very seriously. Remember when Obama stated that, "if you've got a business, you didn't build that did not build that!" In fairness, he goes on and on about the government does this and that and in his socialist mindset, this is true. To him, everything and everyone is equal and therefore it is a "communal" setting. In reality, yes if you have a company, you did build that. If you make a mistake, more than any other employee's action, the company will suffer. If it thrives, it is under the direction of someone, whether it is the owner, or someone they authorize the power to.


----------



## Bonka

David-You and I are on the same page. I see that you are an MD. I am an RN and have been since 1969. At present I am doing Home Health Care mainly with Medicare patients. The onerous paper work becomes more so with each passing year. The main objective, as I see it, is to complicate it to the degree that payment to the Home Care companies is withheld due to some minute T not being crossed. It is about power not care of the patient.
If I were suddenly President of the United States of America my first act would be to assure Air Force One had two right wings.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I have never understood "Give back." What has a person taken from anyone or thing when they are successful?
> If I earn millions a year is your bank account lighter because I took money from it? My success has created many jobs. Another guilt trip people take without thinking.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


You can read all about "Give back"here When the Gangsters and Banksters destroy the world economy again, it will be OK, we, the U.S. Taxpayers, will give 'em back there money again. I'm a little tired of this cycle, be doing it since the S&L Crisis in 1987.

Meanwhile the financial scumbags are lobbying Congress hard to keep a law causing them to have to work in the client's best interest in their retirement accounts. God forbid they actually do something other than leach, milk the cash cow and steal.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> If I were suddenly President of the United States of America my first act would be to assure Air Force One had two right wings.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Not much right of oligarchy except fascism. That did not work out too well for the Italians and Germans. Maybe you'll get a better result this time, eh?


----------



## HorizontalMike

Topa +10


----------



## Bonka

I agree that the so and so's that want we the taxpayers to foot the bill as usual are still at it. The government shutdown is BS.
The last shutdown only did so to 17% of government. It is a blame game. The Republicans were blamed for it and they thought all was lost forever for their party. Ten months later look at what happened. 
It is my wish that term limits would happen. But then again the Fox is not going to chase himself out of the hen house.
Crony Capitalism. Don't ya just love it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

No shortage of corruption in D.C.


----------



## dbray45

Agree with that one, wouldn't it be nice to vote yourself a 10-15% base pay increase every year, then you get paid for every subcommittee you sit on.

There is a very good reason why someone new gets in with all those great ideas and loses them quickly, trying to live in two places (home and DC) on $160,000 (especially with the prices in DC).

If you do not play the game, you starve. If you play the game, you leave office very wealthy, sitting on at least 1 subcommittee, making $500K+ a year.


----------



## oldnovice

*dbray45*, you forgot free healthcare!


----------



## dbray45

Oops, my bad! They and their families do not get Obama Care either, they are on a different health care plan where everything is paid.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I saw in this month's National Geographic, Dec 2014, the world actually has a surplus of food, but nearly a billion under nourished people. It said the primary cause was distribution and infrastructure failures that support distribution. I could not help but think of how the US built infrastructure beginning in the 30s through the 70s. Starting in the 80s and beyond, under Reaganomics, the tax burden on the wealthy was cut by 75% and the tax burden on the middle class was doubled to pay for it. Apparently it did not equal out ;-( We quit building and aren't even maintaining. Today our infrastructure has significant failures. More people are going hungry than ever before in the US. Funny how that worked out, isn't it? OOPs! That cliche' just doesn't sound right ;-( Nothing funny about it!


----------



## Bonka

Where did all of the taxes go that were supposed to go into the transportation fund? I would have to see your sources for tax accusations. 
Also take a look at the questions posed to people that slant toward making people appear to be going hungry. One that comes to mind is the question about missing meals. I miss meals due to scheduling, not hungry and other reasons. I am however not food deprived.
Reaganomics has been attacked over and over and it still does not stand up to the Left's template. His predecessor James Earl Carter was such a success.


----------



## SCOTSMAN

Where do the wealthy invest?

They put it all firmly behind pay day loans schemes/scams,so that they can scrape the bones very profitably from the very poor and desperate.Thats what I call evil screwing down the very poorest and vulnerable for the mighty greenback and did you see the interest rates they charge.NO NO I shouldn't have mentioned that as their just being altruistic and not thinking of themselves at all.This seeking out of the desperate and fu$$ing them over one more time is really the most unpleasently developed greed there can ever be.Alistair


----------



## dbray45

One of the main problems that I have seen in the last several years is the data that has been widely distributed.

The reality that I see:

- The economy really does suck

- There really are many many more people out of work than what the government states

- In bad times before, when people got unemployed, in order to not starve or lose their house, they either started companies or the did consulting - the end result - they found a way to make money to live (that is why I started a company)

- If you start a company and fail, they are not eligible for anything - so why bother - get the government money for 3, 4, or 5, years.

- The press does not show this, they tell you the opposite - but is it all the big business' fault. It doesn't matter that people are being taxed into poverty.

- If you have a small business in Maryland, the tax collector is right there - ready to audit you in a minute, but then they give the film industry a 16 million tax credit to film a series that highlights Washington DC. All the while they are bitching that they need more tax revenue. Companies (big and small) are leaving Maryland as quickly as they can, because they cannot afford it - and leaving unemployment in their wake.

Then I am told Reaganomics were sooo bad and this and that when we had more growth, more employment, at better wages - with lower tax rates (but we paid more taxes and lived better).

My head hurts


----------



## Bonka

The wealthy do not put their money into "Scams." The rate of return and risk are not advantageous to sound investing. Payday loans, if held for one year, have enormous interest rates. The borrowers only hold the money on average of two weeks or less. The interest rate is then very much lower.
The payday loans are just that. To tide one over to make a car or house payment, buy food or clothing, as examples. These people cannot get quick loans at conventional institutions due to poor credit and the time it takes to process the loans.
These companies fill a needed void in preventing people from losing a house, car or meeting unexpected expenses.
The press has had a hay day with it in the past and now has moved on to other diatribes.
The often touted interest of 400% is for a year. People do not borrow, say $500, for a year. They pay it back in a week or two. The weekly interest is approx. 7.6%.
Where else is a person supposed to get money needed in a hurry? 
I am an RN and I know of Physicians who use this service also. But they are "Rich" so I suppose it would be OK to take them to the cleaners with interest rates.
How else to folks in need of quick cash get it? Loan Sharks?


----------



## HorizontalMike

"...The wealthy do not put their money into "Scams."…"

Bernie Madoff ('wit all d'money)


----------



## rantingrich

> This argument has always amazed me. We scream about how there is so much inequality in wealth. That most of the money is owned by a small percentage of people. So we try and create equality by creating more taxes. We try to use the Gov-ment to force redistribution. However we never stop to think about how this extreme inequality has come about.
> 
> Our Country was never intended to have the federal Gov-ment involved the way it is. When we see an auto company mismanage it s business we use the federal Gov-ment to bail them out. Why? Because we have to save the auto workers and everyone down the line. But wait a minute, If they file for chapter 11 bankruptcy they will be forced to fix their problems. Instead we listen to politicians because we have no clue. We take their word for it and praise them for saving the auto industry by using our money. But wait, who really pays taxes? Poor people? Well yes, sort of. Most pay no Federal income tax. They do pay for SS and Medicare.
> 
> So who is next? Rich People? Yup they pay most taxes. GREAT, right? Well sort of. They got rich by selling products. Do you think they are dumb enough to have their wealth taxed away? Nope. What they do is raise the price of their products to offset the taxes they are burdened with. Who is the one that pays the taxes then. Well it s us, the middle class. We buy stuff. As prices get higher we pay more, we have less. So you follow the bread crumbs and you find the middle class is always burdened the most.
> 
> This idea that the rich are causing problems is a fallacy. In my opinion. We the people are supposed to be responsible and understand basic economics, history and our Gov-ment. Most of us do not. We hear politicians belch out the words "income inequality" and we follow suit. We start demanding the Gov-ment take away money and give it to us. When it is the Gov-ment causing all the problems.
> 
> In other words, who can compete against a company that has the Federal Gov-ment backing them? No one can. How do you know that John across the street has not created the next motor that can run of static electricity and operate a car? You wont cause the Gov-ment took his money and propped up a corporation that would be his competition. The further along we get into our future the more we see Gov-ment getting involved. Until eventually they run everything, and yes it has happened HISTORY repeats itself.
> 
> The problem I contend is we the people. We are uneducated sheep. Instead of learning we blame. Instead of leading we follow. When things dont go our way we demand Gov-ment involvement. When that dont work we demand more and more involvement. We name call when someone has a different opinion. The fact is they might be right but we wont know that because we are uneducated.
> 
> Follow the crumbs. How do you feel that the new federal healthcare website cost nearly 700 million and does not work? How do you feel that the Senior Vice president of the company that built the website is an old classmate of Michelle Obama? How do you and me compete in a country where the Gov-ment does favors for it s friends or donors? I don t know the answer to that but most of you seem to think it is a workable formula since you keep voting for the yahoos. You are creating the problems.
> 
> - americanwoodworker


You forgot to mention that the company that made that great OBAMACARE website is a "CANADIAN" company and that it took the 700 MILLION stuck it in their pockets then "SUBBED" out the making of the site for half a million to a INDIAN COMPANY!

I am sure the republicans will fix it all LOL!.

If you live in a country in which its government can force it citizens at gun point to buy ANYTHING be it a house a car, a bible, a gun, a gym membership or a HEALTHCARE PLAN you dont want….. Folks you don't live in a free country any longer

I am sorry you just dont!


----------



## SCOTSMAN

Gerald maybe you think the poor set up payday loans,at massive profits? Alistair


----------



## Bonka

Come on Mike Madoff was the scam. His dupes did not know it was a scam until it fell apart.

Scotsman: With all due respect I do not understand your reply.


----------



## HorizontalMike

> Come on Mike Madoff was the scam. His dupes did not know it was a scam until it fell apart.
> - Gerald Thompson


Hey Gerald, my name is NOT "Mike Madoff" !... *;-)*

And is not THAT exactly how a scam works, with the dupes knowing nothing until it falls apart?


----------



## Bonka

Sorry about the missing comma. I shall pine away tonight.


----------



## dbray45

"Lets eat Granndma!"

"Lets eat, Grandma!"

Punctuation saves lives!!!!


----------



## rantingrich

If any of you pro RICH, pro US, PRO GOVERNMENT people want to know what the truth is. TURN OFF THE DAMN TV! STOP reading the paper. Christ, there is more truth in a "FAKE" 30 minute News broadcast, the WEEKLY NEWS with John Stewart on the comedy channel than an entire week of FOX, CNN, MSNBC and the others.

I will ask you all 3 questions…

1) Does your GOVERNMENT and its' agents LIE TO YOU?

2) Does the corporate mass media LIE TO YOU?

3)THEN WHY DO YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING THEY TELL YOU? no matter how ridiculous? WITHOUT QUESTION!

To prove a point..

Go dig up the TEXT of the "T.A.R.P." LAW. Other wise known as the BANKER BAIL OUT BILL/LAW!

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ343/html/PLAW-110publ343.htm

Go read SECTION "119" Then come back to the adults table.. never heard about that part on CNN or FOX did you.

GO look up DoD Field manual FM 3-39.40 READ that. Then come back and wave your amerikan flag that was made in China.

https://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf

Army/DoD, Field Manual FM 3.39.40 It was published by the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE in 2010 and posted on ARMYPUB.com since then and after so many inquires to CONGRESS they removed it off the ARMYPUB site this year. I read it many time OFF ARMYPUB.com until it was removed. There are many PDFs still online. Government HACKS and SOCK PUPPETS are just NOW calling it a HOAX since it was recently removed for the DoD website

I sent a letter to all three of my congressman demanding what the HELL this FM was doing given to our Service men and women. Two never responded. ONE said it was mistakenly released and published on ARMYPUB! REALLY REEEAALLLY! a Dod Mistake that lasted for 4 years? REALLY!

For you folks that were in the SERVICE you will all know about field manuals.

Go watch Secretary of Defense Leona Panetta and General DEMPSY EXPLAIN to congress and the world WHO runs our MILITARY






Read/watch all that truth then come back and wave your flags….


----------



## Bonka

I will wave my flag when it comes to our Constitution. The YouTube video certainly shows disdain for the law on part of Leon Panetta and undoubtedly those lurking elsewhere. This certainly smacks of The New World Order.
Hell we cannot even vote them all out. The ones who get in to replace the ousted become the problem with the first few drinks of "The Potomac Water." 
We then have departments that circumvent laws by having it printed in The Federal Register and setting forth to wreck havoc on whom ever they have targeted that time for whatever reason.
Listening to Mr. Panetta reminds me of an office sign I once read. "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure your realize what you heard is not what I meant."


----------



## rantingrich

*Gerald Thompson*…. That congressman questioning Leona (The Traitor) Ponetta and General (Benedict Arnold) Demsy, Should of Called over the Congressional Sergeant in Arms and ordered him to place Secretary of Defense Leona Ponetta and General Dempsy under arrest for "TREASON" and made sure they would never see outside of a prison. Then this S***T will stop.

Also if you really want to get pizzed, read section 119 in the TARP LAW. It gives the FEDERAL RESERVE and the TREASURY IMMUNITY from everything. They cant be summoned, called, edited, audited, investigated and or charged with any crime UNLESS they agree they can and this is why this criminal gets away with this…






You are never ever going to ever hear a word about this kind of stuff (TRUTH) watching FOX news or CNN or any of the majors


----------



## Bonka

I first learned about the Federal Reserve by reading "The Creature From Jekyll Island." Few realize that it is a private bank in essence.
Almost all of the info I get is from sites on the Internet. Now we have Net Neutrality breathing down our neck to cut people off from finding out what is really going on.
Remember do not tear that tag off of your pillow!


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

BEtter work harder ~~ http://ringoffireradio.com/2014/12/as-expected-dems-fully-embrace-wall-street-budget-giveaway/ Wall Street gets more authority to raid pensions and we back their gambling habits. If they win, they will hide the winnings off shore in tax free accounts. We would be better off if they repealed the Emancipation Proclamation. At least they can only take 100% from a slave with no income.


----------



## DrDirt

Topa - - that would be the amnesty Executive order….

Simply declare that the "slaves" from mexico can be hired, paid subminimum wage to work the fields without fear of being fined for hiring illegals.

Just pay them "piece work" or by the bushel for crop picking. Works out to 3 bucks an hour.

All while claiming it is a job that nobody else WANTS…the blind eye immigration policy is just legalized slavery. Seems we always need a population of unskilled and uneducated folks to be willing victims.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

You totally missed the point. This is the biggest welfare program in the history of the world; US taxpayers guaranteeing Wall Street and mega bank corps gambling in the derivative markets. This toxic financial scam is larger than the world's gross product. They will not bet on a winner every time they gamble. As taxpayers, we now owe more than we can ever pay. Under this new law they have "0" obligations to us and we are obligated to give everything to them if they make the wrong bet. Without any downside obligation, they are free to make the riskiest bets they can find. Guaranteeing these high stakes gambling losses and debts will expand our debt liabilities exponentially at some point in the future. If Congress just made us, US taxpayers all slaves without any income or obligations beyond what we can produce, they could only take everything we have and they would have to at least provide food and shelter to keep us producing.


----------



## DrDirt

Problem is we ALWAYS have made these risky guarantees.

Indeed the latest bill rolled back the supposed protections designed to prevent another bailout- - However, when the banks go off the rails…. I have no doubt there would be some back door BS to pay off their buddies, regardless what the law says.
Laws just don't apply to rich and/or elected folks.

In Virginia - you have a convicted child molester, that will commute back and forth from jail in his personal car….driving himself to "work" in congress, while serving his sentence.

This is NATURALLY the same equal treatment anyone else would get too right.

We have a Caste system in this country. This treatment certainly isn't applied to the teachers having sex with students… they don't keep their jobs, and get 6 month sentences while continuing to work.









Morrissey's lawyers say that he will be allowed to continue his work in the general assembly and his private law practice as part of a work-release program. He will drive his own car to work and authorities will monitor him through a device that will remain secured to his ankle, according to his lawyers.


----------



## Redoak49

If you are looking for someone to blame….look in the mirror. We continue to re-elect the same folks who make the same laws that we do not care for.

Now, we have some who decide that some laws should not be enforced. All laws should be enforeced…if people do not like a law then write a new one or change the old one.

I guess that I am pretty narrow minded as I believe in the Constitution and the strict interpretation of it. If we the people do not like how things are being done in Washington, then we the people need to elect someone else. Instead of writing over a thousand posts in this thread, write your congress person and let them know what you think and want. When enough people stand up for what is right instead of just voting straight part lines, then maybe we can get somewhere. Until then…...you get what you get.


----------



## Bonka

Redoak;
Yes on the Constitution 
I write my Congressman and go to his office on a regular basis. He is doing a lot of what is, in my opinion, right.
I write both of my Senators. One responds with replies germane to the letter. The other brags on what things he is worried about than have no effect of what is wrong with it all.
When people are voted in and take a stance supporting the Constitution it seems to take only nano seconds to change coarse and get into getting re-elected and "Reach to the other side of the aisle." 
I wonder how I would do if elected to Congress or the Senate? Would my bloviations at present persist in the tainted waters of Washington?


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

We are not a democracy. We are a Republic.


----------



## Bonka

We are not a democracy. We are a Republic.

Don't know why the double post. Sorry.


----------



## madts

Then why is the US trying to enforce democracy on the rest of the world?


----------



## DrDirt

> If you are looking for someone to blame….look in the mirror. We continue to re-elect the same folks who make the same laws that we do not care for.
> - Redoak49


I have a little problem with the first part of the statement….It is a kind of a blanket Plattitude, often repeated. But is it true? The challenge is how the party system works, the CHOICES are pre made.

So there is often quite little opportunity to get new blood in. Primaries and DNC/RNC money keeps the status quo.

I would love to someday again vote FOR someone…. rather than a perceived lesser of two evils

It is a problem in congress the senate the whitehouse. We only have some decent control at a local level….and even then??? iffy.

The *Chicago Way*… seems the only way there is. e.g. how Bloomberg in New York, just rewrites the rules to get a third term, he spends 650 million dollars of his money to get a 250K/year job, but accepts a 1dollar salary.

In these races… if you voted for a third party, or the opposition, did I still "elect" the winner? and cannot complain?
I live in a solid red state…. how is Obama's second term My fault?


----------



## Bonka

The US is not trying to "Force Democracy" on the rest of the world. The term democracy is misused. In a democracy everyone votes for what they want. One person one vote. Once they find they can vote to get others property, as an example, then it is game over. A present we have a Representative Constitutional government. The people vote for representatives to pass legislation.
The term democracy was used in its proper meaning, until about the middle of the last century, and warned against as a means to destroy not to denote freedom.


----------



## dbray45

You think taxes are high now, wait until the Senate passes a Value Added Tax on goods and services. There are some countries that have it - it is not a good thing.


----------



## Bonka

Another thing that came up concerning big business/big government bonding. Why is the NFL a 503b?


----------



## HorizontalMike

What an 'eph-ing joke! I surely hope that all you girls got your estrogen exhibited in appropriate fashion.

Geez, and I was worried about myself!...


----------



## Bonka

The NFL is a 501©6. Read the lefty Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-frederick/nfl-tax-exempt_b_1321635.html


----------



## DanYo

"Human rights are not only violated by terrorism, repression or assassination, but also by unfair economic structures that create huge inequalities." .. (Pope Francis)


----------



## Bonka

"Unfair economic structures." What are these structures?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> "Unfair economic structures." What are these structures?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


How about Wall Street ripping off about 1/2 of the lifetime return in most 401Ks and IRAs?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Problem is we ALWAYS have made these risky guarantees.
> - DrDirt


No, the guarantees on derivative gambling is unprecedented. All previous guarantees had a limited down side; S&L limited by deposits people made, mortgage limited by the number of defective mortgages, ect. They were big but not unlimited. Derivative market is estimated at 700 trillion. The gross economic output of the world is only about 70 trillion. US is only about 17 trillion. How can we guarantee a 700 trillion dollar market?

After WWII, there was a lot of research to determine why the German people followed Hitler through the gates of Hell and to determine if it could happen here in the USA. It can and we are well on the way ;-((


----------



## Bonka

How is wall street "Ripping of about half of the lifetime return in most 401ks and IRAs?


----------



## Bonka

How is wall street "Ripping of about half of the lifetime return in most 401ks and IRAs?


----------



## Buckethead

What are brokerage fees and commissions on all transactions whether winning or losing? I'll take wealth extraction for $1000, Alex.


----------



## Bonka

Businesses have to make money. Are brokerages supposed to work for free? An investor who does not look at what fees are coming out of one's account is a fool. As an example and not a promotion Oak Mark Equity Income Fund expense is 0.77%. That and it has no load. It make sense that the more money a brokerage makes for a client the more money they make and will invest prudently.
Put your money in a bank CD. What is your return after taxes and inflation? The return will be in the minus column.
Hide it under your mattress. Same column.
It behooves an investor to read the funds prospectus. One has to understand what the fund's objective is, what the risk is, how long the fund manager has managed the fund and a host of other items. If one does not want to do this then go to a brokerage that sell funds with loads. These are not management fees but upfront loads or the funds are placed into B shares and usually must be held for at least five years for the loads to be gone. The one has to look at the management fees and see how high they are. 
401k's and the like that are offered by companies are usually loaded funds and the investor has no choice. The companies most often match a certain amount which helps offset the load some.
So how else is one supposed to invest? It in incumbent upon one's self to learn about investing and act in one's own interest.


----------



## Buckethead

Alex gives the answers, I ask the questions. Pensions don't have the same leeway as 401Ks, for example. If brokerages and custodians made money based on performance (rather than fees and commissions based on transactions), we'd see a far different market, IMHO. I'm not among those who believe banks do not add value to the economy. They do not warrant 20% of GDP, however.

Quick math based on round numbers pulled directly from my posterior:

Banking(retail and investment… No longer separated by regulation) = 20% GDP
Government spending. (This is what government bonds are, as you know… Taxation pays the bonds) (Entitlements-defense) 30% GDP
Health "Care" (brokered by insurance corporations AKA Wall Street firms and investment banking) 25% GDP
That's a whopping 73% of GDP (gross domestic product or more directly, wealth produced nationally) accounted for by Wall St firms.

I'm not suggesting this is all money made by Wall Street, but it is all brokered there (and more). Defense, health care, entitlements, and financial services making up 3/4ths of our national wealth? Time for introspection, methinks.

I shouldn't come to this thread… I've got some planing to do.  ERRBUDDY have a happy Festivus!


----------



## Buckethead

And yes, I know that I accounted for 75% of GDP there. I was just tryna extract 2% for myself.

Wealth extraction FTW!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I shouldn t come to this thread…
> 
> - Buckethead


I should not have either. Ignorance and support for criminal activities and fraud is absolutely astounding!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> How is wall street "Ripping of about half of the lifetime return in most 401ks and IRAs?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Hidden fees in many plans compounded over 40 years. Too bad most 401Ks have limited options.

One day my broker called up saying there was too much cash in the account when the market was crashing in 2000. I reminded him he thought we should move into safer securities and ask what was safer than cash? He said Merrill didn't like him holding too much cash in the accounts. After I closed the account, Merrill offered a management team concept instead of a single broker. I did not take the bait.

Merrill Lynch tried to push us into managed funds for 5% annual management fee in $100,000 increments. A little research showed their funds had the normal managed fund fees in addition. The funds tracked the DOW. Anyone can buy a DIA ETF and get the same performance for free.

IMO, anyone defending Wall Street has not managed enough assets to have any idea of what really happens in these firms.


----------



## Bonka

"Hidden Fees." That is why one reads a prospectus. I do not defend Wall Street. I do not defend the Federal Government. They are, for the most part, Vampires. 
The government lets companies sell whole life insurance policies as an example. Dig into one of those and see what is in it for you. The buyer still has to look into it. How about Annuities? Listen to the promotions on radio and TV. Does it sound too good to be true? You bet.
We have the government we keep electing. Law upon law until no one knows what is going on except the screwer.
Do you think anything about sound investing is taught in schools? I wonder why not?
By the way Topa my plane is bigger than yours. It's a 30'' Steve Knight razee made from Sapele.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I have met a few people on construction sites who quit the securities business and entered the trade because their conscience would not allow them to do what the company required them to do to people's accounts; milk it dry.

Last fall Wall Street shot down this law requiring them to work in their clients best interests.



> Do you think anything about sound investing is taught in schools? I wonder why not?


It would cut too deeply into profits. 


> By the way Topa my plane is bigger than yours. It s a 30 Steve Knight razee made from Sapele.
> - Gerald Thompson


That is OK. When my wife said it will be a PIA to do laundry in a laundromat one night a week while traveling for a couple months in the 5th wheel, I put a washer/dryer in it ;-)


----------



## Dark_Lightning

I spent my time in aerospace after earning a degree in Physics. I guess I should have gone into investing, as a quant. I haven't done all that badly after all, but could have made more. You would have had one more person with morals in the market, at least. Look at the price of gasoline here in the US. Remember $5 a gallon? The statement was made that the "Young Turks" on Wall Street were getting into the petroleum market. We get "nervous spot market buyers". "Thieves" is the word I would use. Agitating a market and then scooping up the profits. Shameful behavior, but then that's the way of the world when you can buy the politicians.


----------



## dbray45

How is this for a "risk guarantee" - Your losses used to be deducible on your income and your income was charged for taxes. The last thing Bill Clinton did in office was to limit your losses to $3,000 a year but all of your income is taxed.

When you could deduct your losses, the best you could get back in refunds were 25% but it was enough to get you going again.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## dbray45

It is totally ironic to me that most of the prominent Democrats have been the biggest racists and bigots going back generations (and still is). This includes LBJ who was a KKK Grand Dragon long before he was President. It was the Republicans that passed the civil liberties laws in the '60s.

It is the Democrats that pass the laws (or interpret existing laws) that strip away key elements of society that include being responsible, common sense, and being accountable. In doing this, they can waltz through the door and tell people that they can fix this by passing more laws that inherently take away our actual civil rights and liberties - to be fair. Once they are in power, they don't give a rat's backside to what it fair, they WILL have absolute power. If you do not believe this - just remember Obama Care, it was passed before any of the majority democrats had read it and while voting on this - exempted themselves and co-workers from it. Shall we discuss what is fair?

Over the years the democrats have been so successful in making the folks that do take things like our Bill of Rights and liberties seriously as being evil and bad - that they have dumbed down our population to the extent that they do not know the value of personal accountability and the success that goes with it.

Let's face it, it is a lot of work involved to being responsible, accountable, and using common sense instead of being focused on, "What is the government going to do for me so I don't have to work!" mentality. The American "CAN DO" attitude and mind set is going away and with it will be our way of life - and the things we hold dear.

For all the folks out there that tell us how bad (and evil) the corporations are, how bad the capitalists are, and how evil those people that make the billions of dollars are - keep this in mind:

1.) They hire people
2.) They and their employees pay taxes
3.) Without them, you would not be where you are now - without them, there is no government (in the form you are accustomed too).

If you do not like what they do, start your own business and prove them wrong, make it better - but keep in mind that you too will come under the same stupid laws that you have imposed - to make things "fair." Just try and fire that individual that steals from you - especially if that person is a female or minority. You and/or your company could be arrested, will be publicly attacked by the media and sued for discrimination - whether real or not. So, you better program your budget for the really good lawyer to deal with this. Hiring all your employees as the same as you doesn't keep you safe either, there are laws for that as well.

Also, keep in mind that it used to be that it was normal for companies to provide retirements and pensions - until the government started changing the laws that made it too costly to offer these things - you think this was by accident? Keep in mind that it was a manager's responsibility to make sure that their employees were OK and their families were OK, because they had the latitude to do this - Oh, that is illegal to do that now. At one time, if a manager found that an employee (or a family member) had a health issue, he (or she) could make a call and check on their status and offer help - under current law, you cannot find out what is going on with your minor child (that you are legally responsible for) and/or spouse - but the government has every bit of that information and WILL determine if it will spend the money to make you well. -These are Democrat ideals and control

Like it or not - the country that we know it has been changed (ever so slowly) to something that, if it continues, will not be what you anticipate. Having the choice to travel from state to state (without papers), saying what you want (good or bad) - nope - that one is almost totally gone. You can still quit your job and go to work for someone else - you still have that one - (but you are identified in 1st grade on your career paths and your education is tailored in that direction - just think college bound or tech ED).

Lets take a look at Social Security - when it was created, the amounts collected and the amounts paid out were not too bad for the existing economy. It has evolved as well for several reasons - It had billions of dollars in it coffers collecting interest (this was when a billion meant something) - primarily because it was not raising the payouts to that of what was being pay in (income averaging - a democrat idea) and the democrats came up with another idea - hate when that happens. The people of Puerto Rico needed help, lets give them money from Social Security - it has the money just sitting there, it does matter that they don't pay into Social Security. I guess the idea of selectively breaking the law is not new. Getting back on topic - I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how a person making $20,000 a year will get around $1,200 a month from SSA and a person that makes $100,000 a year (paying the same percentage) will only get $1,900 a month.

The answer that I got - if you make that much, you should be investing it - and where, pray tell, is that money coming from? When you make a $100,000 a year, you only get (at best) $65,000, because of SSA, Medicare, income taxes, etc… Then you throw a retirement plan into the mix, you now only keep $50,000. When your kids want to go to college, because you make "$100,000" you do not qualify for assistance so now you have to save for that, now you are down to $45,000. At this income level, you will pay at least $1,000 a month for ObamaCare - if you want good coverage, maybe twice that. Now you are down to $33,000 for food, clothing, and housing.

Now - to make it fair - that person making $20,000 does not pay federal income tax and probably not state, they get college assistance for low income families for their kids, some get public housing for as little as $80 a month (some are given their houses) - and now, since this has been determined as poverty, they get more in their tax refund than they paid. When you add the housing, food stamps (forgot to mention that), healthcare (that is free at that income), and no taxes - by the same standards and rates, these folks are taking home at least $40,000 a year.

Did you know that in some states, if you have a seasonal job for 4 months of the year, you can get unemployment benefits for the rest of the year.

Did you know that in many states, if you are on welfare, it designed to provide everything at an extremely low level - but if you want to eat real food, you cannot make over $12,000 a year or you will lose everything. To keep in step with what you get on welfare is an actual $35,000 income (what you would have to make) to maintain the same lifestyle and this makes sense??? This is why so many on welfare do jobs that are not reported.

Where is the common sense here - why the hell should anybody want to get ahead? This is where "fair" gets you when someone else has the control.

Stand up on your own two feet and control your own destiny - why give it away -

This scares me to the core - a relative told me once that she didn't mind paying the government more because, after all, they know what to do with it more and better than she did. This is not a 'blonde" joke, she was serious. This is what we teach in our schools, this is what we promote, this is what our children believe.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Buckethead

This thread is incomplete without rantingrich schooling you commies.


----------



## bigblockyeti

+1


----------



## jeepturner

Dan, thanks for the post. It is nice to know there are people out there in the internet land who share some of my views.

I have stopped posting on these threads for several reasons. 
The vitriol and name calling that follows is distasteful, and frankly disheartening. 
It takes up way too much of my time.

I do like it that you continue to post it. I like and agree with Senator Warren's quote.

PS I will not have time to read the 1384 posts, nor do I want to.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/01/papantonio-is-wall-street-intentionally-destroying-the-economy/

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/01/lets-start-drug-testing-corporate-ceos-our-real-welfare-queens/


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Buckethead

I think that was Indonesia, Sarah. Which incidentally, you can see from my back porch in Florida.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DrDirt

> I think that was Indonesia, Sarah. Which incidentally, you can see from my back porch in Florida.
> 
> - Buckethead


First = Palin actually never said the word *Africa* - - -that is just the LIB headline for the story.

here is her ACTUAL QUOTE from inside the article:
She said, "Did you go as crazy when your heroic Man-of-Your-Lifetime, Barack Obama, revealed he actually enjoyed eating dead dog meat?"

Similarly - the I can see Russia from my house, is a quote of TINA FEY on Saturday Night Live…. not Palin.

More Hippocritical is PETA….Who said this about the pic of Trig standing on the dog.

"It's odd that anyone - let alone a mother - would find it appropriate to post such a thing, with no apparent sympathy for the dog in the photo," PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said in a statement to POLITICO.

Yet the PETA person of the year posted this photo…. and there is no outrage? INTERESTING (LOL)

Double standard much?


----------



## Bonka

DrDirt;
How will the leftist respond to this? Will they pull up more bilge the Elites publish and the following masses believe?


----------



## DrDirt

Jerry - it is just a world where facts don't matter

If somebody has decided that they are public enemy 1…. it doesn't matter if the "stupid quote" is from some hack comedian, and not the actual person. 
They will gleefully report the Satire as fact.

Perhaps they shouldn't look to the Onion as the source of knowledge, but that is too much to ask.


----------



## DrDirt

Ah Progressives like Margaret Sanger…. founder of Planned Parenthood?

Sorry that is not a position I can support








Not a coincidence that 79% of Planned Parenthood "clinics" are in black neighborhoods.

Maybe libs like Warren also fancy the Eugenic/Fabian Society George Bernhard Shaw envisioned?










Here is George in his own words in an old movie





This is the progressive plan, so be careful what you are REALLY wishing for, as you give the government control over every decision.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

How can anyone, "Hoard so much cash that they impoverish others?" The money people "hoard" is spread out into society when it is invested. This money, if used to buy stocks as an example, is used by companies to build, expand, research, hire, etc.
Unequal distribution of wealth! It is distributed by market forces. If you work at something that has value you make money. The harder the skills are to obtain the more worth the positions have as a general rule. If one wants to risk more by opening a business that may well turn out to be more profitable.
Sen. Sanders is a socialist. Socialism fails every time it is tried. The socialist power has to take it from the producers and give it to "The less fortunate." This also takes away freedom. We have been seeing that happening slowly but surely since president Woodrow Wilson.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

What is the next step after being a Socialist?


----------



## Buckethead

Market forces are not objective , uninterested, impartial, naturally occurring phenomena we were taught.

If you're going to use stocks as an example of free markets in action, you might need to dig deeper.

Value extraction is the only game in town. Any gazillionaire will advise you to add value, should you have the opportunity to ask financial advice. What that same person will have developed, however is a value extraction system.

There are no free markets. Never were. Might makes right. Always has. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Bonka

"Value extraction system." Where does the value go after it is extracted?


----------



## DrDirt

> How can anyone, "Hoard so much cash that they impoverish others?"
> - Gerald Thompson


This is the standard socialist view, and you hear the Obamas talk about the same thing, about rich needing to give up their "Piece of the pie" and changing distribution.

What that wrong with that viewpoint is that it is based on the economy as a "ZERO SUM GAME" that if someone, like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates makes a gazillion dollars, - - or anyone else, the view is that if you GET a dollar, it was TAKEN from somebody else. e.g. there is a single pot of X dollars, and how is it divided.

the Socialist view is (as Reagan Quoted) - - 
"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one!".

Fact is that the economy grows. The "PIE" is not static, the pie has gotten bigger. There is more wealth and GDP today than in 1928.
Is it distributed *un*equally? Yes, and always has been - even in communist countries, which function more like a monarchy. The Chinese premier and their politbureau live like kings… while a huge swath of the rest of the country lives in abject poverty that welfare recipients in the USA couldn't imagine

One of my favorite quotes:
Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.


----------



## Buckethead

First, we must distinguish between money and wealth. Money is a means of exchange and has near zero intrinsic value. Wealth is actual, tangible value. One can devise schemes to create new money, without actually adding new value, such as, oh… An obvious example would be to print new money which would then serve as a claim on goods/services/resources without actually exchanging value for value.

Some would call this counterfeiting.

The recent stock bonanza is another form of value extraction, though not as cut and dry as the central banking method I referred to above.


----------



## DrDirt

True - - however the Pie has and does GROW.

If you invent the next 'IPOD" and sell 10 million units, and become rich. Does that NECESSARILY mean that your new wealth comes at the expense of the starving masses?..... or have we actually GROWN the economy?


----------



## Buckethead

iGadgets are an excellent example of wealth extraction, albeit by means of value exchange, but on a skewed basis.

There a lots of implications here, such as globalization, monopolization, virtual slave labor, and even justification for tariffs.

Another value extraction method: Patent litigation.

Yet another, which my more Republican minded friends can usually see without straining: Insurance fraud.

I used the word fraud as a step stool. Once you get your mind around the fraud part, the fraudulent nature of insurance (especially mandatory insurance schemes) becomes apparent.


----------



## Buckethead

Regarding GDP, you're probably an adherent to the Reaganism "a rising tide raises all vessels".

A metaphor, to be sure, and valid enough. Let's hope non swimming waders get the memo.

The fact is, real wages are falling. Corporate profits are rising. GDP (a very convoluted piece of sophistry) is not rising on a per capita basis. Wages are falling vs nominal gains in GDP, even using official figures.

Did I mention newly created debt such as QE and friends is counted as GDP? TARP is a plus for GDP. Welfare adds to GDP. Medicaid. Medicare. Defense spending.

GDP is a myth.

To create a metaphor of my own:

There are more super yachts, but fewer life boats.


----------



## DrDirt

Wealth extraction is interesting…. how about this.

You make a round dining table and sell it for 2500 dollars.
You can buy one from Ashley Furniture for 199.99

Who did you "Steal" the 2300 dollars from, and leave them to starve in Africa?

That "Evil" corporation is paying staff and making obscene profits selling at 199.99….
don't use their "low wage production"..... you or I cannot buy the materials alone for 199.99…. so even if you got 100% of retail price as "YOUR WAGE".... there is a huge disparity.


----------



## Buckethead

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Making something for less is efficient, and a means for gaining market share. Using slave labor from another region where it is possible is a far cry from competing in a marketplace such as the US. They are not competing markets, but disparate markets. If we utilize slave labor, we compete with it. This is globalization. Free market, globalization, if you will.

It doesn't inform that any particular player is evil, but it is IMO, not beneficial to US wage earners.


----------



## oldnovice

*DrDirt* how about a Tylenol tablet in a hospital for $1.50 when the CEO of that Pittsburgh hospital earns $6,000,000!


----------



## dbray45

It is time to address the falling wages and unemployment.

Obama has created - either through the Democrat Congress or by Executive Order - a whole magnitude of taxes and regulations and put all of the burden on the companies. The companies in response, have laid people off or not hired people when business started to pick up. This IS their right and obligation in order to be profitable. The government created this environment and everyone has to adjust in order to stay in business. The Obama and Clinton policies created the largest recession in US history, which resulted in much more unemployment than the Great Depression. These policies closed more businesses, mostly small to mid-sized companies in history.

Let's not forget, Pres. Clinton was told that his policy to grant "everyone" the credit to buy the house of their dreams (whether they could afford it or not, and then make it impossible to foreclose) - would create the bubble that it did. As a note, I know someone that lived in their house for almost 6 years and did not pay their mortgage for more than 5 of those years because the banks could not foreclose. Clinton basically said, "So what, that bubble will be after I am out of office and hopefully happen under a Republican president!" The final outcome was passed down until it could not be sustained - in the Obama reign. Obama's policies made the recovery far worse be adding taxes, regulations, and then put Obama Care into the mix. If Obama Care was done right, it might have helped but it is laden with so much socialism that companies responded in the way they had to in order to stay in business. Without companies staying in business, we have no economy, we have no country, we have nothing.

To make matters worse, starting a business now requires a team of attorneys to make sure all of the regulations are met - if they are not, the government shuts you down and may put you in jail. When I was unemployed, almost 30 years ago, I started a business and worked it for 13 years. If I were to be unemployed right now, I have no idea what I would do because I cannot afford to start a company now. The way the system has been modified, I would be compelled to go on government subsidies in order to survive and this is designed to be at a level that is ridiculously poor - just to make a point for the politicians.

The best thing is to promote business, promote competition, and help people to start making money. This creates health, wealth, and stability.


----------



## DrDirt

> I m not sure what you re getting at here.
> 
> Making something for less is efficient, and a means for gaining market share. Using slave labor from another region where it is possible is a far cry from competing in a marketplace such as the US. They are not competing markets, but disparate markets. If we utilize slave labor, we compete with it. This is globalization. Free market, globalization, if you will.
> 
> It doesn't inform that any particular player is evil, but it is IMO, not beneficial to US wage earners.
> 
> - Buckethead


Point is that we have a system of "Wealth Creation" and that if you do something well or are well compensated….
That DOES NOT somehow mean that you are screwing somebody else.

One persons wealth doesn't (Necessarily) come at the expense of others.

We make the pie bigger…. we don't steal someone else's pie when we are successful. (that doesn't mean thieves don't exist, like many investment houses or Bernie Madoff)

The Lib line, is the opposite, that if you do well it somehow means others are suffering because of it….. that is simply not reality. But it is the Paradigm that the left likes to espouse as truth.

The discussion about US wages falling is a little more complex (just as the gender gap is not simply paying women less for the same job). This is more a result of outsourcing good paying factory jobs, and having "crappy paying service" jobs remain…. making the average wage suffer, rather than wages of a given person/position falling (or not keeping up with inflation).


----------



## Buckethead

Dr dirt, you are conflating my points with what I presume you see as liberal ideology. I'm just stating facts. Also, I speak directly to wealth creation. Money creation is not wealth creation. The fed has a legal monopoly on money creation. Those in the private sector must create wealth, get others to create wealth, devise a method of extraction, or a combination of these.

Not all corporations/businesses are created equally. Some have the ability to influence congress. Representatives and senators have used their own power to usurp private businesses, and businesses have done likewise with congress. We now have a governmental system that could be described as a merger of state and private interests. Mosellini had a word for that, but for the life of me I can't remember what that was…. Was it farcism? Nah… Summing else.

dbray, I presume the magnitude of executive orders and list of laws enacted by congress that discourage wealth creation include primarily the ACA? When I see a claim that starts out with, "well Obama…" I usually tune out. This is not because I voted for him, nor because I support/approve of his actions. It's because it demonstrates in my view, a predisposition and unwillingness to see objectively.

Policy trajectory has not changed since Reagan. To deny this is to deny the obvious, and to disregard objectivity.

Anywhoo, I agree with regulations having undesirable results. Deregulation can too, as in the Gramm, Leach, Bliley act aka Financial Modernization Act. One could simply eliminate all laws, and sorting through the convoluted, obtuse, arbitrary, and skewed regulations and laws that exist makes a full reset seem more likely. Perhaps even desirable.


----------



## DrDirt

Indeed there is corporate influence in congress.

It is smaller than the public sector union influence though.

Indeed money and wealth can be view as two entities… and I am certainly no fan of the Federal Reserve.

However Are the billionaires Rich (with cash) or are they Wealthy?
Old joke was to say that Shaquille Oneill is rich…. they Owner of the Lakers is Wealthy.

But still all are measured in dollars.
If we want conflation… since the fed is printing money - - - are the billionaires really just paper tigers? or do the have more wealth than the middle class…. since the "money" isn't real?

Point is that there is a larger gap between rich and poor. But that is not simply that the Rich have *stolen* their wealth and left the rest in poverty.

This has simply been a tool… where those in POWER (like Obama/Clinton/soros/etc) to focus attention on fomenting discord and class warfare, while they grab power for themselves claiming to be "for the little guy"

How is that nice transparent administration that says they will not allow lobbyists to be members of the staff (cough cough), how about using the IRS as a private goon squad to silence opposition. Or the phony war on women. Everyone is racist that doesn't like the president. Cops are racist.

Voltaire was right.


----------



## Buckethead

I don't subscribe to the notion that any rich person has stolen wealth from others. I am skeptical concerning most billionaires. Some have invented a new tech, product that vastly improved the lives/productivity of others. Some have been able to recognize trends, and capitalize on the abilities of others. There is a spectrum. We all fit on it, and we all fall short of perfection. Most billionaires fall into the wealth extraction end of the spectrum IMO.
#notallbillionaires

I get it. Obama bad. Milton Friedman good.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> How can anyone, "Hoard so much cash that they impoverish others?" The money people "hoard" is spread out into society when it is invested. This money, if used to buy stocks as an example, is used by companies to build, expand, research, hire, etc.


Other than the initial sale, stock purchase has nothing to do with raising capital for a company.

The problem with hoarding can be found in economics 101. It is called the velocity of money. Economies work from the bottom up; demand creates business opportunities. Building factories and hiring workers to produce a product does not create demand in a society without disposable income.

Hartman reported recently that currently the billionaires, 1%, tax cheats or what ever you want to call them have about 13 trillion hidden in offshore accounts. Another 12 trillion sitting idle in domestic deposits. This is significant amount of idle capital considering the US gross national product for 2013 was 17 trillion. If that money were in circulation by the middle class and working poor, the US would have a pre-Reaganomics, post WWII, world's creditor instead of world's debtor, world's exporter instead of world's importer, wealth building economy.

The bottom line is one needs to look past their personal experience and situation to see at the big picture. If anyone on this forum horded money, it doesn't matter. No one here will impact anything but themselves. But if Mit Romney and Bain Capital use the Michael Milken junk bond approach to finance corporate acquisition, asset plundering and job exportation on an international scale, it does have an impact; a global impact.


----------



## Bonka

First I would have to know who "Hartman" is. Secondly it is not fathomable that "Another 12 trillion sitting idle in domestic deposits," holds any water. I would have to have any of your allegation's verified and first would be what "Hartman" wrote and his resources validating the claims asserted.
If I had billions and billions I would put it offshore also with the government wanting to take all they can from me.


----------



## DrDirt

> First I would have to know who "Hartman" is. Secondly it is not fathomable that "Another 12 trillion sitting idle in domestic deposits," holds any water.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


There are just some projections. There are many companies that actually operate internationally.
I work for one with 136000 employees in 95 counries.

Just where should their bank be? So "Offshore doesn't mean illegal"

How many "non" billionairs have ING orange accounts, or My Ally, or others to get better interest rates.

The huge number - - many are claiming *21 trillion *is just that Hartman/Forbes and everyone else is just quoting some study from the "Tax Justice Network" and not any objective measure…..

I don't really believe it is possible to HIDE IDLE more money than the US National DEBT.








The total M2 (US Money Supply).... is pegged 10 Trillion dollars.
indeed there are investments/IOU's and other odd instruments that all add up to more than that.
But the idea that there can be "UNKNOWN and HIDDEN" more money offshore by a small number of individuals, *than there are dollars in existence*…. seems a stretch. Corruption Greater than the total supply of dollars seems not so possible.

How do you "Hide" more dollars than exist? Skimming, you can grasp. But how do you hoard 200% of your money?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Thom Hartmann is the author of many books and hosts his own radio show. One of the few who does not allow anyone to talk negatively about anyone not on the air to defend themselves. Truly a rare commodity on 21st century American air waves on many levels.

This is nice to see. Finally a bit of justice ;-)


----------



## Buckethead

Regarding money supply (m0, m1, m2, m3) that merely refers to cash and deposits in USD. One can exchange USD for oh… Let's say, CHF. (Relevant) maybe store up some capital offshore in ye olde AUM.

The derivatives market alone has a notional value of hundreds of trillions of USD. It is no stretch to imagine a few T held in assets abroad.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The derivatives market alone has a notional value of hundreds of trillions of USD. It is no stretch to imagine a few T held in assets abroad.
> 
> - Buckethead


The total derivatives market is unknown and there is probably no way to uncover the total until we, U.S. Taxpayers, are put on the hook for the gambling losses of the major financial players. It is known to be more than the world's gross product. This will be very difficult for us, U.S., to guarantee. The R's might want to rethink sneaking that little "sticky" onto the last spending bill.


----------



## Buckethead

True… When the derivatives baby hatches… Lehman will look like Christmas Morning.


----------



## Buckethead

But regarding those derivatives: you can bet their creators have unwound enough of them (via financial alchemy in fraud friendly environs) to stack some cheese in a snuggly zone. Offshore, maybe?

And got me going….

These same financial terrorists, AKA Job Creators, know far more about the derivatives market, and their potential for catastrophe, than we do. They have purchased hard, tangible assets. Not USD paper, for that next rainy day.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

ELIZABETH WARREN EXPLAINS REAGANOMICS FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS… IN 60 SECONDS


----------



## DrDirt

> ELIZABETH WARREN EXPLAINS REAGANOMICS FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS… IN 60 SECONDS
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Indeed there is a lot of abuse under deregulation.. 
Where she is making a "Stretch" since she was speaking at the AFLCIO….. is how she tries to claim that moving Jobs to China was a result of banking deregulation

Companies finding it was cheaper to have Fook Mi Hard company stamp my company logo on a product and ship it to the USA, than it is for me to staff a factory in Ohio. Is not a result of the derivative market or Wall Street Deregulation.

That is a more simple cost calculation that paying a 12 year old 93 cents a day is easy.

I think we never will move the dial, unless we actually address honestly what causes/effects are real, vs political spin and pandering.

I find it interesting that all budget crisis' are about pushing grandma off the cliff, or closing the WW2 memorial, or stopping Social Security checks when there is the thread of government shutdown.

Strange that programs that people paid into for their working lives are threatened every time the political wind blows, but Entitlements and SNAP cards are never in danger of being "insolvent' or not paying out on time during a shutdown.

Government is all about 'Selective Pain' to control the masses.
Schwarzenegger® did the same crapola…. when he was governor and there was a "need' to raise taxes, he went with the "if you don't agree, I will have to release the criminals from prison and lay off the police and firemen"


----------



## DrDirt

> ELIZABETH WARREN EXPLAINS REAGANOMICS FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS… IN 60 SECONDS
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Indeed there is a lot of abuse under deregulation.. 
Where she is making a "Stretch" since she was speaking at the AFLCIO….. is how she tries to claim that moving Jobs to China was a result of banking deregulation

Companies finding it was cheaper to have Fook Mi Hard company stamp my company logo on a product and ship it to the USA, than it is for me to staff a factory in Ohio. Is not a result of the derivative market or Wall Street Deregulation.

That is a more simple cost calculation that paying a 12 year old 93 cents a day is easier than doing the right thing.

I think we never will move the dial, unless we actually address honestly what causes/effects are real, vs political spin and pandering.

I find it interesting that all budget crisis' are about pushing grandma off the cliff, or closing the WW2 memorial, or stopping Social Security checks when there is the thread of government shutdown.

Strange that programs that people paid into for their working lives are threatened every time the political wind blows, but Entitlements and SNAP cards are never in danger of being "insolvent' or not paying out on time during a shutdown.

Government is all about 'Selective Pain' to control the masses.
Schwarzenegger® did the same crapola…. when he was governor and there was a "need' to raise taxes, he went with the "if you don't agree, I will have to release the criminals from prison and lay off the police and firemen"


----------



## dbray45

Dr - there is much more to it than that.

Long before RR, the government decided that we (as in the people of the US) needed to build up other countries. The best way to do this, in their minds, was to give corporations incentives to bring their products into the US versus make them in the US. One of the rationales for this was the pollution issue that we had. In the '70s, I remember one politician saying that it is better to manufacture out of the US and with it we clean up environment.

This is what we did - aggressively. As long as it was an American company, all was good. After RR became president, he made it a requirement that the fed buy American and had to prove it. One of the reasons that IBM started to build motherboards in Puerto Rico, They got the "Made in USA" stamp AND got the import incentives to boot.

Funny thing about all that - the fed still believes that we can sustain our main growth of building houses as our primary manufacturing process for hiring people.


----------



## DrDirt

David -
I not so sure it is the governments idea to offshore, in order to skirt environmental problems.

Certainly Companies - - take advantage of the fact that other countries have lax environmental laws, and MOVE (e.g. Nafta) to the more 'lax' cheap country.

Companies chase the bottom line on cost of products, and nobody was politically opposed (other than the UAW backed politicians) to Toyota, and Honda and Nissan, and Volkswagen and BMW building factories here in the US based on pollution concerns.

Indeed - it is screwed up how when Clinton passed NAFTA (with Jimmy Carter lobbying capitol Hill) they pushed the fact that the jobs lost would not be missed, and how we will train people for BETTER jobs.
Almost as big a load of crap as how we need more illegals because they do jobs Americans refuse to.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The implications of over half of America's children living in poverty should be concerning to all of us, U.S.

Here is an interesting study about minimum income standards Since it is a small community of only 8500, I have to wonder if the social stigma of the period may have contributed to the positive results. They certainly seem to contradict the generations of Welfare Mommas that lived on aid to dependent children that grew out of the Great Society programs.


----------



## Bonka

According to an article in "Forbes."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/07/22/kids-count-rankings-do-not-show-23-of-us-children-living-in-poverty/


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

If the Federal Data is wrong, maybe they should take take free lunch away from 28% of them?

The median US taxpaying household pays just under $50 per year for all welfare programs that support individuals.

That same taxpayer pays between $2,000 and $5,000 for corporate welfare programs. The spread is due to the wide range of definitions used to define "corporate welfare."

Clearly, the focus is on the wrong programs if the US is ever to balance its budget.


----------



## Bonka

The U.S. will balance the budget when our elected officials adhere to the Constitution. It is convenient to state that the Federal Data is wrong. There are plenty of other articles that show how the books are cooked.
The corporate welfare programs you speak of are due to crony capitalism for the most part. 
If I ran a business I would want every break I could get. I for one, among many, feel that "The Fair Tax" plan is a good way to get rid of the monstrosity we have now in our tax code. It has a slim chance of passing because of the power lost by the Federal Government.
I would like to see your source of your numbers.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

They come from listening to Thom Hartmann. He is one of the few broadcasters who will not say anything he cannot verify. Definitely not a typical talk radio motor mouth; Limpbaugh, Savage, Beck, et al. Micheal Medved is another credible broadcaster.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

Everyone that speaks of "Wealth Distribution" seldom offers any method to do so. Is ii "To each his ability, to each his need?"


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Everyone that speaks of "Wealth Distribution" seldom offers any method to do so.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Controlling the fraud and criminal acts of the financial industry would be a good place to start. Atty General, Eric Holder, should be helping us, U.S., not covering up their activities.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## oldnovice

*dbray45*, I know things are not the same all over the country but here in CA, the wages are rising and employment is falling very fast! I understand that some wages are stagnant in parts of the country but I belive it will turn around in the resrt of the country as it has happened before!


----------



## DrDirt

> - Dan um Style


Interesting - - - That the research from the CATO institute shows that just in the USA we spend 1 Trillion on welfare (including state and local) every year….

So if 240 Billion would end poverty 4 times over … for the ENTIRE world, yet we spend a trillion per year handing out money…. why is there poverty?

From the UBER LIB Center for American Progress (trying to debunk the 1Trillion claim starts out)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/12/no-we-dont-spend-1-trillion-on-welfare-each-year/

*1) Cash and cash-like programs*: As Michael Linden of Center for American Progress told me, there are five big programs in the Cato list that are most analogous to what people think of as "welfare": The refundable part of the Earned Income Tax Credit ($55 billion), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($21 billion), Supplemental Security Income ($43.7 billion), food stamps ($75 billion), and housing vouchers ($18 billion) and the Child Tax Credit. All together, that's around $212 billion dollars."

So I guess if we only use the "honest" federal numbers at 212 Billion….I guess we only spend enough federally to end poverty world wide 3.5times over.

Somehow it isn't enough…. and we spend it EVERY YEAR.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

Where are the facts?


----------



## DrDirt

*Back in February, billionaire Tom Steyer committed to donating $100 million with the goal of making climate change a major issue in the 2014 election. Now Steyer is claiming he is nothing like the Koch brothers, the billionaires designated as villains by many Democrats, most notably Sen. Harry Reid.

Democrats don't seem to have a problem with Steyer's millions affecting the 2014 election. Sen. Reid even attended a February fundraiser with Steyer, where he suggested his millions could help "offset" spending by the Koch brothers. In other words, it's not the big money in politics that upsets Sen. Reid, it's the big money going to the other side.*

The top democrat - - Steyer donation equals the rest of the top ten combined…. and the Koch Brothers are at #24 and 26 on the list.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php

So who is REALLY the party of the Rich??


----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Question for anyone and everyone; when this right wing agenda and ideology reaches its logical conclusion, the oligarchy finally yields to the increasing forces of consolidation, one person owns everything except for the crumbs he trickles down to his chosen few, what have the policies you support really accomplished?


----------



## Buckethead

Charts need to indicate real/ inflation adjusted dollars if they make such comparisons. The second chart shows 2007 incomes charted in 2010 dollars.

The reality is sufficient to make the same case without skewed numbers. This type of statistics abuse drives me nuts, and is omnipresent in any socio-economic debate.


----------



## Bonka

What is the Left Wing's ideological conclusion?


----------



## Buckethead

Ideologues gonna ideologue.

I believe ideology is effectively absent in Congress, and at the executive level. Regardless which party controls)

There are no politics. There is only economics and graft, and the contest is to determine who controls the spoils.

The occasional gay marriage/abortion type dramas are to rally the rank and file. Kabuki theater.


----------



## Mahdeew

Has anyone read the book "three felony a day"?


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

MrJinx; The tax code is another example. How anyone can believe it should not be completely abolished is beyond me. It rewards the criminals and we pay for it. The biggest felons are in the federal government both the elected and the "Public Servants." 
It is still all about power and more power. Laws are power and can begat money which is power and on down the line. I feel the lust for power is a disease, a DNA problem it can't be a normal human trait. I am speaking of power for the sake of power. The kind that the person has that is beyond pleasures we feel as "Normal" people.
I don't know which one said it in the Watergate fiasco but it was, paraphrasing, there are all sorts of feelings but nothing like that heady feeling of power.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> What is the Left Wing s ideological conclusion?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


I have no idea. I support the return of the America of my youth. Eisenhower warned of this take over by the military industrial complex ;-(


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Dr Richard Wolff confirms what I have said several times in this thread. Greece expected to vote in a socialist majority on Sunday. How long until America follows? Will an FDR emerge to save capitalism?


----------



## Bonka

Here is a link to President Eisenhower's speech. I like part V especially.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html


----------



## Buckethead

That is an absolutely brilliant speech. It's amazing that he wasn't assassinated in the middle of presenting it.


----------



## DrDirt

> Here is a link to President Eisenhower s speech. I like part V especially.
> http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Eisenhower was awesome. His presidential library is 25 miles from my house. Been there several times, and got a tour with the Boy Scouts of the climate controlled archival vault.

Eisenhower was the driving force behind the 1957 Civil Rights act.
The A-hole that was in charge of the Senate stripped out/watered it down, to near nothing.

Then in 1965 that Same A-hole became president after having his fellow Texans kill kennedy. And passed Civil rights, to tell us that "now I will have those Ni##ers voting democrat for the next 200 years"

But if you watch Chris Matthews on MSLSD (right before the State of the Union) he will tell you how the Republicans aligned with the Klan to oppose civil rights.

The actual voting record is something different.
President Eisenhower signed it on September 9, 1957.
Interesting when you look at LBJ's senate…. republicans supported Civil rights 43-0, while dems were split.
LBJ was the Harry Reid of his time.

-----------
What is the Left Wing's ideological conclusion?
Government running everything. Not necessarily owning it, but in full control.
Latest now since Primary education is not in the top 20 world wide, we will expand to provide "Free" 2 year degrees.

So we can ensure that all job skills training propperly "support the collective….. resistance is futile"

Civil Forfeiture, will allow the government to seize your home if your kid gets busted for possession of marijuana, even if none is in the house.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/
in two years just Philadelphia has seized more than 500 homes and cars.

Philadelphia officials seized more than 1,000 houses, about 3,300 vehicles and $44 million in cash, totaling $64 million in civil forfeitures over a 10-year period, according to the lawsuit.

Unlike criminal forfeiture, the civil law allows authorities to seize property *without the owner ever being convicted or even charged. 
*
In North Carolina property can be forfeited only if the property owner is actually convicted of a crime. This is not so in other states.

Facism is the Liberal Utopia.


----------



## Bonka

I was on vacation in Ark with my parents when I was 14. There was segregation then. At that age I really gave no thought to it. 
I remember the calling out of the National Guard in later years and as we all know the rest I history.
A WWII vet told me to take a closer look @ The Great Society and see how all of it squared with the Constitution.
Read "The Communist Manifesto." Then take a look at our situation.
Lenin decried the things Tsarist Russia was doing to the people when he knew full well he would do the same only worse.
We as citizens need to keep reading books such as "The Road to Serfdom" and others that show the slide of our freedom down the rabbit hole since at least Teddy Roosevelt.


----------



## Mahdeew

When I think of 1960's and even 70's, I can't believe what has happened in such a short time. Just about all the founding fathers warned about the bank's influence and what the outcome of that would be. So, here we are.


----------



## Bonka

Read "The Creature From Jekyll Island." We, as a majority, in this nation believe The Federal Reserve Bank is a federal entity, it is not.


----------



## Bonka

Here is a presentation by the man G. Edward Griffin that wrote the book I mentioned in the preceding post.
It is a two part presentation and well worth the time spent in watching it.
The book is owning as it gives on the opportunity to read salient point without try to find the video.

w


----------



## DrDirt

> When I think of 1960 s and even 70 s, I can t believe what has happened in such a short time. Just about all the founding fathers warned about the bank s influence and what the outcome of that would be. So, here we are.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Andrew Jackson (D) had it straight, killed the fed, and paid off the national debt.. but the power brokers, and 'establishment' revived the monster.

Of course he also had the whole "trail of tears" too.

However the banking issues go back a lot farther than 1980's deregulation.

JP Morgan makes Warren Buffet seem like a 7/11 clerk selling timeshares on the side.


----------



## Mahdeew

DrDirt, Sounds like the monster that every time you cut one of its head, 2 other grow in its place.


----------



## Bonka

'That You tube video is in two parts. I will take more that a one time look to get the whole gist of it. I have won more than a few dollars betting that the FRS was just the name of the cartel.
The next book to read and keep at your beside is "The Fair Tax Book." If and when it makes it into law power is shifted to we the people. If passed it will go into effect as soon as IRS is illuminated.
It is a zero sum game. Anyone who finds great faults with it has not read nor understood the book.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> -----------
> What is the Left Wing's ideological conclusion?
> Government running everything. Not necessarily owning it, but in full control.
> - DrDirt


That didn't work out too well in Russia, did it?

Could it be the middle is the best course?


----------



## DrDirt

> Could it be the middle is the best course?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Indeed - but both Republicans and Democrats are power hungry weasles…. they just want to use the power in slightly different ways, but all of it for THEIR enrichment.

The Middle is hard to get to when you have a "2 headed coin"

Government writes 80,000 pages of regulations every year…. regardless of who is president.





I am more of a Stossel libertarian…. except on making all drugs legal.


----------



## Bonka

I, too, am a Stossel libertarian. With all of the regulations one the books no one can understand them and the ones who mete out "Justice" can cherry pick the ones they want to use.
I am going to recommend once again, "The Fair Tax" book. I should be read by all. The one's I have seen on TV and read in the news disparage it are the one's who's power will be taken from them. They make idiotic claims about it that shows they have not read it or are lying about it so the great unwashed will fear it.
The power brokers fear it because it takes away the power they wield in using the tax code to reward and punish.


----------



## DrDirt

Yep Jerry - that is where Mrjinx link on "3 felonies a day" is at too.

the system… while being well meaning, is so cumbersome, that as we go about our daily business, we are breaking laws that we have no idea exist.


----------



## Buckethead

I'm more of a Jello Biafra anarchist.

I was once interviewed by John Stossel in a "man on the street" type fock snooze thingy. True story.


----------



## DanYo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Billionaire calls for austerity to avert upcoming "jobs crisis that will cause social unrest and radical politics," according to Bloomberg. Will he ground his private jet, dock a yacht or 2 and board up a few mansions to lead the way?


----------



## Buckethead

Don't board up mansions when there are people without homes. Repurpose them. 

Here's a quotation meme. Errbuddy seems to agree with it, but usually insists it's 'those other, bad people" who are the offenders. The truth: Plunder has become the new American dream.


----------



## Bonka

Topa; How many jobs will be lost if your "billionaire(s)" dock the yacht and board things up?


----------



## Buckethead

Topa… You have billionaires? Sweet!

Who here is familiar with the concept of natural law? Howz aboutz misallocation of resources?


----------



## moke

I have a question, some what unrelated to the current disscussion, but related to the thread as a whole.
While watching one of the news networks, did I understand that Obama, intends to include, in his latest proposal to congress, has proposed to cap 401k's at 221K?

This is not a political statement either way….simply a question.
Mike


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I have a question, some what unrelated to the current disscussion, but related to the thread as a whole.
> While watching one of the news networks, did I understand that Obama, intends to include, in his latest proposal to congress, has proposed to cap 401k s at 221K?
> 
> This is not a political statement either way….simply a question.
> Mike
> 
> - moke


I have no idea, but that is hardly a retirement nest egg.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Topa; How many jobs will be lost if your "billionaire(s)" dock the yacht and board things up?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Yeah, never thought about the little bit of tricking down that we do have.

*Buckethead* We have lots of them here in Water World, including the richest of all ;-)

BTW, I'm short on the Euro. Too bad I don't have a billion dollar bet on it ;-( Is that taking advantage of natural law?


----------



## bigblockyeti

If the 401K cap is set at 221K, myself and I'm sure many others will be totally screwed. That's enough for a small cabin, a new truck and a case of beer, in todays money no less. Maybe enough for a new truck alone 30 years down the road, maybe.


----------



## Buckethead

For those not paying attention: AY401KABTU


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Bonka

Paul Krugman is a Keynesian. That went out with "The New Deal." Then there is …"Just how the system is rigged." He does not say how.
Another clue to his intelligence is he is a Nobel Laureate. That speaks volumes. Take a look at the rest of the laureates. Such a brain trust.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Then there is …"Just how the system is rigged." He does not say how.
> - Gerald Thompson


Start by paying attention to the many posts in this thread. This is why it has to get worse before there can be improvement. Not until the majority know they have nothing to lose will they take action. I only pray they do not go commy or extremely socialist in response. There are a couple notable examples in world history; the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution.


----------



## Bonka

I pay attention to the posts. Yes it will take a revolution. I pray at the polls. Then when the fixers get into office the Potomac Bug bites them and off we go again.
I just don't see anyone out there to fill the Oval Office that would attempt to do anything. It is always another department, law or "Sweeping legislation." that is going to turn it all around. Those things, for the most part, are what go us in the present situation.
No I am not for blood in the streets. I am for the Constitution being obeyed. It is the law. Then we have "Interpretations" of the law that leads to, well you know the rest of the story,


----------



## oldnovice

*Regarding Paul Krugman*

What he stated is not only related to economics but to many other human endeavors where change is abhorred by those it favors!


----------



## DrDirt

No - Obama is not capping 401K at 220K.
He is capping the TAX DEFFERMENT on ANNUITIES that pay more than 208K/year.

Nor is he confiscating anything. they proposed a CAP at 3 million for a Tax deferred status.
You can still save as much money as you want.

http://assets.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/how_6_is_too_many_and_3_million_is_not_enough_the_retirement_cap_myth-83642

Barry has proposed what I think is BS, that he wants to have College 529 plans taxed. Rather than them being tax free vehicles if used for education.

Way to talk out of both sides of his mouth…. he touts "Free" (cough) communitiy college, as part of helping middle class achieve higher education for their kids, and in the same SOTU speech, decide that saving for college is no longer going to be tax free.

Both proposals have zero chance of passing, but what a total douchbag he is.


----------



## dbray45

News here can be deceiving.

Thank you


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> News here can be deceiving.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> - dbray45


The purpose of news after the Fairness Doctrine was discontinued in 1987 is to deceive and distract us peons so very few will know what the oligarchs are doing to us. They could never win an election or achieve eternal subjection if enough of us knew.


----------



## Mahdeew

The laws that keep coming into existence are designed to be enforced only when necessary. An old trick:
*Sympathetic Americans showered Coxey with letters of support and provided more than $1,000 for supplies. People along the march route provided food along the way. Upon arrival in Washington, Coxey and his fellow protest leaders were met by 1,500 soldiers, who arrested them for walking on the Capitol lawn. Like OWS, the event spawned copycats, with Coxey's Armies sprouting up around the country. His speech announcing the occupation,*

Source


----------



## Mahdeew

I am still trying to find out how long before the protest walking on Capital lawn as illegal was enacted. I assume a few weeks before.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I am still trying to find out how long before the protest walking on Capital lawn as illegal was enacted. I assume a few weeks before.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Probably an emergency session when they say him approaching ;-(


----------



## Mahdeew

Topsmax,
Yep.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## oldnovice

Just wondering if anyone on this site even comes close to these numbers?


----------



## Dark_Lightning

> - Dan um Style


Is this net assets, or total possessions? Or income per year? I sure ain't in that last category, lol.


----------



## TravisH

It would be hard to believe we don't have several members in the top 1% of their state. It would be very interesting to see age, income, job field, etc… stats of the member base.

https://www.taunton.com/advertise/fw/fwad_readdem.asp

http://www.woodmagazine.com/wood/files/mediakit/readerProfile/index.html


----------



## patcollins

I think that people on here are naive to think that if income equalized that it would be within the US and that it would oly affect the filthy rich. To the rest of the world the guy just scraping by near the poverty line in the US has it pretty damn good, to some guy in Bangladesh wiping his rear end with his hand and drinking contaminated water you are the person that they think has way too much.

I recently read a speech given at the UN and it was about world wide income inequality, it was pretty much the exact same thing people on here are talking about, except every one of you are the evil guy hoarding all the stuff.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Mahdeew

The problem with education in conformity. And the problem with that is non-conformers are ostracized. It is easy to conform and pass the grades but the exceptional kids that question the statuesque are considered rebels regardless of their sane thinking. Teachers and professors want you to think the way they where thought; go outside of that mentality and you are doomed in the education system regardless of how your concepts make scenes.


----------



## patcollins

I don't understand the reason for the comparison between education and incarceration costs. Education does not keep someone from being a criminal. The cost of incarceration is approximately 2.5x-3.5x the cost to educate I would say that is a good deal considering people are incarcerated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and there are no breaks for summer, Christmas etc.


----------



## oldnovice

Au contraire Mr. Collins, there is a direct correlation between education and criminal behaviour, just looks at our congress.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DrDirt

> Au contraire Mr. Collins, there is a direct correlation between education and criminal behaviour, just looks at our congress.
> 
> - oldnovice


Agree that most criminals (in jail) are uneducated. But suspect that the Wall Street crooks that drove the economy off the cliff, were all well educated.

Dans graph though, is pointless. it compares TUITION (not room and board ) to Incarceration with meals, vocational training, clothing and as Pat mentioned is 24/7 365 vs just 2 semesters of 'in state tuition'

the difference in COST is less meaningful


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Agree that most criminals (in jail) are uneducated. But suspect that the Wall Street crooks that drove the economy off the cliff, were all well educated.


Definitely Ivy League along with the top co-conspirators in the gov't.



> Dans graph though, is pointless. it compares TUITION (not room and board ) to Incarceration with meals, vocational training, clothing and as Pat mentioned is 24/7 365 vs just 2 semesters of in state tuition
> 
> the difference in COST is less meaningful
> 
> - DrDirt


The numbers look like the average annual taxpayer cash out lay for a year in public education vs a year in prison. Obviously, a year in public school is much cheaper on the front end than prison. Plus, it will pay big dividends on the back end with a productive tax paying citizen if Reaganomics gets reversed, living wage jobs return to America and a demand for products and services develops like it did in post WWII.


----------



## DrDirt

> Plus, it will pay big dividends on the back end with a productive tax paying citizen if Reaganomics gets reversed, living wage jobs return to America and a demand for products and services develops like it did in post WWII.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


We could hope that the "favored nation" BS with China, and things like NAFTA are rethought to create a more level playing field.
I fear such adjustments are hopeless, as they would disempower the government to hold all of our puppet strings.

So many college professors and other liberals have no problem with buying all of their Apple Products from Foxconn… regardless of suicides and unfair labor.

So long as even the supposed pro worker crowd happily supports companies like Apple…. the idea that jobs return to the US is hopeless.


----------



## RobS888

> We could hope that the "favored nation" BS with China, and things like NAFTA are rethought to create a more level playing field.
> I fear such adjustments are hopeless, as they would disempower the government to hold all of our puppet strings.
> 
> So many college professors and other liberals have no problem with buying all of their Apple Products from Foxconn… regardless of suicides and unfair labor.
> 
> So long as even the supposed pro worker crowd happily supports companies like Apple…. the idea that jobs return to the US is hopeless.
> 
> - DrDirt


You don't like NAFTA? That is how we get Canadian and Mexican oil so cheaply!


----------



## Bonka

I don't like NAFTA because of the patent trolls. Take a look into that.


----------



## RobS888

> I don t like NAFTA because of the patent trolls. Take a look into that.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


I found something on Canada and EU deal, that can't be your concern. So what is your problem with Patent trolls and NAFTA?

If I'm following, wouldn't patents be a small part of the 2.5 billion dollar per day Canada/US trade relationship? Largest in the world.


----------



## Bonka

Patent trolls, exploit loopholes in the current patent system for the sole purpose of extorting royalties from innovators who are actually using the new technology in their production processes.
How much does this impact us? I don't know.
The official name is Sovereign Patent Funds. After further research they are most prevalent in The Trans-Pacific Partnership and The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. These are Pacific Rim countries TPP and
countries including the U.S., Japan, Canada, Australia, and Mexico. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a trade agreement being negotiated between the U.S. and our allies in the European Union.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

If you don't like NAFTA, you will hate SHAFTA! That is the SE Asia Trans Pacific Trade Agreement. It is NAFTA on steroids. 500 corporations have negotiated it in secret over the last 5 years. Boner, McConnell and Obama are pushing for Fast Track to approve it without anyone seeing what is really in it. They know, it will never pass if the American people get peek at the details. If you never had a reason to contact your Senators and Congressman, this is the time to start! If it passes into law, the US will look like what the libertarians have done to Chile, Honduras, and Greece.

What is known according to Hartmann today is the US Taxpayer will be on the hook to pay for any transgression a trilateral tribunal decides to stick us, U.S. with! We will be giving up much of our sovereignty and that large sucking sound Ross Perot warned us about with NAFTA will be a deafening roar as more jobs head to Asia.

Everyone has always talked about a "One World Government". I have always thought that is absurd. They can't even get the US organized and cooperating. I am beginning to realize the One World Government will be the enslavement of all by a few billionaires who no longer have to buy the governments, they own them! This will be global fascism, far beyond anything Mussolini could have ever dreamed of ;-(


----------



## Mahdeew

I thought NAFTA was a paint thinner… lol
The worst of these has been and continues to be FACTA. Try to open a bank account anywhere in the world as an american and it will be denied. How can you do business if you can't open a bank account. By the world I don't mean places like Afghanistan or Yemen.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I thought NAFTA was a paint thinner… lol
> The worst of these has been and continues to be FACTA. Try to open a bank account anywhere in the world as an american and it will be denied. How can you do business if you can t open a bank account. By the world I don t mean places like Afghanistan or Yemen.
> 
> - mrjinx007


They have enough American stuff there. We sent hundreds of thousands of $4 million smart bombs and missiles to bomb them back into the stone age which they never left in the first place. I don't blame them one bit. Bush43, the dumber, never should have started those wars. He should have taken Bin Laden when he was offered to us.


----------



## Mahdeew

TopamaxSurvivor, very true. I wouldn't doubt if he was still alive. The world is getting more weird by the minute. The Greek situation could be the first domino-chain reaction that sets off the next depression/"great recession". This one is going to make 2008 era like the good old days.


----------



## RobS888

> Patent trolls, exploit loopholes in the current patent system for the sole purpose of extorting royalties from innovators who are actually using the new technology in their production processes.
> How much does this impact us? I don t know.
> The official name is Sovereign Patent Funds. After further research they are most prevalent in The Trans-Pacific Partnership and The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. These are Pacific Rim countries TPP and
> countries including the U.S., Japan, Canada, Australia, and Mexico. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a trade agreement being negotiated between the U.S. and our allies in the European Union.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


So not so much a problem for NAFTA?


----------



## Bonka

No, I guess not NAFTA, per se. But it seems those countries mentioned are in NAFTA and causing double trouble.
If everyone in NAFTA played by the rules it may be a different story. 
We are getting shafted no doubt.


----------



## patcollins

> No, I guess not NAFTA, per se. But it seems those countries mentioned are in NAFTA and causing double trouble.
> If everyone in NAFTA played by the rules it may be a different story.
> We are getting shafted no doubt.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada, US and Mexico….


----------



## patcollins

Not so much for income and wealth equalization when it isn't coming to you but coming from you?

That is exactly what is happening with jobs going over seas. The middle class in China has been growing and before long they will be in the same situation that the US is in, their jobs will go to places with cheaper labor. India is probably the next place that manufacturing will move to in mass.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Thom's radio show about authoritarian capitalism is definitely worth listening to.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Our most trusted pollster says


----------



## Mahdeew

Definition of insanity; keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result. It has not worked for centuries. We keep voting democrats and/or republicans. They both have divided us to the blue and red states. the red looks at the blue as though it is an alien and the blue looks at the red in the same way. Divide an conquer is the plan and we all participate in the manipulation. isn't our problems beyond abortion vs gay marriage? Personally, I don't give a damn about either one of those issues: my main concern is the constitution. We have a much bigger issue to resolve if we only are willing to open our minds to it. The politicians have surely used social issues to divide us the people. 2016 will be the highest probability we will choose a third party. That decision will either take us a 100 years forward or a 1000 years backwards. My thinking is, a 100 years forward. The last thing we need is a Mad Max scenario. I have never seen a twisted, bent, and warped piece of wood that match that of a everyday crooked politician. We the people are not and should not be divided. For if we do, we are
F#################################### as we have been for so many years now.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> 2016 will be the highest probability we will choose a third party.
> - mrjinx007


Never going to happen under our Constitution. The most powerful positions in the presidential races are the local caucuses and closed primaries. 70% of the voters control those. Sane voters comprise only 30% and have no voice until they decide which candidate is most likely the worst and we get to vote against them by voting for the next worst ;-((


----------



## Mahdeew

TopamaxSurvivor, the msm (main stream media) has already been busy telling us whom we should elect. Who looks "presidential" based on their height and weight. We need to go beyond that mentality. And I agree with you: Sane voters comprise only 30% and have no voice until they decide which candidate is most likely the worst and we get to vote against them by voting for the next worst. To be honest, the business community elects the next representative and congressmen/women based on what that person can do to their bidding. We the people are no part of the equation any more.  Why a person raise 12 million in their senate campaign to apply for a job that pays $14000 a year?
It is all about getting in the country club!


----------



## Buckethead

Food for thought:

The constitution either mandates such government as we have had, or fails to guard against it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The problem with legislators getting peanuts for wages is only the rich can afford to serve. Being a state legislator is a full time job if done right, not just a few days in session.

We need to repeal the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and Citizens United v. FEC which repealed and nullified Federal Corrupt Practices Act. It is quite clear that corruption is a big advantage for the Authoritarian Capitalists (fascists and libertarians). None of us, U.S. would vote ourselves into bankruptcy and poverty without the billions from Wall Street, corpo pigs and foreign interests manipulating public media and misinformation. Who would voluntarily submit to slavery? Certainly not I.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Food for thought:
> 
> The constitution either mandates such government as we have had, or fails to guard against it.
> 
> - Buckethead


Yes it does guard against it. The Supreme Court has set itself up and as a constitutional monarchy which Thom Hartmann so eloquently pointed out on many occasions. The failure of Congress to do it's job is not a Constitutional failure, it is a Congressional failure and a corruption issue. Where is Judge Parker when we really need him? The court at Fort Smith would remedy this in short order IMO.


----------



## Buckethead

So the constitution prevented our government from becoming corrupt?

Oh… Never mind. I get it now. We just need better people.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It would if all the parts did their jobs. It is doubtful that a corrupt Congress with reign in corrupt Supreme Court ;-( Unfortunately, the administration is really quite irrelevant at this point other than foreign policy.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

60 Minutes reported more banking fraud tonight. Loretta Lynch, nominee to replace the Eric Holder who's Injustice Department helped to cover up Chase banking corruption negotiated the deal with HSBC. I am really beginning to wonder why the U.S, taxpayers do not revolt? The top 4 or 5% pays relatively nothing, then they lie, cheat and steal to get out of that while many in the working poor work several jobs 7 days a week to survive!

The Democratic senator from Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren famously labelled the HSBC deal "fundamentally wrong". "HSBC paid a fine, but no individual went to trial, no individual was banned from banking and there was no hearing to consider shutting down HSBC's actives in the US," Warren said at a Senate committee hearing in 2013. "How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords and how many sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this?"

DoJ officials defended the deal, pointing out it committed HSBC to a five-year plan to stamp out money laundering and I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> - Dan um Style


Sot of looks like PacMan gobbling things up doesn't he? ;-))


----------



## Bonka

The hypocrisy of Elizabeth Warren is becoming more and more a matter of record. The same woman who . said of the hate-the-rich Occupy Wall Street movement, "I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do. I support what they do," is not only wealthy beyond the dreams of most Americans but is part of the very 1% that the Occupy Movement venomously vilifies.
How rich is Warren?
. She is worth between $3.7 million and $10 million, leaving out her three-story Victorian home in Cambridge, Mass., worth 1.9 million.
. Her average net worth is $8.75 million.
. Most of her wealth is invested with TIAA-CREF; she and her husband each have $1 million in the TIAA-CREF Traditional fund, which guarantees your principal will never be affected, you are guaranteed a minimum interest rate, and your income stream will never die.
. She received an advance of $525,000 to write her book A Fighting Chance.
. She and her husband earned $981,000 in 2009 and $955,000 in 2010.
. She was paid $430,000 as a Harvard professor in 2010 and part of 2011.
This is the same Warren who once told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, "I realize there are some wealthy individuals - I'm not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios." She forgot that she owned between $100,001 and $250,000 of IBM stock, of course. Her spokesman Kyle Sullivan later lamely claimed, "Elizabeth was making the point that, unlike many members of Congress, she does not have a broad portfolio of stocks in individual companies. If elected, she'll get rid of the one stock she does own."
This is the same woman who snapped in September 2011, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."
This is the same woman who said while supporting Senator Mark Udall, "Republicans believe this country should work for those who are rich, those who are powerful, those who can hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers."

She is out for the money the same as those she damns,


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Hardly a valid point. $10 million, isn't even pocket change for the banksters and oligarchs.

I am curious and do not mean to start a big rhubarb. Why would a nurse support and defend the oligarchy?


----------



## RobS888

> We are not a democracy. We are a Republic.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


LoL, Urban legend, we are indeed a democracy, some of the founding fathers confused a pure democracy with democracy and representative democracy with republic, a republic to the FF meant no monarch.

There is a famous quote one hears "... a republic if you can keep it" ever hear what the question was " do we have a monarchy or a republic"

http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

If we aren't a democracy, like Reagan said we are, what is the difference? 2 or 3 line answer if possible please.


----------



## RobS888

> No, I guess not NAFTA, per se. But it seems those countries mentioned are in NAFTA and causing double trouble.
> If everyone in NAFTA played by the rules it may be a different story.
> We are getting shafted no doubt.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson
> 
> NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada, US and Mexico….
> 
> - patcollins


Thanks Pat!


----------



## RobS888

Jerry,

Compare Cambridge cost of living to other cities. $250,000 in Baltimore equals $522,000 in Cambridge. Houses are 400% more. Granted $955,000/year is a lot, but not where she lives. My wife's education version of a 401K is TIAA-CREFF, is that their retirement fund? Warren has taught law since the seventies, that seems reasonable to me to have that much in her account.

I really don't care how much she has, I would vote for her for president.


----------



## Buckethead

You will vote for Warren as Vice President, under (Goldwater Gal) Hillary Clinton. (Warren is an intellectual, a progressive, and has been co-opted by the neocon/bankster alliance)


----------



## Bonka

An oligarchy is control by the few. We have that in the government which is in cahoots with the rich. Sen. Warren will be right in there with them. It will be interesting to see how much she is worth when ever she gets out of the Senate.
She is too far left for me. Look at what 6+ years leftism/statist rule has achieved. Socialism has failed each time it has been tried.
The problem as I see it is that we have, in essence, no elected officials that will do the right thing. It only takes a nano-second after being elected for them to smell the money and the power. Then the lobbyist deliver them riches for their votes.


----------



## Bonka

http://assets.amuniversal.com/aedc31f08da60132c3b5005056a9545d


----------



## Bonka

http://nypost.com/2015/02/08/wall-streets-no-lose-view-of-2016/


----------



## DrDirt

> Jerry,
> 
> Compare Cambridge cost of living to other cities. $250,000 in Baltimore equals $522,000 in Cambridge. Houses are 400% more. Granted $955,000/year is a lot, but not where she lives. My wife s education version of a 401K is TIAA-CREFF, is that their retirement fund? Warren has taught law since the seventies, that seems reasonable to me to have that much in her account.
> 
> I really don t care how much she has, I would vote for her for president.
> 
> - RobS888


Of course many that work in Boston and Cambridge do not live there. they live in Waterton or Woburn and commute….Some commute from New Hampshire.

Cambridge, MA average salary is $68,363, median salary is $62,500.
http://www.salarylist.com/city/Cambridge-MA-Salary.htm
I don't quite think she is making Tuna helper for dinner at 955K.

That she can afford to live in Cambridge on her "Paltry" million dollar salary, tells me she is solidly in the 1% group, and not 'blue collar' and could care less about the little people.

To me she often makes some good points (like on the Cromnibus Spending Bill) but in general she is way out of touch with the real world. The country needs someone more pragmatic and a better business background that understands the real world, not the Harvard Theory. we have had 6 years of theory, and it stinks.


----------



## oltexasboy1

I have one question. Have you ever gotten a good job from a poor man?


----------



## DrDirt

> I have one question. Have you ever gotten a good job from a poor man?
> 
> - oltexasboy1


I agree, but it is an interesting 'chicken and egg' discussion.

Do the rich "think up things to do, in order to hire people"?

Or do people, create a "demand" that the rich seek to service/fill?

The result is the same that the rich pay wages/create jobs.

however knowing what gets the process initiated, can better guide how to restart a stalled economy. But if the latter 'demand creation' is necessary - - that seems a tough one to socially engineer or jump start.

How do you "stimulate" demand?


----------



## Buckethead

Job creators = myth

Demand creates jobs. What about iPads? The ipad came before the demand for the ipad…

Wrongarino.

The demand was latent.

I think it was Sam Walton who said: "Serve the rich, live a middle class lifestyle, serve the poor, live in extravagance."

I paraphrased. Sue me.

Demand trumps supply. (In regards to supply side/trickle down mythology)


----------



## RobS888

> Jerry,
> 
> Compare Cambridge cost of living to other cities. $250,000 in Baltimore equals $522,000 in Cambridge. Houses are 400% more. Granted $955,000/year is a lot, but not where she lives. My wife s education version of a 401K is TIAA-CREFF, is that their retirement fund? Warren has taught law since the seventies, that seems reasonable to me to have that much in her account.
> 
> I really don t care how much she has, I would vote for her for president.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Of course many that work in Boston and Cambridge do not live there. they live in Waterton or Woburn and commute….Some commute from New Hampshire.
> 
> Cambridge, MA average salary is $68,363, median salary is $62,500.
> http://www.salarylist.com/city/Cambridge-MA-Salary.htm
> I don t quite think she is making Tuna helper for dinner at 955K.
> 
> That she can afford to live in Cambridge on her "Paltry" million dollar salary, tells me she is solidly in the 1% group, and not blue collar and could care less about the little people.
> 
> To me she often makes some good points (like on the Cromnibus Spending Bill) but in general she is way out of touch with the real world. The country needs someone more pragmatic and a better business background that understands the real world, not the Harvard Theory. we have had 6 years of theory, and it stinks.
> 
> - DrDirt


The 955 was combined salary for her and her husband, according to Jerry. 
Not sure how you can gauge her concerns from a salary you effectively doubled.


----------



## Mahdeew

Old man's words of wisdom:


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> That she can afford to live in Cambridge on her "Paltry" million dollar salary, tells me she is solidly in the 1% group, and not blue collar and could care less about the little people.
> 
> To me she often makes some good points (like on the Cromnibus Spending Bill) but in general she is way out of touch with the real world. The country needs someone more pragmatic and a better business background that understands the real world, not the Harvard Theory. we have had 6 years of theory, and it stinks.
> 
> - DrDirt


She can't be any worse than the others. Could be a Godsend if she could produce.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I have one question. Have you ever gotten a good job from a poor man?
> 
> - oltexasboy1


You won't get a good one from a rich one either. I have known a few and find the way they treat employees quite disgusting. Good jobs are in union shops. Look at the labor history of us, U.S. Somebody died for every socially accepted condition we enjoy today. Nonunion even benefit.


----------



## Buckethead

I'll put a grand on "status quo" if she wins, loses, or draws.

Remember Candidate Obama?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I ll put a grand on "status quo" if she wins, loses, or draws.
> 
> Remember Candidate Obama?
> 
> - Buckethead


Being able to really effect change from the White House is nearly impossible. R's had a meeting the night of his first inauguration and took a blood oath to destroy his presidency. They have done very well. Too bad they had to destroy any chance of middle class recovery with it. Thom Hartmann refers to that meeting and the participants quite frequently.


----------



## RobS888

> You will vote for Warren as Vice President, under (Goldwater Gal) Hillary Clinton. (Warren is an intellectual, a progressive, and has been co-opted by the neocon/bankster alliance)
> 
> - Buckethead


I challenge you to prove any of that Bucket.


----------



## RobS888

> An oligarchy is control by the few. We have that in the government which is in cahoots with the rich. Sen. Warren will be right in there with them. It will be interesting to see how much she is worth when ever she gets out of the Senate.
> She is too far left for me. Look at what 6+ years leftism/statist rule has achieved. Socialism has failed each time it has been tried.
> The problem as I see it is that we have, in essence, no elected officials that will do the right thing. It only takes a nano-second after being elected for them to smell the money and the power. Then the lobbyist deliver them riches for their votes.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Please show me what 6+ years of leftism has done?


----------



## RobS888

> http://nypost.com/2015/02/08/wall-streets-no-lose-view-of-2016/
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


This means what?


----------



## RobS888

> That she can afford to live in Cambridge on her "Paltry" million dollar salary, tells me she is solidly in the 1% group, and not blue collar and could care less about the little people.
> 
> To me she often makes some good points (like on the Cromnibus Spending Bill) but in general she is way out of touch with the real world. The country needs someone more pragmatic and a better business background that understands the real world, not the Harvard Theory. we have had 6 years of theory, and it stinks.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> She can t be any worse than the others. Could be a Godsend if she could produce.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I agree. She seems to be very focused on consumer issues.


----------



## RobS888

> I ll put a grand on "status quo" if she wins, loses, or draws.
> 
> Remember Candidate Obama?
> 
> - Buckethead


No matter what you say about Obama he was better than the alternatives!

A man that claimed not to understand economics (McCain) and a man born with a gold spoon in his mouth (Rmoney) would have put us in a depression for sure.

I work with some guys that were sure in 2009 that Obama would take their guns, they didn't have any so they went and bought some handguns, then paid through the nose for bullets since there was a shortage.

Just makes me laugh because, I think they each spent over a a grand and what has happened to their "rights"? Nuffin!


----------



## Buckethead

Obama was far better than McCain. I believe we would have already attacked Iran if McCain.

I think Romney was a more liberal governor than Obama is a president. (Whether that would have been better is debatable/unknowable)

As for the republican blood oath, did Obama not enter office with a D congress, then when the republicans took the house, he still enjoyed a democrat senate.

The fact is, he isn't the transparency loving, gitmo closing, peace loving, middle class bolstering populist he marketed himself as during the campaigns. He is another authoritarian, hegemonic, demagogue.

But I like the guy!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> As for the republican blood oath, did Obama not enter office with a D congress, then when the republicans took the house, he still enjoyed a democrat senate.
> - Buckethead


Hartmann recently went over the O accomplishments of the first 74 days when he had D's to get something done. With the filibuster rule, one Senator stops everything in its tracks which they have done since the 75th day.


----------



## RobS888

> Obama was far better than McCain. I believe we would have already attacked Iran if McCain.
> 
> I think Romney was a more liberal governor than Obama is a president. (Whether that would have been better is debatable/unknowable)
> 
> As for the republican blood oath, did Obama not enter office with a D congress, then when the republicans took the house, he still enjoyed a democrat senate.
> 
> The fact is, he isn t the transparency loving, gitmo closing, peace loving, middle class bolstering populist he marketed himself as during the campaigns. He is another authoritarian, hegemonic, demagogue.
> 
> But I like the guy!
> 
> - Buckethead


He tried to close gitmo, ended 2 wars, I think his admin is pretty transparent.
Unfortunately, Obama didn't have 60 votes in the senate. So they couldn't shut down a filibuster. I reckon those R filibusters are going to come home to roost soon.

I wonder if other countries have a tyranny of the minority like we do?


----------



## RobS888

> As for the republican blood oath, did Obama not enter office with a D congress, then when the republicans took the house, he still enjoyed a democrat senate.
> - Buckethead
> 
> Hartmann recently went over the O accomplishments of the first 74 days when he had D s to get something done. With the filibuster rule, one Senator stops everything in its tracks which they have done since the 75th day.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Wasn't there 60 D senators, but one was sick, so they never actually had the 60 votes to end a philibuster?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Thom Hartmann went over the early O days recently. He had a filibuster proof Congress for the first 74 days in office. He went through of the list of accomplishments which were quite impressive. Everyone loves to hate O care, but in reality it has stopped the 10-20% inflation in heath care premiums we were experiencing previously. That inflation rate is now near 0. The fact is it was never intended to be a nationally operated system like Medicare, it was supposed to be administrated by the states in conjunction with Medicaid. Most, if not all Red State governors declined it in an effort to destroy any Blue D accomplishments. In reality they are killing many of their own citizens with lack of treatment for terminal illness, but they don't give a d***, after all this is politics ;-( As a former officer in the R party, I am thoroughly disgusted by those I used to support ;-((


----------



## Buckethead

I think you're dead wrong about health 'insurance' (not care) inflation. I worked for a health insurance company in 09/10. The exponential rise in premiums during that timespan was a pricing in mechanism.

ACA mandates that everyone purchase insurance from private health insurance companies (AKA subsidiaries of Wall Street financial firms). This gives Wall Street firms the biggest seat at the health care table come time to slice the proverbial pie, and we are the plums. (Mussolini reckoned that fascism is the merger of state and corporations)

Try to remember; ACA is the republican response to HillaryCare which was manifest in RomneyCare. You don't find that at all odd?

The near zero claim could use support. I'm sure Thomas Hartman is much less biased than Rush Limbaugh, but like the two parties, they are different sides of the same coin.

Progressives seem to me to fall for the old "Those nasty republicans pulled the rug from under our feet when we were soooo close" mantra far too often. (Just like republican voters do over a different set of issues)

You're falling for demagoguery, while believing that you're lamenting the republican's adeptness at political wrangling. (Have you looked at the republicans lately? Not rocket surgeons)


----------



## RobS888

Well, McConnell said job one was to make Obama a failure. Under the circumstances Obama has done well.


----------



## Buckethead

Oh good lord….


----------



## DrDirt

The opposing side always …"Opposes"

Please do tell that there wasn't any "blood oath" by Democrats after Bush "Stole" the election from Gore?
Or from "swiftboating" Kerry

Do tell us how the Democrats were all about bipartisanship and humming Cum Bay Yah during the inaugurations, and that the opposition to Obama's agenda was some TOTALLY NEW and Unheard of partisan bickering.

Not saying it is good…. but to imply that this is solely a republican tactic is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## CharlesA

The opposition always opposes, but I don't think there has been this level of opposition in generations. The R's figured out that those that opposed Obama opposed him vehemently and across the board. Voting for something he supports is an invitation to be primary-ied. This was not true for Dems with Bush or R's with Clinton.


----------



## DrDirt

I don't know - look at the races lost for the senate, to 'tow the war on women' party line.

In REALITY - not every democrat supports obamacare. The voting was down the party line.

Dissention is not allowed - - that is what the majority and minority 'Whip's do.

dissent, and you are relegated to the wilderness, stripped of comittee assignments and sidelined.

It started with Bush…. but no argument it is worse EVERY SINGLE election cycle


----------



## RobS888

> The opposing side always …"Opposes"
> 
> Please do tell that there wasn t any "blood oath" by Democrats after Bush "Stole" the election from Gore?
> Or from "swiftboating" Kerry
> 
> Do tell us how the Democrats were all about bipartisanship and humming Cum Bay Yah during the inaugurations, and that the opposition to Obama s agenda was some TOTALLY NEW and Unheard of partisan bickering.
> 
> Not saying it is good…. but to imply that this is solely a republican tactic is intellectually dishonest.
> 
> - DrDirt


I think the proving of your point is up to you.

Also, I mentioned one guy, granted he was in charge of about 1/2 of the senate…


----------



## RobS888

> The opposition always opposes, but I don t think there has been this level of opposition in generations. The R s figured out that those that opposed Obama opposed him vehemently and across the board. Voting for something he supports is an invitation to be primary-ied. This was not true for Dems with Bush or R s with Clinton.
> 
> - CharlesA


Most filibusters in any congress.


----------



## RobS888

> I don t know - look at the races lost for the senate, to tow the war on women party line.
> 
> In REALITY - not every democrat supports obamacare. The voting was down the party line.
> 
> Dissention is not allowed - - that is what the majority and minority Whip s do.
> 
> dissent, and you are relegated to the wilderness, stripped of comittee assignments and sidelined.
> 
> It started with Bush…. but no argument it is worse EVERY SINGLE election cycle
> 
> - DrDirt


I agree, this has been the worst I have seen. It seems they are Republicans first and citizens second.


----------



## RobS888

> Oh good lord….
> 
> - Buckethead


Sorry Buckethead, this is my opinion of what I saw.


----------



## oltexasboy1

About that "social engineering" stuff, that don't seem to be working out too well. You must "create" demand by having a better mouse trap as it were. Sometimes you fill a need that exists, and sometimes you create a need/want by creating something no one has ever seen before, and don't even get me started on that union stuff. They are not real popular here in Texas, but we still have a lot of good, safe jobs.


> I have one question. Have you ever gotten a good job from a poor man?
> 
> - oltexasboy1
> 
> I agree, but it is an interesting chicken and egg discussion.
> 
> Do the rich "think up things to do, in order to hire people"?
> 
> Or do people, create a "demand" that the rich seek to service/fill?
> 
> The result is the same that the rich pay wages/create jobs.
> 
> however knowing what gets the process initiated, can better guide how to restart a stalled economy. But if the latter demand creation is necessary - - that seems a tough one to socially engineer or jump start.
> 
> How do you "stimulate" demand?
> 
> - DrDirt


----------



## RobS888

> About that "social engineering" stuff, that don t seem to be working out too well. You must "create" demand by having a better mouse trap as it were. Sometimes you fill a need that exists, and sometimes you create a need/want by creating something no one has ever seen before, and don t even get me started on that union stuff. They are not real popular here in Texas, but we still have a lot of good, safe jobs.
> 
> I have one question. Have you ever gotten a good job from a poor man?
> 
> - oltexasboy1
> 
> I agree, but it is an interesting chicken and egg discussion.
> 
> Do the rich "think up things to do, in order to hire people"?
> 
> Or do people, create a "demand" that the rich seek to service/fill?
> 
> The result is the same that the rich pay wages/create jobs.
> 
> however knowing what gets the process initiated, can better guide how to restart a stalled economy. But if the latter demand creation is necessary - - that seems a tough one to socially engineer or jump start.
> 
> How do you "stimulate" demand?
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> - oltexasboy1


And a lot of low paying ones from what I hear.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I think you re dead wrong about health insurance (not care) inflation. I worked for a health insurance company in 09/10. The exponential rise in premiums during that timespan was a pricing in mechanism.
> 
> ACA mandates that everyone purchase insurance from private health insurance companies (AKA subsidiaries of Wall Street financial firms). This gives Wall Street firms the biggest seat at the health care table come time to slice the proverbial pie, and we are the plums. (Mussolini reckoned that fascism is the merger of state and corporations)
> 
> Try to remember; ACA is the republican response to HillaryCare which was manifest in RomneyCare. You don t find that at all odd?
> 
> The near zero claim could use support. I m sure Thomas Hartman is much less biased than Rush Limbaugh, but like the two parties, they are different sides of the same coin.
> 
> Progressives seem to me to fall for the old "Those nasty republicans pulled the rug from under our feet when we were soooo close" mantra far too often. (Just like republican voters do over a different set of issues)
> 
> You re falling for demagoguery, while believing that you re lamenting the republican s adeptness at political wrangling. (Have you looked at the republicans lately? Not rocket surgeons)
> 
> - Buckethead


Most of the problems with O care and Medicare are R's insistence the Gov't protect and line their pockets ;-( When you look at people's satisfaction with various heath care systems in the US, Medicare is #1, followed by VA…....... down to the private health insurance death camps that find excuses to deny, deny , deny and let people die ;-( for the sack of CEO bonus $$.

The original intent of Medicare was to start with retires and expand to everyone. Prior to Reagan, health care was not for profit. It worked pretty well, but somebody should be able to profit on someone else's misery and grief in a totally capitalist free market, shouldn't they?


----------



## Buckethead

So ACA has subjected everyone to those very insurance schemes designed to enrich CEOs and owners of preferred stocks.

This could work!


----------



## Bonka

"Prior to Reagan health care was not for profit." Tell me more about that. I have never worked in a health care facility that was not for profit. Non-Profit health care entities have to make a profit to keep the doors open. They may rely on donations but that is still a profit by another name.
I love the "Profit from someone else's grief and misery" comment. Who is going to work at anything for free? How is one supposed to live? Being happy? Take a "I'm Happy Card" to the store and see what you get.
Capitalism works. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried. How would you like to enjoy free health care in the UK or Cuba for that matter?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I agree, but it is an interesting chicken and egg discussion.
> 
> Do the rich "think up things to do, in order to hire people"?
> 
> Or do people, create a "demand" that the rich seek to service/fill?
> 
> The result is the same that the rich pay wages/create jobs.


The rich hoard assets, speculate, and dodge taxes, they do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Poor working hard to improve their lives spending nearly everything they make in that process creates demand. They create jobs. I wasn't rich when I hired my first employee, but I created a job to respond to demand. 


> How do you "stimulate" demand?
> - DrDirt


Raise the wages of the working poor. 


> don't even get me started on that union stuff. They are not real popular here in Texas, but we still have a lot of good, safe jobs.
> - oltexasboy1
> And a lot of low paying ones from what I hear.
> - RobS888


Thom Hartmann had a guy on today ranting about the Longshboreman's slowdown/lock out today. He said a *small group had the nation's economy by the throat*. Thom's response was * like the oligarchs*.

The conversation mentioned negatives about unions, but the oligarch's have lobbyists and buy officials, so why should not working people have the same opportunity to represent their interests?

Thom asked why a Longshoreman working hard in adverse and sometimes dangerous conditions earn enough to have health care, buy a home, educate their children and save for retirement? The caller talked about everything in the world except answering that question ;-)

Any of you nonunion, right to work for nothing guys have an answer to that?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> "Prior to Reagan health care was not for profit." Tell me more about that. I have never worked in a health care facility that was not for profit. Non-Profit health care entities have to make a profit to keep the doors open. They may rely on donations but that is still a profit by another name.
> I love the "Profit from someone else s grief and misery" comment. Who is going to work at anything for free? How is one supposed to live? Being happy? Take a "I m Happy Card" to the store and see what you get.
> Capitalism works. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried. How would you like to enjoy free health care in the UK or Cuba for that matter?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Non-profit has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism works better that unregulated capitalism. Regulated capitalism created the most powerful economic engine the world has ever seen; post WWII America's middle class. The magic of the totally free market is destroying post WWII America's middle class.

That is the problem we face today. There are too many people who do not remember pre-Reaganomics America. Most of the non-profit organizations have been bought up by for profit corps to the detriment of us, U.S., all ;-( Off the top of my head, one that still exists is the Franciscan system. They have hospitals all across this nation.

Go here you can read the history time line. Note the increasing privatization in 1980 forward.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> So ACA has subjected everyone to those very insurance schemes designed to enrich CEOs and owners of preferred stocks.
> 
> This could work!
> 
> - Buckethead


Seems to be working very well for them ;-(


----------



## RobS888

> "Prior to Reagan health care was not for profit." Tell me more about that. I have never worked in a health care facility that was not for profit. Non-Profit health care entities have to make a profit to keep the doors open. They may rely on donations but that is still a profit by another name.
> I love the "Profit from someone else s grief and misery" comment. Who is going to work at anything for free? How is one supposed to live? Being happy? Take a "I m Happy Card" to the store and see what you get.
> Capitalism works. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried. How would you like to enjoy free health care in the UK or Cuba for that matter?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Hmmm, you use "for profit" or "free", like there are no other options.

I would greatly prefer single payer health care like Canada and some other countries.

Ask Hawking how he feels about UK healthcare. But then again what does a brilliant physicist know about medicine?

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/stephen-hawking-nhs-is-britains-finest-public-service-and-must-be-preserved-from-commercial-interests-8978361.html

*First: *you don't know what/whom NAFTA is.

*Second:* you compare UK and Cuba health care. I'm actually embarrassed for you now.

You really should stop believing your sources, they make you look silly.


----------



## RobS888

> I don t know - look at the races lost for the senate, to tow the war on women party line.
> 
> In REALITY - not every democrat supports obamacare. The voting was down the party line.
> 
> Dissention is not allowed - - that is what the majority and minority Whip s do.
> 
> dissent, and you are relegated to the wilderness, stripped of comittee assignments and sidelined.
> 
> It started with Bush…. but no argument it is worse EVERY SINGLE election cycle
> 
> - DrDirt


I found this for you to show how really incredible pains the butts the Rs have been. More than twice as many filibusters. Strangely under Bush it wasn't the second most… it was under/against Clinton. So it isn't getting worse except when Rs are not in control.

Filibusters

Raygun: 40

Clinton: 80

Bush: 60

Obama: 160

Nope, nothing unusual about Obama's treatment.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I found this for you to show how really incredible pains the butts the Rs have been. More than twice as many filibusters. Strangely under Bush it wasn t the second most… it was under/against Clinton. So it isn t getting worse except when Rs are not in control.
> 
> Filibusters
> 
> Raygun: 40
> 
> Clinton: 80
> 
> Bush: 60
> 
> Obama: 160
> 
> Nope, nothing unusual about Obama s treatment.
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/11/charts-explain-why-democrats-went-nuclear-filibuster
> 
> - RobS888


This is one of the key items that totally disgusts me about the party I used to be in, there needs to be more to the platform than just say *"NO!"* Not only *NO!* but *H3LL NO!!* There really needs to be a reasonable alternate other than expanding the status quo and making it worse.


----------



## Bonka

I say hell no to the PPACA. If it is so great why is it mandatory? Why did the president lie time after time about the act?
Great Britain is in a mess. One only has to read the news and see some facts about the dismal care they have.
Did Hawking have private health insurance? People of his status will go to the head of the line no matter if it is NHS or private insurance. 
The PPACA is another government monstrosity.


----------



## RobS888

> I say hell no to the PPACA. If it is so great why is it mandatory? Why did the president lie time after time about the act?
> Great Britain is in a mess. One only has to read the news and see some facts about the dismal care they have.
> Did Hawking have private health insurance? People of his status will go to the head of the line no matter if it is NHS or private insurance.
> The PPACA is another government monstrosity.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Perhaps you should read the article, before questioning what he has.

Any system that covers or attempts to cover all citizens is better than a system that ignores 10s of millions of people.

Why is the UK a mess? Did Rush or Glen Beck say so? Let's see some stats that support that "comment". No anecdotal accounts, just data please.


----------



## CharlesA

The "UK is a mess" thing is a mystery to me. See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx

"In all three countries, there is great variation of opinion within the population on both the quality of medical care and the availability of affordable healthcare. It is a testament to national health systems that people in Canada and Great Britain are significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare than their American counterparts are.

In Great Britain, satisfaction with access to affordable healthcare (43%) is consistent with satisfaction with quality (42%). In Canada, satisfaction with access to affordable healthcare (57%) is slightly higher than satisfaction with quality (52%). But the most dramatic variation in satisfaction with these two facets of the healthcare system occurs in the United States, where only 25% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, but 48% are satisfied with quality. Once again, this dichotomy seems to support the hypothesis that private healthcare encourages high-quality standards, but may be a barrier to access and affordability."

If you have money and good insurance, the U.S. system is great, otherwise . . .


----------



## Buckethead

> 1) Any system that covers or attempts to cover all citizens is better than a system that ignores 10s of millions of people.
> 
> 2) Why is the UK a mess? Did Rush or Glen Beck say so? Let s see some stats that support that "comment". No anecdotal accounts, just data please.
> 
> - RobS888


1) ah yes… Ye olde "something is better than nothing" argument. Cancer, being something is surely not better than nothing.

Although I am an anarchistic capitalist, (with communist leanings) I would have much preferred a single payer system. I also find that those proponents of ACA are party hacks, naive, uninformed, or willfully ignorant of what it is.

Again. You hate republicans. Why would you applaud their fascistic policy initiative from the Clinton era which was a response to HillaryCare? (Now brought into play by Democrats and lauded by the proletariat)

It's baffling that people see all the partisan posturing as any more than kabuki theater.

2) The UK is in very rough shape, economically, demographically, and culturally, but they do get 'free' health care.


----------



## DrDirt

> Filibusters
> 
> Raygun: 40
> 
> Clinton: 80
> 
> Bush: 60
> 
> Obama: 160
> 
> Nope, nothing unusual about Obama s treatment.
> 
> - RobS888


Maybe you mean when it was CORRECTLY stated about the nuclear option:
"The only way you can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says, to change a rule in the Senate rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes. You can't do it with 60. You certainly cannot do it with 51. But now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called nuclear option. We will come in here, having the Vice President seated where my friend and colleague from Nevada is seated. The Parliamentarian would acknowledge it is illegal, it is wrong, you can't do it, and they would overrule it. It would simply be: We are going to do it because we have more votes than you. You would be breaking the rules to change the rules. That is very un-American."

But alas that was Harry Reid in 2005 when Republicans wanted to pass the Nuclear option…. not 2013 when Harry now supported it.

The fillibuster numbers of course miss an important point. What were the relative majorities.
When Obama took office there were 60 Dems (75 days anyway) then 59.

So for Obama's first term, the ONLY way republicans could even slow down the progressives was with a fillibuster.

When the house was closer to 50:50 this was less of an issue.
Also there have been fewer incendiary legislative issues versus Obama.

Unless you look to Democrats seeking to block civil rights:
*One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when southern Democratic senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours, which included a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd. 
*

Ted Cruz has nothing on the old KKK senator Byrd from West Virginia.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The only way you can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says, to change a rule in the Senate rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes. You can't do it with 60. You certainly cannot do it with 51.


The number of votes required to break a filibuster is a moving target. It can change with each new session of the Senate and there can be special rules for certain issues. Right now I believe there is a special lower requirement for federal judge appointments to try to work down the back log of vacancies that has been growing in recent years. 60 to 67 is the most common.

On health care availability, certainly the US is the most available if you can afford it. Need a heart surgery, it will be done in a few days if necessary. A friend in Canada waited on the waiting list for over a year to get his done. He was concerned he would not live long enough to have the surgery. Certainly every model is compromise to some extent. In the US, having up to 20% inflation every year will price most of us about at some point and there will be a total collapse of the system. For those who oppose O care, propose something better that covers all the citizens, not just the most affluent 20% of us, U.S.


----------



## DrDirt

> Certainly every model is compromise to some extent. In the US, having up to 20% inflation every year will price most of us about at some point and there will be a total collapse of the system. For those who oppose O care, propose something better that covers all the citizens, not just the most affluent 20% of us, U.S.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Of course we choose not to address the COST OF CARE… instead the focus in the ACA was the "evil insurers"

I had to get an X-ray yesterday. They see that my 2015 deductible is not yet met, and demanded 300 dollars up front or the appointment is cancelled.

A system that provides TRULY free care for illegals at the expense of others to 'make up the gaps' will have a problem with inflation.

Insurance is expensive because the healthcare bill is huge. not the other way around.
If having your kid see a doctor for the flu test and be prescribed tamiflu cost 156 dollars for the 4 minutes you saw the doctor.
We shouldn't scream about Blue Cross CEO pay, but demand accounting of our bills.

Same with education. The problem is not the interest rates on student loans, it is that Tuition is growing exponentially.
The increase in tuition far FAR outpaces medical costs.
Yet we talk only about 'Predatory lending and interest rates" and never why College has gotten so much more expensive.
So we talk about Student Debt… not about Tuition. (other than "free" community college)
*Lets talk about the "Amount NEEDING to be borrowed, and less on what interest rates are"*
Until we really address the causes - a cure will never be reached.










http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-15/cost-of-college-degree-in-u-s-soars-12-fold-chart-of-the-day


----------



## RobS888

> The "UK is a mess" thing is a mystery to me. See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx
> 
> "In all three countries, there is great variation of opinion within the population on both the quality of medical care and the availability of affordable healthcare. It is a testament to national health systems that people in Canada and Great Britain are significantly more satisfied with availability of affordable healthcare than their American counterparts are.
> 
> In Great Britain, satisfaction with access to affordable healthcare (43%) is consistent with satisfaction with quality (42%). In Canada, satisfaction with access to affordable healthcare (57%) is slightly higher than satisfaction with quality (52%). But the most dramatic variation in satisfaction with these two facets of the healthcare system occurs in the United States, where only 25% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, but 48% are satisfied with quality. Once again, this dichotomy seems to support the hypothesis that private healthcare encourages high-quality standards, but may be a barrier to access and affordability."
> 
> If you have money and good insurance, the U.S. system is great, otherwise . . .
> 
> - CharlesA


It seems that if anyone has it better, we have to pretend they suck. Even with the survey results in mind look at the results per dollar spent. the US has the most expensive health care in the world, but are 11th in longevity. The second place is almost 50% of what the US spends. 
 
This chart shows it all:http://

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HealthsystemscomparisonOECD2008.png


----------



## RobS888

> 1) ah yes… Ye olde "something is better than nothing" argument. Cancer, being something is surely not better than nothing.
> 
> Although I am an anarchistic capitalist, (with communist leanings) I would have much preferred a single payer system. I also find that those proponents of ACA are party hacks, naive, uninformed, or willfully ignorant of what it is.
> 
> Again. You hate republicans. Why would you applaud their fascistic policy initiative from the Clinton era which was a response to HillaryCare? (Now brought into play by Democrats and lauded by the proletariat)
> 
> It s baffling that people see all the partisan posturing as any more than kabuki theater.
> 
> 2) The UK is in very rough shape, economically, demographically, and culturally, but they do get free health care.
> 
> - Buckethead


#1) Where is the nothing proposition? I want coverage for all. Your argument is confusing. I don't hate Rs, I'm saddened by their representatives.

#2) We were referring to their better healthcare. Seriously, how are you able to judge the UK? On any social metric they beat us.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*A system that provides TRULY free care for illegals at the expense of others to 'make up the gaps' will have a problem with inflation.

Insurance is expensive because the healthcare bill is huge. not the other way around.*

Certainly covering the costs of the non paying freebie groups is a big factor in hospital costs and the inflation.

Guys like CEO Dollar Bill McGuire taking a billion $$$$$ out of United Health Care in one year is a minor factor. Hartmann has pointed this out several times. Hospital costs inflation seems to have its roots in "for profit movement" that came with Reaganomics. There are some services that should not be in the category of how much can I bleed out of the consumer. Health care and education are 2 of them.

Prior to Reaganomics, education was nearly free. That investment in the common good was a large factor in building the greatest economic engine the world have ever seen, post WWII America. Cancelling all the policy changes since 1980 will go a long way towards restoration of America and the middle class. It may not have been perfect, but it sure as h3ll was a lot better than where we are headed now!! ;-((


----------



## DrDirt

> the US has the most expensive health care in the world, but are 11th in longevity. The second place is almost 50% of what the US spends.
> "
> 
> - RobS888


You shoudl visit those countries with better longevity.
It has LITTLE to do with hospital costs, and everything to do with the ACTUAL HEALTH.
Try to find supersized folks in France….. yeah the 400 pounders on a rascal scooter….

Or find the McDonalds Drive through in Paris?

Maybe there are more factors than the annual doctor bills as a measure of QUALITY OF CARE?
Maybe Quality of US healthcare is really first rate, but we have a bunch of slobs that need new prescriptions for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, getting stents for arteries and and AND AND AND…. so our Bill is larger than a HEALTHIER nation.
or is our DEMAND simply must be because Blue Cross is making too much money?










*Versus*










I am surprised we are 11th in longevity - - gee let's chow down! Then we can go stage a sit in at the Aetna CEO's house.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> It has LITTLE to do with hospital costs, and everything to do with the ACTUAL HEALTH.
> Try to find supersized folks in France….. yeah the 400 pounders on a rascal scooter….
> 
> Or find the McDonalds Drive through in Paris?
> 
> - DrDirt


Definitely a lot of truth in that, but corp profit incentives in food production track with the obesity crisis. The end of natural sugar being replaced in most products by corn syrup got the ball rolling ;-((


----------



## DrDirt

> Definitely a lot of truth in that, but corp profit incentives in food production track with the obesity crisis. The end of natural sugar being replaced in most products by corn syrup got the ball rolling ;-((
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Putting sweeteners in everything was a fall out of the Fat Free craze… and everything needing to be unsaturated fat.
they took out butter, found it tasted like cardboard, so they added sugar… then Corn Syrup, and now Stevia.

Claim is that Stevia will be more healthy because it is NATURAL derived from the stevia plant…. but so is sugar and Corn Syrup…. so i suppose we will see in another 10 years.


----------



## DrDirt

Cost comparison for a Knee Replacement US, Australia and France

USA 22K








France 17K








NSW Australia 19.7K









Suppose I don't see that the cost of Services is an explanation for the US spending on medicine.
We are indeed higher…. but not explaining how we are more than Double - the second place country argument holds water.


----------



## patcollins

> He tried to close gitmo, ended 2 wars, I think his admin is pretty transparent.
> Unfortunately, Obama didn t have 60 votes in the senate. So they couldn t shut down a filibuster. I reckon those R filibusters are going to come home to roost soon.
> 
> I wonder if other countries have a tyranny of the minority like we do?
> 
> - RobS888


He has not tried to close gitmo and he is trying to restart one of the wars that he just ended.

Not to mention he wants to fight the people that just a year ago or so he wanted to help fight Assad in Syria until Putin talked him out of it.


----------



## Bonka

Do the costs of TKR have the currencies in equal ratio to the dollar? Are malpractice insurance, taxes and US wages figured in the comparisons?


----------



## CharlesA

Here's a cost comparison by country for a whole host of medical treatments.


----------



## patcollins

I always read so much misinformation on filibusters in this thread. Regarding Obama facing so many if you look at this chart you will see that votes on cloture spiked sharply at the end of Bush's term and have remained high, but gone down slightly.


----------



## CharlesA

Hmm . . . this chart seems to tell a different story, with high number only in Bush's last year, and then high numbers during each of Obama's years:

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm


----------



## patcollins

Take out the ones for nominees and you will see the 2013-2014 congress did very little to actual bills as is often claimed.


----------



## CharlesA

Why would I want to take out nominees?


----------



## Buckethead

> 1) ah yes… Ye olde "something is better than nothing" argument. Cancer, being something is surely not better than nothing.
> 
> Although I am an anarchistic capitalist, (with communist leanings) I would have much preferred a single payer system. I also find that those proponents of ACA are party hacks, naive, uninformed, or willfully ignorant of what it is.
> 
> Again. You hate republicans. Why would you applaud their fascistic policy initiative from the Clinton era which was a response to HillaryCare? (Now brought into play by Democrats and lauded by the proletariat)
> 
> It s baffling that people see all the partisan posturing as any more than kabuki theater.
> 
> 2) The UK is in very rough shape, economically, demographically, and culturally, but they do get free health care.
> 
> - Buckethead
> 
> #1) Where is the nothing proposition? I want coverage for all. Your argument is confusing. I don t hate Rs, I m saddened by their representatives.
> 
> #2) We were referring to their better healthcare. Seriously, how are you able to judge the UK? On any social metric they beat us.
> 
> - RobS888


Rob, if you want coverage for all, just buy it. You're obviously a good sort of chap.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## patcollins

> Why would I want to take out nominees?
> 
> - CharlesA


Blocking a nomination of a particular person really has little bearing on the obstruction on getting things done argument. Using it for nominations is a fairly recent thing it seems.

That and because each nomination is counted separately it really inflates the number.

The use of the vote on cloture has been extended to be used in ways that it was not used previously.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate

*In December 2009, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse claimed there were over 100 filibusters and acts of obstruction during the 111th Congress.[36] In March 2010, freshman senator Al Franken attacked the majority of the filibusters-some on matters which later passed with little controversy-as a "perversion of the filibuster".*

So it is being used in a much more casual manner and will probably continue to do so.

The senate majority leader can do more or less the same thing by simply refusing to bring something to a vote, even if it will pass and it does not have the stigma associated with it that a filibuster does.


----------



## DrDirt

Charles the Washington Post piece titled:
*21 graphs that show America's health-care prices are ludicrous*
By Ezra Klein

Can be illustrative but is cherry picked, by Mr. Klein who is an ardent ACA supporter, the title tells me it is not going to be balanced.
But looking at things like office visits. Every time I go to the doctors office i see my Family Physician (MD). Other countries make far greater use of Nurse Practicioners/Physican Assistants for basic stuff.

We certainly could save if the MD didn't hav to look at every ear infection/strep throat.

For procedures:
I looked at what Joe American, could board a plane for and get something done overseas and not what final patient costs after subsidies might be.
It indicated that the "Walk in" price to get things done overseas wasn't so different.
I am sure if I found prices for Beverly hills/Wilshire Blvd, or Manhattan… I could have found truly jaw dropping prices.

I think doctor salaries don't vary that much in the 'first world economies' and as such the true outlay of dollars that it COSTS to perform a given procedure are going to be pretty close.

Ours become artificially high as I mentioned when the hospital has to "Make up for the losses" of providing free care to anyone that shows up.
So the bill is going to be different than what the real "Cost per patient" is to do a procedure.

But if 2 come in for free, that third person that shows up *with* an insurance card gets hammered.

Fact is there is a group of pundits and policy makers with a mission to convince everyone that US is 2X more expensive.
That 2X number has become the pro-obamacare talking point.

I certainly am not saying that I like that my insurance is over 6K/year for my family….
I do question that our CARE is double the cost. and is somehow INFERIOR because we spend more each year and aren't #1 in lifespan.
We eat loads of sugar…. are morbidly obese… we thus need to USE the healthcare system more than citizens of other countries.
The idea that we spend more to keep a 400 pound woman alive to an average age of 83 is not because healthcare is bad/less effective in treating disease. It is because we have a sicker population.


----------



## CharlesA

So making Nexium your exhibit 1 isn't "cherry picked"?


----------



## patcollins

> Ours become artificially high as I mentioned when the hospital has to "Make up for the losses" of providing free care to anyone that shows up.
> So the bill is going to be different than what the real "Cost per patient" is to do a procedure.
> 
> But if 2 come in for free, that third person that shows up *with* an insurance card gets hammered.
> 
> - DrDirt


And to be fair it was under Reagan that the bill became law that required the emergency room to treat anyone that came in and needed care. While it was the right thing to do it definitely was the start of what we have today.


----------



## CharlesA

I'll grant half a point that mixing legislative and nominee fillibusters is a bit apples and oranges, but I'll take back the half a point by asserting that the overwhelming number of fillibusters on nominations domonstrates a reflexive opposition to almost anything Obama proposes.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Buckethead

Obama is the executive. Congress is the legislative branch. The executive branch may ask for specific legislation, but congress is not obliged to act.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## Buckethead

Our money represents debt. (Not value or wealth)

You're getting closer, Dan'um.


----------



## RobS888

> You shoudl visit those countries with better longevity.
> It has LITTLE to do with hospital costs, and everything to do with the ACTUAL HEALTH.
> Try to find supersized folks in France….. yeah the 400 pounders on a rascal scooter….
> 
> Or find the McDonalds Drive through in Paris?
> 
> Maybe there are more factors than the annual doctor bills as a measure of QUALITY OF CARE?
> Maybe Quality of US healthcare is really first rate, but we have a bunch of slobs that need new prescriptions for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, getting stents for arteries and and AND AND AND…. so our Bill is larger than a HEALTHIER nation.
> or is our DEMAND simply must be because Blue Cross is making too much money?
> 
> I am surprised we are 11th in longevity - - gee let s chow down! Then we can go stage a sit in at the Aetna CEO s house.
> 
> - DrDirt


I forgot how you like those vivid examples! Who cares about France. Lets compare British countries shall we?

Look at the 2nd and 3rd on the list, Canada and Oz. Both higher than France for longevity, similar histories to US, (British colonies) Yet they are much higher. I bet if I showed you pictures of people from each country you couldn't tell where they were from.

I could show you that Canadians and Ozzies are happier than we are, better educated and live longer. And I'm sure you remember that Canadians passed the US to become the country with highest disposable income.

So post any vivid examples of items you want, the totals show you are totally wrong.


----------



## RobS888

> He tried to close gitmo, ended 2 wars, I think his admin is pretty transparent.
> Unfortunately, Obama didn t have 60 votes in the senate. So they couldn t shut down a filibuster. I reckon those R filibusters are going to come home to roost soon.
> 
> I wonder if other countries have a tyranny of the minority like we do?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> He has not tried to close gitmo and he is trying to restart one of the wars that he just ended.
> 
> Not to mention he wants to fight the people that just a year ago or so he wanted to help fight Assad in Syria until Putin talked him out of it.
> 
> - patcollins


Apparently we don't live in the same country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html


----------



## RobS888

> 1) ah yes… Ye olde "something is better than nothing" argument. Cancer, being something is surely not better than nothing.
> 
> Although I am an anarchistic capitalist, (with communist leanings) I would have much preferred a single payer system. I also find that those proponents of ACA are party hacks, naive, uninformed, or willfully ignorant of what it is.
> 
> Again. You hate republicans. Why would you applaud their fascistic policy initiative from the Clinton era which was a response to HillaryCare? (Now brought into play by Democrats and lauded by the proletariat)
> 
> It s baffling that people see all the partisan posturing as any more than kabuki theater.
> 
> 2) The UK is in very rough shape, economically, demographically, and culturally, but they do get free health care.
> 
> - Buckethead
> 
> #1) Where is the nothing proposition? I want coverage for all. Your argument is confusing. I don t hate Rs, I m saddened by their representatives.
> 
> #2) We were referring to their better healthcare. Seriously, how are you able to judge the UK? On any social metric they beat us.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Rob, if you want coverage for all, just buy it. You re obviously a good sort of chap.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> - Buckethead


I'll take that as your concession.


----------



## patcollins

> Apparently we don t live in the same country.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html
> 
> - RobS888


Did you read that article, it pretty much says what I said, he didn't really try and found other things more important.


----------



## Buckethead

Yes rob… You win. I concede that you're right about everything!

Better?


----------



## RobS888

> Apparently we don t live in the same country.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Did you read that article, it pretty much says what I said, he didn t really try and found other things more important.
> 
> - patcollins


You said he didn't try, he obviously did try.


----------



## RobS888

> Yes rob… You win. I concede that you re right about everything!
> 
> Better?
> 
> - Buckethead


Ah, sarcasm, the last refuge of the defeated wit.


----------



## RobS888

> Our money represents debt. (Not value or wealth)
> 
> You re getting closer, Dan um.
> 
> - Buckethead


Seriously? Our debt is equal to our total economy. Almost 1 to 1, many countries have worse, so what is the problem? I mean really, running two long, stupid, irrational, & very expensive wars (1 Billion/week) would tank any country.

The day Obama took office the interest on the debt was 1 billion/day! So by the end of the first year, the existing debt had grown 365 billion just in interest! He has reduced the deficit massively, but you guys can't admit that can you?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The biggest problem is the trade imbalance, especially China. If he national debt was an immediate threat to world economic stability, interest rates wold be a lot higher than 1% !!


----------



## RobS888

> But if 2 come in for free, that third person that shows up *with* an insurance card gets hammered.
> 
> Fact is there is a group of pundits and policy makers with a mission to convince everyone that US is 2X more expensive.
> That 2X number has become the pro-obamacare talking point.
> 
> I certainly am not saying that I like that my insurance is over 6K/year for my family….
> I do question that our CARE is double the cost. and is somehow INFERIOR because we spend more each year and aren t #1 in lifespan.
> We eat loads of sugar…. are morbidly obese… we thus need to USE the healthcare system more than citizens of other countries.
> The idea that we spend more to keep a 400 pound woman alive to an average age of 83 is not because healthcare is bad/less effective in treating disease. It is because we have a sicker population.
> 
> - DrDirt


I thought the ACA only provided for 7 million extra people, so if that is true and 150million have health insurance on their own or via work, isn't the ratio 20 to 1? 20 insured to 1 for free (as you say).

Is $121K in Uk and $146K in US similar? Not to me.

The 2X number is correct, $9,800/person in US, number 2 is $5,000/person. Not a talking point, but a fact. You can't seem to see that a predatory capitalist system like we have is killing us. ;-)

EDIT: the number of insured seemed small, so I checked and it is actually 263million (163 private+100 government) insured and 48million uninsured. So 5 to 1 would be a better ratio. 48million uninsured, wow!!! I thought it was 15million.


----------



## RobS888

> The biggest problem is the trade imbalance, especially China. If he national debt was an immediate threat to world economic stability, interest rates wold be a lot higher than 1% !!
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I heard that, plus isn't 70% of the debt owed to the FED and US citizens? I read China holds a little over 1 trillion of it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I'm not sure about the exact distribution. The stock market is bubbling and interest rates are at an all time low, the only really safe investments are US treasuries and real estate. How many retirees want to invest in RE?

If our trade imbalance isn't corrected, little else really matters. WE cannot continue to grow jobs making each other's sandwiches and pushing each other's paper work around. The 1% can't eat enough sandwiches to create many more jobs and the sandwich makers cannot afford to buy what they produce. Same for paper pushing. Therefore, as the cannibalistic capitalism continues consolidation, the *1%* with money will soon be *.1%* with more money. The real joke will be on the *.9%* that are newly screwed entering the poorhouse ;-))


----------



## DrDirt

> The 2X number is correct, $9,800/person in US, number 2 is $5,000/person. Not a talking point, but a fact. You can t seem to see that a predatory capitalist system like we have is killing us. ;-)
> 
> EDIT: the number of insured seemed small, so I checked and it is actually 263million (163 private+100 government) insured and 48million uninsured. So 5 to 1 would be a better ratio. 48million uninsured, wow!!! I thought it was 15million.
> 
> - RobS888


So you decided that we really are NOT a country with a high level of morbidly obese children and adults.

When you look at industry sectors…. Hospitals are #77 and Insurance Companies #86 on profitability
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp

As the table above of Profit Margins by Industry shows (click to enlarge, data here for the most recent quarter), the industry "Health Care Plans" ranks #86 by profit margin (profits/revenue) at 3.3%. Measured by profit margin, there are 85 industries more profitable than Health Care Plans (includes Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, HealthSpring, etc.).

So why is the cost so much higher.
I point to health of the patient, and the cost of providing care to ANYONE that shows up. Which is why we spend more.
YOU brought up the USA being #11 in mortality. I think it is because we are slobs, and not because of poor healthcare.

Canada and UK are lower - per capita - because of RATIONING. they have a set budget and when it is gone, nobody gets an MRI. You sit and wait for years for your name to be drawn from a hat to get a primary care physician,.

I argue that is DIFFERENT than saying the cost of having an MRI is more. The electric bill for the hospital in Toronto is not 1/2 the cost of Boston.

You vehemently defend the numbers you present, but offer no reasons WHY. So tell me why the difference.


----------



## CharlesA

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since most hospitals are technically non-profits, doesn't that distort the profitability calculation?

We have rationing, too, btw, just a different kind.


----------



## CharlesA

This gives a different picture


----------



## DrDirt

> Correct me if I m wrong, but since most hospitals are technically non-profits, doesn t that distort the profitability calculation?
> 
> We have rationing, too, btw, just a different kind.
> 
> - CharlesA


Agree - in all the systems NOBODY can just get any procedure they want covered. Some is refused.

If as you say hospitals are non profit…. why are they expensive?... since they just operate at cost?

My premise has been 2 fold to explain the gap.
1: those that pay have to pay for those that couldn't/didn't - which can make procedure costs artificially high because they are making up for the free care they must provide.

2: more directly- that we are spending more per person because we get MORE CARE/see doctors far more often for every sniffle, ear ache and we demand to see an MD not a PA….. not that it is so much more expensive per visit..
If as in Canada - there is extensive rationing, and people are unable to see the doctor as OFTEN, then at the end of the year they may have spent less per person… because the person saw a doctor half as often… and not because the doctor in teh US is twice as expensive.


----------



## CharlesA

"My premise has been that we are spending more per person because we get MORE CARE"

who is "we"? That's the problem-some of us are getting more care. And our emergency room system for the uninsured poor, is even more expensive than standard healthcare.


----------



## DrDirt

> "My premise has been that we are spending more per person because we get MORE CARE"
> 
> who is "we"? That s the problem-some of us are getting more care. And our emergency room system for the uninsured poor, is even more expensive than standard healthcare.
> 
> - CharlesA


So is the problem that care is too expensive?
Or that the ER system of free care, is screwing with the numbers and making things LOOK more expensive because of perversion of the system.

Not that we get crappy care for too much money and in the end don't live as long.

The problem isn't the dollars per visit.

Even in the ER care system. I suspect that there is more use of the ER than folks in other countries see their Primary Care Physicians.
Results in a whole seperate thread on Overprescription of antibiotics, and superbugs.

I say WE to mean folks in the US (not just americans) go to the doctor more often on a percapta basis.
Are in generally poorer health (though mexico passed us as the fattest country a couple years ago)

So when you get to the end of the year, folks are somehow "stunned" that we have spent more money at the doctor than other countries do.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> We have rationing, too, btw, just a different kind.
> 
> - CharlesA


That method of rationing also imposes slavery on many of us, U.S> ;-(


----------



## RobS888

> The 2X number is correct, $9,800/person in US, number 2 is $5,000/person. Not a talking point, but a fact. You can t seem to see that a predatory capitalist system like we have is killing us. ;-)
> 
> EDIT: the number of insured seemed small, so I checked and it is actually 263million (163 private+100 government) insured and 48million uninsured. So 5 to 1 would be a better ratio. 48million uninsured, wow!!! I thought it was 15million.
> - RobS888
> So you decided that we really are NOT a country with a high level of morbidly obese children and adults.
> 
> When you look at industry sectors…. Hospitals are #77 and Insurance Companies #86 on profitability
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp
> 
> As the table above of Profit Margins by Industry shows (click to enlarge, data here for the most recent quarter), the industry "Health Care Plans" ranks #86 by profit margin (profits/revenue) at 3.3%. Measured by profit margin, there are 85 industries more profitable than Health Care Plans (includes Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, HealthSpring, etc.).
> 
> So why is the cost so much higher.
> I point to health of the patient, and the cost of providing care to ANYONE that shows up. Which is why we spend more.
> YOU brought up the USA being #11 in mortality. I think it is because we are slobs, and not because of poor healthcare.
> 
> Canada and UK are lower - per capita - because of RATIONING. they have a set budget and when it is gone, nobody gets an MRI. You sit and wait for years for your name to be drawn from a hat to get a primary care physician,.
> 
> I argue that is DIFFERENT than saying the cost of having an MRI is more. The electric bill for the hospital in Toronto is not 1/2 the cost of Boston.
> 
> You vehemently defend the numbers you present, but offer no reasons WHY. So tell me why the difference.
> 
> - DrDirt


I decided nothing, I just looked at the data.

If I follow… you are asserting that people in Canada and the UK live longer because of rationing?

So not receiving medical attention helps them live longer? That is what you are trying to say?

Ontario has 13.6 million people and 1 insurance plan, think about that, 95% of a doctors administrative work is with one insurance plan.

Massachusetts has 6.75 million and about 14 plans.

My doctor here in MD has 3 admin to assist her.

Apparently, electricity in Boston is twice what it is in Toronto, at least for residences.
http://www.torontohydro.com/sites/electricsystem/residential/yourbilloverview/Pages/ElectricityRates.aspx

http://www.bls.gov/regions/new-england/news-release/AverageEnergyPrices_Boston.htm

However, I doubt that electricity has anything to do with it, not having every person in the chain making a huge profit would reduce costs a lot. Single payer is the way to go.

Also, not sure if the distinction will be lost on you but Canada & Oz have different systems than the UK. The UK has socialized medicine, Canada has socialized insurance. A doctor in the UK is paid a salary, a doctor in Canada can make more money by seeing more patients.


----------



## RobS888

> Correct me if I m wrong, but since most hospitals are technically non-profits, doesn t that distort the profitability calculation?
> 
> We have rationing, too, btw, just a different kind.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Agree - in all the systems NOBODY can just get any procedure they want covered. Some is refused.
> 
> If as you say hospitals are non profit…. why are they expensive?... since they just operate at cost?
> 
> My premise has been 2 fold to explain the gap.
> 1: those that pay have to pay for those that couldn t/didn t - which can make procedure costs artificially high because they are making up for the free care they must provide.
> 
> 2: more directly- that we are spending more per person because we get MORE CARE/see doctors far more often for every sniffle, ear ache and we demand to see an MD not a PA….. not that it is so much more expensive per visit..
> *If as in Canada - there is extensive rationing*, and people are *unable to see the doctor as OFTEN*, then at the end of the year they may have spent less per person… because the person saw a doctor half as often… and not because the doctor in teh US is twice as expensive.
> 
> - DrDirt


This chart shows, the people with the highest longevity (Japan) visit the doctor the most on average 13 times per year,

Australia 6.7 times per year, the US 4.1 (Canada wasn't on the list, but I would expect the same as Oz).

http://www.statista.com/statistics/236589/number-of-doctor-visits-per-capita-by-country/

A Canadian can see a doctor as much as they want, why do you think they can't?

Do you have any direct experience from Canadians about their system? I do, that is why I feel it is better than ours.

Also, can you prove there is extensive rationing in Canada?

Try reading these myths about the Canadian system.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/june/5-myths-about-canada%E2%80%99s-health-care-system


----------



## RobS888

> "My premise has been that we are spending more per person because we get MORE CARE"
> 
> who is "we"? That s the problem-some of us are getting more care. And our emergency room system for the uninsured poor, is even more expensive than standard healthcare.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> So is the problem that care is too expensive?
> Or that the ER system of free care, is screwing with the numbers and making things LOOK more expensive because of perversion of the system.
> 
> Not that we get crappy care for too much money and in the end don t live as long.
> 
> The problem isn t the dollars per visit.
> 
> Even in the ER care system. I suspect that there is more use of the ER than folks in other countries see their Primary Care Physicians.
> Results in a whole seperate thread on Overprescription of antibiotics, and superbugs.
> 
> I say WE to mean folks in the US (not just americans) go to the doctor more often on a percapta basis.
> Are in generally poorer health (though mexico passed us as the fattest country a couple years ago)
> 
> So when you get to the end of the year, folks are somehow "stunned" that we have spent more money at the doctor than other countries do.
> 
> - DrDirt


I challenge your assertion, please prove we go to the doctor more than other countries on a per capita basis?


----------



## RobS888

> We have rationing, too, btw, just a different kind.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> That method of rationing also imposes slavery on many of us, U.S> ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Yeah, I bet we have a gazillion times more medically necessitated bankruptcies then any other country.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Question of the day from Thom Hartmann: Should the rules of the market be optimized for the good of society or for a few to get extremely rich?

https://movetoamend.org/


----------



## DrDirt

> I challenge your assertion, please prove we go to the doctor more than other countries on a per capita basis?
> 
> - RobS888


I will do your googling when you offer your own hypothesis on why our spend is higher.

You should show me a "our costs are because of X not Y"

I made my own assertions.
but suppose this is a good launching point we can start with:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14194/Americans-Seeing-Doctors-More-Often.aspx

Gallup's recent poll on Health and Healthcare *shows that Americans are apparently visiting the doctor more frequently*. The percentage of Americans who reported seeing a doctor in the past 12 months, as well as the average number of visits to a doctor, show an increase when compared with results from the last time Gallup asked the question in 2001. The increase in the average number of visits is evident in most demographic subgroups, though it is higher among those with medical conditions as well as among those with lower household incomes. *The data suggest that those who have healthier lifestyles have shown little to no increase in doctor visits.*

I know you struggle to believe the idea that "people that are healthy - - and feeling fine - - don't go to the doctor as much" 
But most can accept that *logic* - versus demand proof.

I am sure the answer is a combination of things.

If we go to just "medicaid" with its reimbursement levels that so many doctors refuse….
the average *Medicaid per person annual spend is over 14K/year.*
For care considered 'poor'

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_cost_per_person_annually_for_medicaid


----------



## CharlesA

That Gallup just says that Americans are going more frequently, not that they go more frequently than similar countries.


----------



## DrDirt

> That Gallup just says that Americans are going more frequently, not that they go more frequently than similar countries.
> 
> - CharlesA


Indeed - - -so that would drive our statistics for the Year over Year increases in spending is not just jacking up prices at teh doctors offices….
But if we have a 7.5% increase in per capita spending, but are going to the doctors more often….

how much is the bill PER VISIT…. versus spending PER YEAR
Increaseing delivery of healthcare can explain why our percapta spend climbed…. and not just that it was insurance profiteering.

Sources say our national spending for health went up 6.5-6.8% since last year.

Yet Gallup shows #vists per year for men going from 3.2 to 5 visits per year…. so # of doctors visits is up more than 50%


----------



## DanYo




----------



## RobS888

DrDirt:

According to the CDC, in 2010 the average number of doctor visits per 100 people in the US was 332. That seems a lot less than your 11 year old Gallop ( cough, cough) data. Care to try again?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2010_namcs_web_tables.pdf

So we don't go to the doctor more per capita than other countries and we actually aren't going more often.

Could we settle these claims before advancing to the next one?


----------



## RobS888

> That Gallup just says that Americans are going more frequently, not that they go more frequently than similar countries.
> 
> - CharlesA


Yeah and it shows it for 2004! That is a mighty old cherry he picked.


----------



## DrDirt

> DrDirt:
> 
> According to the CDC, in 2010 the average number of doctor visits per 100 people in the US was 332. That seems a lot less than your 11 year old Gallop ( cough, cough) data. Care to try again?
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2010_namcs_web_tables.pdf
> 
> - RobS888


Glad you included the "cough Cough" because that is the number 1 treatment need of doctors office visits.
from your study!!

perhaps in a rationed system where you wont get same day service, that helps cut down on abuse, because the week it takes to be seen, allows the cough or ear-ache or sore throat to resolve itself. So there is less waste of resources.

The challenge - if I copy from the first paragraph of "YOUR SOURCE" 
*NAMCS is an annual nationally representative sample survey of visits to nonfederal office-based patient care physicians, excluding anesthesiologists, radiologists, and pathologists.*

So these numbers EXCLUDE all federal medical care… so VA etc numbers are not included.

Also not included in your data is teh use of the emergency room for basic health care. This is ONLY visits to the doctors office.
NOT how often people are seeing doctors.

So yeah… you can lower the statistics, if you ONLY report doctors offices, and throw out all use of the ER, the VA and any federal program usage. It also excludes all doctors visits for CT/X-ray or MRI scans. because they don't include radiologists. and also throw out any pathology, checking out that "strange mass"

You can tell a great story if you only use half the data.


----------



## RobS888

You claimed we go to the doctor more than any country and we don't, you claimed we go to the *doctor* more than we used to, and according to the CDC we don't. So pivot if you want, but most here can see that you have been proved wrong,... Again.

Do you get away with this stuff at work?

Defend your claims or concede, don't change the topic.


----------



## DrDirt

> You claimed we go to the doctor more than any country and we don t, you claimed we go to the *doctor* more than we used to, and according to the CDC we don t. So pivot if you want, but most here can see that you have been proved wrong,... Again.
> 
> Do you get away with this stuff at work?
> 
> Defend your claims or concede, don t change the topic.
> 
> - RobS888


Your CDC link says NOTHING about # of visits per year increasing/decreasing or staying the same. only numbers for that year.

When I go to the Hospital I see a doctor. When my wife has a Mammogram… she is seeing a DOCTOR but hospital visits, radiologists etc are all EXCLUDED from your link.

*I said we see a doctor more often than other countries because of our generally poor health.*

I include calling 911 for chest pains, and also include the idea of getting/needing stents to open arteries.
All of the data you showed earlier comparing countries was :
The Dollars per person per year spent on HEALTHCARE… that is ALL Health care. WHich also included EVERYTHING spent on care.
The Rampant use of the ER for primary healthcare is totally excluded from your source, thus disproving, squat!

Then you Magically decided to pivot with your CDC linke to claim that ... No No No, healthcare spending is only to mean visits to your family doctors office… no tests, no hospitals, no government healthcare to prove some point… I don't think you even remember.

So…..You told us how the US spends 9K/year and Canada is less than 5K…. are you saying *now* that 9K was ONLY for seeing your family doctor in his private office? but say that I pivoted… that is truly a lib tactic, when presented with facts, accuse others of changing the subject.


----------



## RobS888

Dr dirt,

Show me some proof. Show me how much Canada, Oz, UK, or Japan, (pick one) spends on healthcare the way you describe it. I suspect they count everything.

The CDC data showed that the visits are way down since your Gallup poll data. Either Gallup was wrong or you are wrong in your point that doctor visits have gone way up ( 50%) you suggested.

Prove anything, please.


----------



## DrDirt

Gallup didn't exclude the hospital - - CDC did. So there is NOT a decrease as you claim.
Prove your own points, but try to be inclusive.
Don't argue about healthcare costs, with a study that ONLY looked a private clinic visits, and claim that as the sum total of all healthcare.
Nobody being honest would try to claim what you did.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## RobS888

> Gallup didn t exclude the hospital - - CDC did. So there is NOT a decrease as you claim.
> Prove your own points, but try to be inclusive.
> Don t argue about healthcare costs, with a study that ONLY looked a private clinic visits, and claim that as the sum total of all healthcare.
> Nobody being honest would try to claim what you did.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> - DrDirt


What are you talking about now? Private clinics? In the UK and Canada?

So you* can't* prove anything can you? Please *prove* your claims: People in the US go to the doctor more than other countries and people in the US visit the doctor more each year (increasing by 50% year to year.)

I've asked 3 times for *proof* and all you do is *pivot* to other points about how they aren't counting this or they don't spend on that. Get some *proof* or admit you are wrong.

In most *honest* discussions the person making the assertion has to prove it. *Prove* your assertions or admit you are *wrong*.

EDIT:

This report looks at Health Expenditures (the word "care" seemed to bother you) the countries are listed by Expenditures, it includes drugs as well. the results are the same as the other proof, just a smaller difference, the US still leads by 25%.

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/07/07/countries-spending-the-most-on-health-care/

1. United States
> Health expenditure per capita: $8,745
> Expenditure as a pct. of GDP: 16.9% (the highest)
> Pct. obese: 28.6% (the highest)
> Life expectancy: 78.7 years (8th lowest)

8. Canada
> Health expenditure per capita: $4,602
> Expenditure as a pct. of GDP: 10.9% (8th highest)
> Pct. obese: 17.7% (8th highest)
> Life expectancy: 81.5 years (tied-10th highest)

Pivoting in: 3,2,1. seriously this article claims the US major difference is:

According to the report, "Higher health sector prices explain much of the difference between the U.S. and other high-spending countries." Higher health care prices in the U.S. are partly the result of the greater use of medical technology. Another reason is the fragmented insurance system, which does not have a centralized price setting mechanism. By contrast, many European countries - which mostly have a centralized health care system - have placed limits on health care prices, or their growth.


----------



## DrDirt

Not arguing the numbers… Arguing the REASON.

Your link shows one - 
our Obesity rate is 61% higher than canada… As I have repeatedly asserted. Thank you for proving my points.

We spend more per capita on healthcare because we are fat slobs, reliant on technology to maintain the 400 pound rascal scooter driver alive til nearly 80.

Seems everything you dredge up proves my points….. so what am i supposed to be hunting for to show you?



> Pivoting in: 3,2,1. seriously this article claims the US major difference is:
> 
> According to the report, "Higher health sector prices explain much of the difference between the U.S. and other high-spending countries." Higher health* care prices in the U.S. are partly the result of the greater use of medical technology.* Another reason is the fragmented insurance system, which does not have a centralized price setting mechanism. By contrast, many European countries - which mostly have a centralized health care system - have placed limits on health care prices, or their growth.
> 
> - RobS888


I PRESUME… that greater use of technology is our better access to diagnositic imaging like MRI and CT scans, as well as knew knees and hips for grandma, which those in other countries NEED, to a lesser degree.


----------



## RobS888

> Not arguing the numbers… Arguing the REASON.
> 
> Your link shows one -
> our Obesity rate is 61% higher than canada… As I have repeatedly asserted. Thank you for proving my points.
> 
> We spend more per capita on healthcare because we are fat slobs, reliant on technology to maintain the 400 pound rascal scooter driver alive til nearly 80.
> 
> Seems everything you dredge up proves my points….. so what am i supposed to be hunting for to show you?
> 
> Pivoting in: 3,2,1. seriously this article claims the US major difference is:
> 
> According to the report, "Higher health sector prices explain much of the difference between the U.S. and other high-spending countries." Higher health* care prices in the U.S. are partly the result of the greater use of medical technology.* Another reason is the fragmented insurance system, which does not have a centralized price setting mechanism. By contrast, many European countries - which mostly have a centralized health care system - have placed limits on health care prices, or their growth.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> I PRESUME… that greater use of technology is our better access to diagnositic imaging like MRI and CT scans, as well as knew knees and hips for grandma, which those in other countries NEED, to a lesser degree.
> 
> - DrDirt


Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Same as our discussion on upward mobility and single parents.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## oldnovice

Very interesting post, *Dan*!


----------



## dbray45

Affordable Plumbing Act

Only weeks after leaving office on January 20, 2017, former president Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come out and fix it. Joe drives to Obama's new house, which is located in a very exclusive, gated community near Chicago where all the residents have a net income of more than $250,000 per year.

Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the guest bathroom that contains the leaky pipe under the sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama that it's an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes. Obama asks Joe how much it will cost. Joe checks his rate chart and says, "$9,500."

"What?! $9,500?" Obama asks, stunned, "But you said it's an easy repair Michelle will whip me if I pay a plumber that much!" 
Joe says, "Yes, but what I do is charge those who make $250,000 per year a much higher amount so I can fix the plumbing of poorer people for free," explains Joe." This has always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied the Democrat Congress, who passed this philosophy into law. Now all plumbers must do business this way. It's known as 'Affordable Plumbing Act of 2014 ' I'm surprised you haven't heard of it."

In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there's no way he's paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves. Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book calling for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses in the area have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe's price, Obama does nothing and the leak goes unrepaired for several more days. A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. Michelle is not happy as she has Oprah and guests arriving the next morning. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour and there's a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return.

Joe goes back to Obama's house, looks at the leaky pipe, checks his new rate chart and says, "Let's see, this will now cost you $21,000." 
Obama quickly fires back, "What! A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!" Joe explains, "Well, because of the 'Affordable Plumbing Act,' a lot of wealthier people are learning how to maintain and take care of their own plumbing, so there are fewer payers into the plumbing exchanges. As a result, the price I have to charge wealthy people like you keeps rising. Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work by those who get it for free has skyrocketed! There's a long waiting list of those who need repairs but the amount we get doesn't cover our costs. This unfortunately has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, they're not being replaced, and nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they can't make any money at it. I'm hurting, too, all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won't pay their fair share."


----------



## CharlesA

Obamacare Is Barely Denting Corporate Profits

he biggest entitlement legislation in a generation is causing barely a ripple in corporate America.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-otherwise known as Obamacare-is putting such a small dent in the profits of U.S. companies that many refer to its impact as "not material" or "not significant," according to a Bloomberg review of conference-call transcripts and interviews with major U.S. employers.


----------



## dbray45

It may not be hurting the corporations, but what is it doing to the people and the medical industry. Let us not forget that it is modeled after the British health care, which was portrayed as working for years, and now has been scuttled because it really doesn't.

As of late, I have noticed that the amount of maintenance this and maintenance that - then if you have a reaction to this, add that - and before you know it, you are taking 15 serious drugs, several times a day - has gone up significantly. All of which doctors do get paid for by the drug companies.

If my doctor had his way, I would be on 6 different drugs - the first for one thing, which raises your blood pressure, then there would be a drug to take care of the hyper tension that the blood pressure drug creates, then there is the sleep med that the hyper drug creates, then there is the anti depressant that comes after this. Tell me I am wrong - I know more than a couple people that have gone down this road, one of them decided that the 17 or so drugs were killing him, so he went cold turkey (which almost did kill him). Now he has high cholesterol, feels great, lost weight, runs a mile a couple of times a week - and med free.

When I see a statistic from the Obama administration, I am confident that is is either contrived or it was selected because it was shown to be the only statistic that went in the way the administration wanted.


----------



## dbray45

Charles - remember this-

When Bill Clinton told the banks to provide the same interest and all but eliminate the credit requirements to buy houses for all income levels, all of the banks and lending people told him that this would create a bubble that would tear apart the economy. His response was that he agreed but it would happen after he left office.

The republicans should have fixed it but they kicked the can farther down the road because they didn't want the bad rap. You tell me what happened in the long run.

Now - Obama has stated (mandated) that he wants the 2o% down payment requirement - that he imposed - reduced to 3% -- here we go again, round 2.

Obama care's true impact will not be truly felt for 10 years.


----------



## DrDirt

> he biggest entitlement legislation in a generation is causing barely a ripple in corporate America.
> The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act-otherwise known as Obamacare-is putting such a small dent in the profits of U.S. companies that many refer to its impact as "not material" or "not significant," according to a Bloomberg review of conference-call transcripts and interviews with major U.S. employers.
> 
> - CharlesA


Of course the profits were unaffected… the increases in healthcare were passed to the employees in the form of higher premiums. Increase costs are RARELY absorbed by a company. Either the company passes the cost to employees, or to consumers in the form of higher prices.

My insurance jumped 10 % last year and 10% the previous year.
While at the same time the Copay doubled (We had a 90:10 plan now 80:20) year one, 
then this year, our deductible doubled.
I pay 20% more each month, and all doctors visits have doubled the out of pocket copays.

None of that is EVER going to be reflected in the corporate bottom line.

Similarly you move people to part time, so that you don't have to pay for insurance….. so why would Obamacare costs be even a blip on the quartelry reports for Walmart or Chipotle??


----------



## CharlesA

The rate of increase in healthcare spending has actually decreased since the ACA was implemented. You can't just say, insurance jumped 10% and that's the ACA's fault, as if there would have been 0% increase without it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> My insurance jumped 10 % last year and 10% the previous year.
> - DrDirt


Our IBEW plan costs were doing that long before Obama even decided to run for prez and Obamacare was still known as Romneycare in just a single state. Not sure what the answer is, but I keep thinking the policies of the 50s sure worked well. There has to be a better option than just saying "NO!" to everything except allowing more consolidation and larger monopolies to control the markets.


----------



## DrDirt

Charles and Topa - -

Agree to a point. of course our plan literature says "in order to be compliant with the ACA, there have been adjustments that require a restructuring of costs" 
Which means bend over

The past 2 years increases are FAR FAR more than in the past 16 for the same company, same location.
our increases were in the 5% range, and the copays stayed at 10%. So I am Paying more in premiums…. AND paying more directly to the doctors office. A nice double whammy. Perhaps others didn't feel the same hit, but I know of nobody not screaming about increases.

Whether the increase is slower (on average) is irrelevant to the prior point.
Insurance costs went up

Those costs were all PASSED ON to either employees and/or consumers

So it is not a surprise that Corporate profits were unaffected. Moving to China hasn't slowed either. So corps will continue profits and the ACA is largely irrelevant to profitability.


----------



## CharlesA

> Charles and Topa - -
> Whether the increase is slower (on average) is irrelevant to the prior point.
> Insurance costs went up
> - DrDirt


No, it is not irrelevant. Given the trends, it would have gone up more without ACA.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Thom Hartmann reports that it has all but stopped insurance premium inflation which had been in double digits for years. Patient satisfaction surveys show the highest to be Medicare and the VA comes in 2nd. I'm sure private insurance would rank up there too if it were the way it was 50 years ago before guys like Dollar Bill McGuire took $1 billion a year out of United Health Care ;-( Compensation packages and expenses of that magnitude certainly have some impact on premiums and inflation. Thom will tell you all about that too.


----------



## DrDirt

> Charles and Topa - -
> Whether the increase is slower (on average) is irrelevant to the prior point.
> Insurance costs went up
> - DrDirt
> 
> No, it is not irrelevant. Given the trends, it would have gone up more without ACA.
> 
> - CharlesA


Of course it is irrelevant. If a COST (any cost, insurance, fuel surcharge etc) are passed down, then by DEFINITION, the bottom line is *unaffected*.

Just as corporations really don't pay taxes. Sure you officially 'Collect taxes' from some of them, but those increases are just rolled into the product price, so as to keep profits high.

So the idea that a company "DIDN'T PAY" 1000 dollars or "DIDN'T PAY" 10,000 dollars… is irrelevant because

wait for it…..

*They didn't pay it! The employees did*
So the article about profits being unaffected are as surprising as 'man falls out of boat and hits water'

Medicare and VA are pretty iffy on Satisfaction (other than dying waiting for VA care)... because people don't really complain about the free care, but will complain about things they pay out of pocket for.

People will give a thumbs up on that free knee replacement, but scream about the 1200 dollar copay on a private insurance procedure. 
It is really about 'what is their reference'.... sort of how we get reports that Canadians, or Dutch or whomever really loves their system. OK… but what reference do they have? a Mother Earth article? Same for those saying we have a better system… none of us has actually experienced the other systems. people talk about getting good ER care on vacation, but that isn't the same as getting a Primary Care Physiciaion, and the Taxes they pay compared to our premiums. We just get little slices, not the whole picture.


----------



## dbray45

There have been over 20 line items that could have been done to previous insurances and/or Obama Care that made sense. These things could have and would reduce so much overhead but the "politics" are in the way.

The same thing happens in the formulations of gasoline -

All of these things are maintained on a state by state level where each one (mixtures and health insurance policies) are governed by its own state. If, as an example, Blue Cross, could combine the policies across state lines, the policy costs would go way down. The federal laws (if I remember correctly) do not allow the states to collaborate.

The mixture for regular gasoline is different for each state and as a result, the limited refineries have to change over to these mixtures, sometimes several times a week - increasing costs. Since the federal government has not allowed any new refineries in more than 50 or 60 years, this is a real issue. Production levels are so tight, any stoppage from a fire or storm or anything else, drives the price right up. Crude is not the issue.

If the states were to get together and combine resources for these things, our costs would drop considerably.

The politicians want to control your health care, gasoline, and just about anything else that matters to you - because that is their power - to give and take away. The free markets and our freedoms have been reduced to talking points and are, sadly, just that.

It will not be long before you have to have papers to go from state to state. Just think Canada (one of our strongest and best allies), a few years ago, all you needed to cross the border was a driver's license. Now, with passport in hand, when you come back to the US, you are questioned beyond belief. When we stayed at a hotel in Canada and came back the US, one border patrol person told us we should be staying in a hotel on this side of the border and not in Canada. (he had issues - in my opinion)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> It will not be long before you have to have papers to go from state to state. Just think Canada (one of our strongest and best allies), a few years ago, all you needed to cross the border was a driver s license. Now, with passport in hand, when you come back to the US, you are questioned beyond belief. When we stayed at a hotel in Canada and came back the US, one border patrol person told us we should be staying in a hotel on this side of the border and not in Canada. (he had issues - in my opinion)
> 
> - dbray45


They can't afford to move them to the southern border. Too much interference with cheap labor that is easily intimidated and What would the DEA do it no drugs were flowing north?


----------



## DanYo




----------



## RobS888

> It may not be hurting the corporations, but what is it doing to the people and the medical industry. Let us not forget that it is modeled after the British health care, which was portrayed as working for years, and now has been scuttled because it really doesn t.


*First*: Britain and British refer to an island. There is no British healthcare. There is a UK healthcare system that each of the 4 provinces administer separately under UK rules. England has their own system as does Northern Ireland. Same way in Canada, each province has their own system.

*Second*: prove that the UK has scuttled (meaning to sink, IIRC) their national healthcare system. Are you saying they have only private insurance now? I find this hysterical since the people in the UK love their system.


----------



## dbray45

There was a big discussion here a few years ago that GB was in the process of fundamentally changing their healthcare because it was bankrupting the country - is this not correct? Or was it propaganda?

On this side of the pond, with the state of our news and media, it is getting really hard to know what is truth and what is fiction.

If my statement was incorrect - my apologies, it was based upon what was announced here.


----------



## dbray45

Here, before ObamaCare was passed, there were about 20 things that were identified that would actually improve the healthcare plan and potentially make it viable. The Democrats would not hear of of it. Now that it was passed, the Democrats will not let it be changed and fixed so that it would be far more cost effective and actually work in a sensible manner.


----------



## RobS888

> There was a big discussion here a few years ago that GB was in the process of fundamentally changing their healthcare because it was bankrupting the country - is this not correct? Or was it propaganda?
> 
> On this side of the pond, with the state of our news and media, it is getting really hard to know what is truth and what is fiction.
> 
> If my statement was incorrect - my apologies, it was based upon what was announced here.
> 
> - dbray45


They did modify it, but the law still mandates free health care. Fine tuning should be welcomed and expected periodically.

I'm concerned that you posted that the ACA was based on The UK system, that doesn't seem at all possible.


----------



## CharlesA

David,

that's one way to tell history . . . a distorted one . . . but a way, nonetheless.


----------



## RobS888

> Here, before ObamaCare was passed, there were about 20 things that were identified that would actually improve the healthcare plan and potentially make it viable. The Democrats would not hear of of it. Now that it was passed, the Democrats will not let it be changed and fixed so that it would be far more cost effective and actually work in a sensible manner.
> 
> - dbray45


I think the ACA is a horrible law and I hope someday it turns into single payer, but the ACA is better than nothing. If there were suggestions, they were drowned out by the screams of actors being thrown off of cliffs in wheelchairs!

Seriously, so much negative stuff was thrown at them how could they listen to the republicans. They seemed like a poker player that was always going All-In.


----------



## DrDirt

> If there were suggestions, they were drowned out by the screams of actors being thrown off of cliffs in wheelchairs!
> 
> Seriously, so much negative stuff was thrown at them how could they listen to the republicans. They seemed like a poker player that was always going All-In.
> 
> - RobS888


But the throwing grandma off a cliff commercials were run by the democrats protesting the Ryan budget.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/08/12/liberal-group-throws-granny-off-cliff-again/

It amazes me how some are only capable of seeing evil on one side of the aisle… and are blind to the left.

Of course please remind us which plan… that had to be 'passed to see what's in it' actually took 575 Billion away from Medicare to help pay for Obamacare.


----------



## RobS888

> But the throwing grandma off a cliff commercials were run by the democrats protesting the Ryan budget.
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/08/12/liberal-group-throws-granny-off-cliff-again/
> 
> It amazes me how some are only capable of seeing evil on one side of the aisle… and are blind to the left.
> 
> Of course please remind us which plan… that had to be passed to see what s in it actually took 575 Billion away from Medicare to help pay for Obamacare.
> 
> - DrDirt


Strange 6 months before that FOX showed this:

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/03/20/ad-obama-throws-grandma-cliff

I think you a have very selective memory. Don't you remember the Death Panels?

Why does moving money from Medicare matter?

Not Blind to evil, just see more in one direction.

My complaint was there was a lot of crap going on, far too much to get any possible nuggets from a republican. Please don't get stuck on the wheelchair story.

Also, is it lying to use only part of a quote? She said "we need to pass this, so you can read it away from the FOG of media."


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> But the throwing grandma off a cliff commercials were run by the democrats protesting the Ryan budget.
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/08/12/liberal-group-throws-granny-off-cliff-again/
> 
> - DrDirt


That is a pretty good analogy of what Reaganomics has done to the middle class. Yesterday, Thom Hartmann ask for anyone to call reporting any conservative initiative to benefit the common man. There were a few meager attempts, but were easily shot down.


----------



## DrDirt

*Why does moving money from Medicare matter?*
Wow, really? So passing reform to be paid for by siphoning the funds that you contribute to medicare all your working life, to pay for other 'preferred' groups of voters to get subsidized healthcare is WRONG.
Having to help my parents find new doctors when theirs retired, that would even accept medicare was a struggle, but you are OK with taking half a trillion dollars out of their medical care, in order to do medicaid expansion in the states, is not the way to provide healthcare to the public.

YOU went for the tossing grandma…..

I found it interesting that for the shutdown of the governmetn, we SPENT money to fence in open air monuments, and blocked scenic highway turnouts so that 'even from a distance you could not stop to see Mt. Rushmore.
The dems then threaten social security checks wont go out (that fund that is supposed to be solvent regardless).... but i NEVER heard about anyone not having their SNAP/EBT card refilled.

Hmmmmmm



> That is a pretty good analogy of what Reaganomics has done to the middle class. Yesterday, Thom Hartmann ask for anyone to call reporting any conservative initiative to benefit the common man. There were a few meager attempts, but were easily shot down.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


There hasn't been reaganomics in almost 30 years

the system we are running on today with bailouts/too big to fail/ lightbulb bans, 50+mpg standards, etc is far from any kind of recognizable capitalism either.

The Abject Cronyism of the past decade is something that Reagan nor his cabinet would have envisioned nor dreamed possible.
With all due respect to Thom Hartmann …

But I care little for what some obscure radio talking head spout to their ideological audiences…. just as I don't care what Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill Oreilly has said in Westwood one radio, regardless of having a NYT best selling book or two or three or four.
Doesn't mean they know anything about how folks with non 6 figure incomes live..

I am more interested in what other LJ's are experiencing and how that has directly affected our lives. I don't remember a 787Billion dollar bailout when the S&L crisis happened. the cronyism of "TOO BIG TO FAIL" is more a product of this new Millenium.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

Medicare or ACA, I don't think I care.

Also, didn't Ryan propose moving 700million out of Medicare as well?

As I showed, Republicans went for octogenarian tossing first, so remonstrate with them first.

You got stuck on it anyway, I see. You are so angry.

Pick a topic to discuss please, general Obama angst seems rather scatterbrained.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> Medicare or ACA, I don t think I care.
> 
> - RobS888


You will care when you are 65 because even if you are still working and have e.g. Blue Cross insurance through your employer.

You become Medicare Primary.. The insurance company will be on the phone with you leading up to your birthday, what is so great is that your 'Secondary' Blue Cross premium is IDENTICAL to what it was when you were still 64.

So the fact that your healthcare choices will become limited when you are needing more care with grayer hair, but docs and specialists don't take medicare for its low reimbursments…. it will matter quite a bit.


----------



## RobS888

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> Medicare or ACA, I don t think I care.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> You will care when you are 65 because even if you are still working and have e.g. Blue Cross insurance through your employer.
> 
> You become Medicare Primary.. The insurance company will be on the phone with you leading up to your birthday, what is so great is that your Secondary Blue Cross premium is IDENTICAL to what it was when you were still 64.
> 
> So the fact that your healthcare choices will become limited when you are needing more care with grayer hair, but docs and specialists don t take medicare for its low reimbursments…. it will matter quite a bit.
> 
> - DrDirt


Future RobS888 may care, but I don't at this point care if the 700 million is in ACA or Medicare. Hopefully we will have single payer by the time I hit 65. I will have the VA, Medicare, & some state coverage, so no worries at this time, but thanks for looking out for me.


----------



## DrDirt

Rob - - 700 BILLION with a B.

and that money Won't be there for the 'old' Rob.
VA isn't having a particularly good year… Sounds like Brian WIlliams is running it as a Special Forces vet…...(couldn't pass that up).

Don't know what state coverage you are planning on in old age…. Medicaid runs via the state with fed matching funds for certain programs, but you and I will depend on a gutted medicare.

The ACA did what Alan Grayson said was the Republican plan…. we will be expected to just DIE QUICKLY


----------



## Mahdeew

The new directive to protect your 401-k and IRA's is going to be an attempt to have the government telling you what you should invest you money in. Kiss them both goodbye if that goes through.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob - - 700 BILLION with a B.
> 
> and that money Won t be there for the old Rob.
> VA isn t having a particularly good year… Sounds like Brian WIlliams is running it as a Special Forces vet…...(couldn t pass that up).
> 
> Don t know what state coverage you are planning on in old age…. Medicaid runs via the state with fed matching funds for certain programs, but you and I will depend on a gutted medicare.
> 
> The ACA did what Alan Grayson said was the Republican plan…. we will be expected to just DIE QUICKLY
> 
> - DrDirt


Ahem, older! Not old!

Million, billion, both are beyond my ken.

Who knows what will be around in 15 years? A lot depends on what Hillary wants to do.

Edit: are you close to retiring? Are these issues personal concerns?


----------



## RobS888

> The new directive to protect your 401-k and IRA s is going to be an attempt to have the government telling you what you should invest you money in. Kiss them both goodbye if that goes through.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Really? Any links to the bill?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> *Why does moving money from Medicare matter?*
> Wow, really? So passing reform to be paid for by siphoning the funds that you contribute to medicare all your working life, to pay for other preferred groups of voters to get subsidized healthcare is WRONG.
> Having to help my parents find new doctors when theirs retired, that would even accept medicare was a struggle, but you are OK with taking half a trillion dollars out of their medical care, in order to do medicaid expansion in the states, is not the way to provide healthcare to the public.


That really started in the early 80's when income taxes were reduced. Payroll taxes on working people we doubled to save SS. To cover the deficit our pal Ronnie and friends move FICA contributors to the general fund and the rest is history.



> Hmmmmmm
> 
> That is a pretty good analogy of what Reaganomics has done to the middle class. Yesterday, Thom Hartmann ask for anyone to call reporting any conservative initiative to benefit the common man. There were a few meager attempts, but were easily shot down.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> There hasn t been reaganomics in almost 30 years
> 
> The Abject Cronyism of the past decade is something that Reagan nor his cabinet would have envisioned nor dreamed possible.
> With all due respect to Thom Hartmann …


Our friend Ronnie may not be too happy with the results, but ending the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and ending the enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1984 pretty well set up the result we are seeing today. Maybe he should have thought it through a little more? After all, he was old enough to remember the Great Depression that caused all those things to be put into place and enforced.



> But I care little for what some obscure radio talking head spout to their ideological audiences…. just as I don t care what Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Bill Oreilly has said in Westwood one radio, regardless of having a NYT best selling book or two or three or four.
> Doesn t mean they know anything about how folks with non 6 figure incomes live..


He is a little different than the highly paid propaganda motor mouths. He will not let anyone bad mouth someone who is not on the air to defend their position. He regularly declines to comment on things he is not intimately familiar with. When is the last time you heard Limpbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage or Oreilly refrain for running off at the mouth when they were clearly just whipping up the audience against their own best interests?



> I am more interested in what other LJ s are experiencing and how that has directly affected our lives. I don t remember a 787Billion dollar bailout when the S&L crisis happened. the cronyism of "TOO BIG TO FAIL" is more a product of this new Millenium.
> 
> - DrDirt


Connect the dots….....The S&L was not quite that big, but we paid! ;-( Too big to fail is a product of the end of Antitrust enforcement. It takes a few years for the monopolies to develop when buying up everyone else.

You hear LJs on here all the time wondering how to make it in an economy without any disposable income with people living on subsistence level wages. There are a few with high class clients, but most seem to be struggling or handling money for the pleasure of handling money hoping to catch a dollar some day. That is what most small business has degraded to ;-( With half us, the US, now qualified for food stamps, college grads with $30,000 student debt load not finding work, part time jobs being created in service industries and those not keeping up with population growth, what do you expect?


----------



## Mahdeew

In case you don't know about the bail-in

Off course it will be a wait and see what happens with this one. Which is assumed is based on this.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

That is part of the Authoritarian Capitalism program being directed by the oligarch/fascist community . Total control of peons by a select few .005%ers is the end goal. Like I said earlier, if Ronnie would not like this, he should have thought through what he set in motion a little more thoroughly. Classic case of "be careful what you ask for" you might get it along with all the unforeseen consequences.

Somewhere down the road, the winner of the world wide monopoly game will be announced. The broad will be wiped clean for the restart or something along the lines of the French/Bolshevik Revolutions will short circuit the process. It is quite predictable. Just look back to the endless cycle of man kind. :-( A friend of mine always asks why does every generation have to learn the hard way? Good question, eh? Did you ever wonder about that? I am absolutely dumbfounded by it ;-( The proof is in the pudding; note the timeless quotes of Plato, Socrates and Jefferson.

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." Plato


----------



## Mahdeew

Topamax,
This keeps on happening because human/animal nature does not change.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The insolent [email protected][email protected]$ think they are smart enough to get a positive result this time ;-) Too bad sane people are out numbered 10,000/1! ;-(


----------



## DrDirt

> Like I said earlier, if Ronnie would not like this, he should have thought through what he set in motion a little more thoroughly. Classic case of "be careful what you ask for" you might get it along with all the unforeseen consequences.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


What of these 'fascist' policies has been tempered or reversed by Obama, or Clinton?

e.g. people screamed about (i thought) creation of the Patriot act.
OBAMA reauthorized and expanded.
he had the supermajority when Obama took office, so why didn't he fix things. ( My answer: Because he is just another big government politician after power and control)

Barry screamed about loss of privacy rights….
But now NSA and IRS targetting, drone authorization against US civilians.

Barry called Bush Juniors 5T debt increase 'Unpartriotic' while he campaigned
while Barry spends 8T so far and will be 10+ by January 2017.
So Bush was unamerican to double the debt from 5->10T, what is Barry taking it from 10T->20T?

Gee we thought subprime mortgages would be over, with the bailouts yet they are back through FHA… so we will reinflate the housing bubble, and give the next administration a crash to handle.

I don't see even a ghost of the 80's in what we see today, other than Scott Walker following Jimmy Carters lead on crushing public sector unions.

EDIT - not sure the sane people are outnumbered… just that the Insane ones got elected.


----------



## Mahdeew

They need a war desperately to once again solidify the sheeple in the name of patriotism to distract attention away from the real problem (themselves). Those who live by the sword shall get rich by the sword and the ones that die, oh, well.


----------



## RobS888

> What of these fascist policies has been tempered or reversed by Obama, or Clinton?
> 
> e.g. people screamed about (i thought) creation of the Patriot act.
> OBAMA reauthorized and expanded.
> he had the supermajority when Obama took office, so why didn t he fix things. ( My answer: Because he is just another big government politician after power and control)
> 
> Barry screamed about loss of privacy rights….
> But now NSA and IRS targetting, drone authorization against US civilians.
> 
> Barry called Bush Juniors 5T debt increase Unpartriotic while he campaigned
> while Barry spends 8T so far and will be 10+ by January 2017.
> So Bush was unamerican to double the debt from 5->10T, what is Barry taking it from 10T->20T?
> 
> Gee we thought subprime mortgages would be over, with the bailouts yet they are back through FHA… so we will reinflate the housing bubble, and give the next administration a crash to handle.
> 
> I don t see even a ghost of the 80 s in what we see today, other than Scott Walker following Jimmy Carters lead on crushing public sector unions.
> 
> EDIT - not sure the sane people are outnumbered… just that the Insane ones got elected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt


Calculate the daily interest payments on 10 trillion and get back to us.

President Obama hasn't added 8 trillion, congress has. You do understand who writes the laws that spend the money. Your hatred is clouding your vision big time. Bush asked for the wars. What is 2 billion /week for 2 wars, surely that can't add up to much…


----------



## RobS888

> In case you don t know about the bail-in
> 
> Off course it will be a wait and see what happens with this one. Which is assumed is based on this.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Do you have any links to an actual bill? Stories are just that.


----------



## DanYo

> The insolent [email protected][email protected]$ think they are smart enough to get a positive result this time ;-) Too bad sane people are out numbered 10,000/1! ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


----------



## Mahdeew

Rob, as I said, this is working itself through the Congregational digestive system. We have to wait and see what it looks and smells like when it comes out.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob, as I said, this is working itself through the Congregational digestive system. We have to wait and see what it looks and smells like when it comes out.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Doesn't it need to be proposed by someone?

I just read some crazy paranoia on that conservative critic website article you linked to. What is wrong with auto enrolling people in a 401 K?


----------



## Mahdeew

Yes, it is in Obama's 2016 budget proposal. However, similar proposals have been around since 2011. Bush wanted to privatize Social security by having people invest it in stock market. Thank goodness it never happened. The government is desperate for money and it has it's eyes on the 4+ trillion in retirement funds. Once something like this gets through, then Department of Labor will dictate to the investment advisory what an appropriate/safe/best allocations are and if the advisory does not follow their guidelines, then they are breaking the law/protocol or whatever you want to name it. More likely, they will push for 40/60 for people of younger age and 60/40 for the older. This will fill the void the treasury is facing due to foreigners reducing US note holdings. When the bond bubble burst, when the next bank failure occur those accounts will suffer tremendously. As it relates to forcing people who can't afford to put food on the table to put 5% of what they have earned in a government regulated 401-k plan, I've never read that in the constitution. This is different than ACA for with that plan at least you can refuse to participate and pay the fine. The competency of government in managing money should be obvious when you see how well they have done with Social Security and national debt. Also, in the proposal, you can use your 401-k when you lose your job up to $50,000.00 for two years period without penalty. Since DOL is managing this affair, this could possibly lead to not getting unemployment and or social welfare benefits so long as your 401-k can support you. Further, you can no longer will your 401-k as an inheritance to your children. If you die, it goes to the government unless you are a mitt Romney. Majority of these people are lawyers and know how to exempt themselves from all of this. Yes, yes, There are a lot of if, but, possibly and maybe in what I have written here which leads to my last point; there are very little confidence among the people as it relates to trusting their government and their mouth piece (main stream media). This type of cynical view has always had the same result. It causes the government to see its people as a threat and it acts accordingly. Mistrust of government leads to mistrust of economy which leads to hording which leads to deflation, which leads to depression and oppression. We are somewhere in the middle of this scenario and I hope we can turn around soon. These are my belief not necessary the facts, so please don't engage we with your belief or "facts". Every thing including death is relative.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> What of these fascist policies has been tempered or reversed by Obama, or Clinton?
> 
> he had the supermajority when Obama took office, so why didn t he fix things. ( My answer: Because he is just another big government politician after power and control)
> 
> Gee we thought subprime mortgages would be over, with the bailouts yet they are back through FHA… so we will reinflate the housing bubble, and give the next administration a crash to handle.
> 
> I don t see even a ghost of the 80 s in what we see today, other than Scott Walker following Jimmy Carters lead on crushing public sector unions.
> 
> EDIT - not sure the sane people are outnumbered… just that the Insane ones got elected.
> 
> - DrDirt


 Clinton joined them.

Rs have said "NO" to everything except for the first 74 days. Hartmann went over the list of accomplishment in those 74 days including health care reform. He got a lot done, before the naysayers took control.

I think that re-bubbling of the housing market is more a policy of the banksters that are to big to fail and too big to jail. They own Congress. When reforms do sneak past, enforcement is not funded ;-(

Just follow the timeline and progress of the oligarchs. It all started with the 1980 election results. The plan started ion the 40s to overturn the New Deal and the middle class. The Kochs daddy started it and the boys are still financing the long term plan. They have been very successful on the financial front. They have really lost on the social issues, but they can't be bank, so I doubt if they really care.

In 2006, the Rs and Bush the dumber decided to destroy the post office to destroy the last larger public employee union. If they were allowed to expand their services or quit putting 5 billion a year into a retirement fund for employees that have not even been born yet, they would be turning a profit. The R Congress broke the PO, they could fix it.

If the eligible voters in the US were sane, they would register and end this BS in the next election!


----------



## patcollins

The real problem with healthcare is peoples attitudes toward it. In general people don't pay for their own healthcare so they don't really care how much it costs, atleast until they get a bill. Insurance really should be for things you can't afford yourself such as care after a heart attack or cancer treatment, not a doctor visit for a cold. People don't really want to pay for these things. I will use my own mom as an example, in 2005 when my dad passed away she just had to have the more expensive insurance plan to "pay for perscriptions", it was $300 more a month and since then she has had two perscriptions totaling under $20. People are completely irrational when it comes to healthcare.

What people don't get is these maintenance costs will be paid by you but instead of directly you will also pay a huge machine to then pay for them for you. Since the early 80s when I was a kid I have noticed a massive increase in doctors staff at the office, and I suspect most of them are to deal with getting insurance payments.

The ACA had little to do with affordable healthcare. I think if the idea was truly to provide healthcare then low cost clinics should have been opened, staff them with doctors and nurses that will work for repayment of their college loans. Instead what we got was a huge windfall to insurance companies.


----------



## DrDirt

> Clinton joined them.
> 
> Rs have said "NO" to everything except for the first 74 days. Hartmann went over the list of accomplishment in those 74 days including health care reform. He got a lot done, before the naysayers took control.
> 
> I think that re-bubbling of the housing market is more a policy of the banksters that are to big to fail and too big to jail. They own Congress. When reforms do sneak past, enforcement is not funded ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Government run healthcare has been the progressive dream since even before FRD proposed a 'second bill of rights in 1944'
Obama rammed that through on a pure party line vote…. then complains now that R's don't *compromise*... which in his dictionary means to Capitulate 100%.

Give me an example of any issue Obama has 'moved' on to compromise, besides "evolving" on gay marraige.
He has no record of 'meeting halfway'..... just 'I have a phone and a pen'

If the eligible voters in the US were sane, they would register and end this BS in the next election!

Don't thing so, the CHOICES in the election are already fixed by the parties. the votes are about lesser of two evils and not about leadership with ideas.


----------



## CharlesA

Actually there are a whole host of things Obama has compromised on-he is a compromiser by personality, which is why so many liberals are upset with him on everything from Guantanamo to wall street reform.

Healthcare is actually a great example. He did not press for the ideas produced by Dems, including single payer, and instead when with the Heritage/Romney model, thinking he was compromising by adopting the Repubs plan.

Part of what happened is that the R's figured out that opposing Obama was good for fundraising and getting out the vote, and so they have done that consistently, even when they go against what they have stood for in the past.


----------



## DrDirt

Charles - he didn't compromise on Gitmo… he was UNABLE to close it.
That is indeed an example of the 'party of no' blocking him. LOSING is not the same as compromize.

Healthcare was 100% democratic ideas. (including cooking the books aka Dr. Gruber lying about it all). He PICKED what he though he could LIE his way through congress with, and get with ZERO Republican support.
Where is my 2500 dollar a year SAVINGS?
WHy can a actually NOT keep my plan?
I actually CANNOT keep my Doctor….

The whole "if you like it you can keep it" was a flat out LIE, and everyone pushing it KNEW IT!! The R's saw through it.

The idea that it is modeled on Romneycare, is not an example of him COMPROMISING.. is hysterical!!.

Compromise is actually meeting with people, and brokering a deal where both sides are a little pleased and a little disappointed because nobody gets 100% of what they wanted. There is give and take.

*Tell me where Obama wanted X… the Republicans want Z so they met in the middle and passed "Y"*

This president TELLS congress his plan… if they balk even a little, it is off to Executive action.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Government run healthcare has been the progressive dream since even before FRD proposed a second bill of rights in 1944


You are a beneficiary of the Roosevelt's as are 90% of us, U.S.; Teddy and FDR. You do not live in a company town nor buy groceries with company scrip at the company store.



> Obama rammed that through on a pure party line vote…. then complains now that R s don t *compromise*... which in his dictionary means to Capitulate 100%.


Not quite, he had to compromise to get enough R support to not filibuster it to death. That meant leavening out the Medicare option for all to protect insurance company profits and upper management bonuses. 


> Give me an example of any issue Obama has moved on to compromise, besides "evolving" on gay marraige.
> He has no record of meeting halfway ….. just I have a phone and a pen


See above, plus the gov't shutdown a few years ago. Obama had a deal, then Boner and the Tea Party moved the goal posts ;-( Apparently, Fast Track is a compromise. There is now way in 7734 a sane leader of the US would move to further destroy the middle class, or what is left of it.



> If the eligible voters in the US were sane, they would register and end this BS in the next election!
> 
> Don t thing so, the CHOICES in the election are already fixed by the parties. the votes are about lesser of two evils and not about leadership with ideas.
> 
> - DrDirt


The CHOICES in the election are paid for by the 1% who have the money to buy favoritism. All this was illegal in pre-Reaganomics America.


----------



## DrDirt

> Obama rammed that through on a pure party line vote…. then complains now that R s don t *compromise*... which in his dictionary means to Capitulate 100%.
> 
> Not quite, he had to compromise to get enough R support to not filibuster it to death. That meant leavening out the Medicare option for all to protect insurance company profits and upper management bonuses.


Sorry they rammed things through to beat the election of Scott Brown when they still had 60 seats.

If it were bipartisan…. then there would have been Republicans supporting the legislation THEY had a substantive hand in crafting.



> The CHOICES in the election are paid for by the 1% who have the money to buy favoritism. All this was illegal in pre-Reaganomics America.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


You honestly believe Pre reagan the candidates weren't chosen by the bankers/CEO's and Union bosses in the back rooms?? That "money" never had anything to do with politics back in the days of Teddy Roosevelt, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie , or the JP Morgan (the man who was rich enough to PERSONALLY bail out the US Goverment from bankruptcy in 1895…. and banking bailouts in 1907)?

I a stunned that you actually appear to claim that pre-Reagan money in politics was illegal?

like this?

In 1899, two rival mining company owners-W.G. Conrad and William Clark-paid more than $1 million in bribes in hopes of obtaining a Montana Senate seat, according to Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University. The contest lasted through 17 ballots before a winner could be decided, and the two candidates had to pay up before each day's ballot to prevent their supporters from switching sides, she said.

Clark eventually won, but the U.S. Senate refused to seat him and the spot was vacant for two years. - See more at: http://thenews.choate.edu/article/history-buying-senate-seats#sthash.igZJXGxX.dpuf


----------



## patcollins

Teddy Roosevelt actually being the VP was due to the wealthy wanting him out as a New York politician. Back then the VP was a spot where politicians went to die and never be heard from again.

If elections were not about money, aka take money from those who have it, then I suspect that the wealthy would have less vested interest in determining the outcome of the elections.

The so called campaign finance reform simply made everything worse, that is one law that definitely needs repealed.


----------



## RobS888

> Yes, it is in Obama s 2016 budget proposal. However, similar proposals have been around since 2011. Bush wanted to privatize Social security by having people invest it in stock market. Thank goodness it never happened. The government is desperate for money and it has it s eyes on the 4+ trillion in retirement funds. Once something like this gets through, then Department of Labor will dictate to the investment advisory what an appropriate/safe/best allocations are and if the advisory does not follow their guidelines, then they are breaking the law/protocol or whatever you want to name it. More likely, they will push for 40/60 for people of younger age and 60/40 for the older. This will fill the void the treasury is facing due to foreigners reducing US note holdings. When the bond bubble burst, when the next bank failure occur those accounts will suffer tremendously. As it relates to forcing people who can t afford to put food on the table to put 5% of what they have earned in a government regulated 401-k plan, I ve never read that in the constitution. This is different than ACA for with that plan at least you can refuse to participate and pay the fine. The competency of government in managing money should be obvious when you see how well they have done with Social Security and national debt. Also, in the proposal, you can use your 401-k when you lose your job up to $50,000.00 for two years period without penalty. Since DOL is managing this affair, this could possibly lead to not getting unemployment and or social welfare benefits so long as your 401-k can support you. Further, you can no longer will your 401-k as an inheritance to your children. If you die, it goes to the government unless you are a mitt Romney. Majority of these people are lawyers and know how to exempt themselves from all of this. Yes, yes, There are a lot of if, but, possibly and maybe in what I have written here which leads to my last point; there are very little confidence among the people as it relates to trusting their government and their mouth piece (main stream media). This type of cynical view has always had the same result. It causes the government to see its people as a threat and it acts accordingly. Mistrust of government leads to mistrust of economy which leads to hording which leads to deflation, which leads to depression and oppression. We are somewhere in the middle of this scenario and I hope we can turn around soon. These are my belief not necessary the facts, so please don t engage we with your belief or "facts". Every thing including death is relative.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Weird, I inherited an IRA last year.

Since, you asked I'll keep my facts to myself.


----------



## RobS888

> Government run healthcare has been the progressive dream since even before FRD proposed a second bill of rights in 1944
> Obama rammed that through on a pure party line vote…. then complains now that R s don t *compromise*... which in his dictionary means to Capitulate 100%.
> 
> Give me an example of any issue Obama has moved on to compromise, besides "evolving" on gay marraige.
> He has no record of meeting halfway ….. just I have a phone and a pen
> 
> If the eligible voters in the US were sane, they would register and end this BS in the next election!
> 
> Don t thing so, the CHOICES in the election are already fixed by the parties. the votes are about lesser of two evils and not about leadership with ideas.
> 
> - DrDirt


President Obama learned about compromise at the hands of John Boehner. How can one forget the Weeper of the house's little yell as he got on an elevator after getting the president to concede to 97% of his demands? Just to keep the government open! I would never compromise with that kind of terrorist again. Republican compromise left him bent over a barrel bleeding.

So like usual you cherry pick your data and point a finger at Obama that rightly should be pointed at Republicans.


----------



## RobS888

> Actually there are a whole host of things Obama has compromised on-he is a compromiser by personality, which is why so many liberals are upset with him on everything from Guantanamo to wall street reform.
> 
> Healthcare is actually a great example. He did not press for the ideas produced by Dems, including single payer, and instead when with the Heritage/Romney model, thinking he was compromising by adopting the Repubs plan.
> 
> Part of what happened is that the R s figured out that opposing Obama was good for fundraising and getting out the vote, and so they have done that consistently, even when they go against what they have stood for in the past.
> 
> - CharlesA


Exactly!

The ACA was a compromised solution.


----------



## patcollins

I never understood the connection of privatizing social security with investing in the stock market. Even if it was privatized you don't have to invest into stocks. It could have simply been invest in government bonds, AKA the G fund for the government employees 401k called the Thrift Savings Plan. I think an epically poor job to sell that idea was done. What it would have done would have been made people responsible for their own future and we all know there are a ton of people out there that simply are not responsible for themselves nor do they want to be.

https://www.tsp.gov/investmentfunds/fundsoverview/fundManagement.shtml


----------



## RobS888

> Charles - he didn t compromise on Gitmo… he was UNABLE to close it.
> That is indeed an example of the party of no blocking him. LOSING is not the same as compromize.
> 
> Healthcare was 100% democratic ideas. (including cooking the books aka Dr. Gruber lying about it all). He PICKED what he though he could LIE his way through congress with, and get with ZERO Republican support.
> Where is my 2500 dollar a year SAVINGS?
> WHy can a actually NOT keep my plan?
> I actually CANNOT keep my Doctor….
> 
> The whole "if you like it you can keep it" was a flat out LIE, and everyone pushing it KNEW IT!! The R s saw through it.
> 
> The idea that it is modeled on Romneycare, is not an example of him COMPROMISING.. is hysterical!!.
> 
> Compromise is actually meeting with people, and brokering a deal where both sides are a little pleased and a little disappointed because nobody gets 100% of what they wanted. There is give and take.
> 
> *Tell me where Obama wanted X… the Republicans want Z so they met in the middle and passed "Y"*
> 
> This president TELLS congress his plan… if they balk even a little, it is off to Executive action.
> 
> - DrDirt


Wow!
So 50 votes to end the ACA with nary a vote to modify is what an attempt to compromise? 
This isn't an argument about who is evil, but about who is more evil. And Republicans win that, hands down.


----------



## RobS888

> I never understood the connection of privatizing social security with investing in the stock market. Even if it was privatized you don t have to invest into stocks. It could have simply been invest in government bonds, AKA the G fund for the government employees 401k called the Thrift Savings Plan. I think an epically poor job to sell that idea was done. What it would have done would have been made people responsible for their own future and we all know there are a ton of people out there that simply are not responsible for themselves nor do they want to be.
> 
> https://www.tsp.gov/investmentfunds/fundsoverview/fundManagement.shtml
> 
> - patcollins


In Australia they tie the retirement fund called a "superannuation fund" to the person, not the company like we do. Makes more sense to me, why should my company decide what funds I get to choose from. It is even in the contract that your pay is such and such with 7% Super. That means an extra 7% of your pay is deposited into you retirement fund. That is on top of your pay, so if you make 10,000, you get 10,000 and 700 goes into your super. You administer it yourself.

What a beautiful idea!


----------



## Mahdeew

Jobless allowed to tap their 401(k)s-penalty free?

Last year does not apply to 2016 budget proposal.


----------



## patcollins

Some peoples idea of compromise is asking for a million dollars, when the other person says no they say how about we compromise and you just give me $500k.


----------



## patcollins

> In Australia they tie the retirement fund called a "superannuation fund" to the person, not the company like we do. Makes more sense to me, why should my company decide what funds I get to choose from. It is even in the contract that your pay is such and such with 7% Super. That means an extra 7% of your pay is deposited into you retirement fund. That is on top of your pay, so if you make 10,000, you get 10,000 and 700 goes into your super. You administer it yourself.
> 
> What a beautiful idea!
> 
> - RobS888


Nothing wrong with that at all, it is somewhat similar to an IRA I can go out and do myself though.

I think your employer should just pay you a set amount and you are on your own for things such as that and health insurance, but then again people have to think and be responsible for themselves and we can't have that.


----------



## DrDirt

> Weird, I inherited an IRA last year.
> 
> Since, you asked I ll keep my facts to myself.
> 
> - RobS888


Haven't seen anything about confiscation of inherited IRA's - - only a proposal in the 2016 budget that mandates you cannot hold accounts beyond 5 years…

So 11 year old Timmy, would have to drain grandma's IRA he inherited before his 23rd birthday (5 years after turning 18)... whereas under todays laws, he could keep the money growing as savings towards his own retirement.

*Not passed… just been proposed in the budget.*

I too inherited an IRA last year.

*8. Mandatory five-year rule for non-spouse beneficiaries*

Proposal - The overwhelming majority of non-spouse beneficiaries would be forced to empty their inherited retirement accounts by the end of the fifth year after the account owner's death. To be very clear, this provision would effectively mark the death of the "stretch IRA," and all the tax benefits that come along with it. The provision would, however, exempt certain beneficiaries, such as those that are disabled, chronically ill and aren't more than 10 years younger than the deceased retirement account owner from the more restrictive rules. Minor children would also be given a break, but would still be required to distribute their inherited retirement account no later than five years after they reach the age of majority.

The proposal wouldn't impact those who are already beneficiaries, but rather, only those who inherit in 2016 and beyond.

Comment - If retirement accounts are really for retirement, then as much as you may not like this provision (I don't either), it isn't an unreasonable position for the administration to take. Our government is broke and the stretch IRA, by providing tax benefits to individuals the accounts were never really intended to benefit, costs the government a lot of money. In fact, the budget proposal estimates that by implementing this change, it could collect almost an additional $5.5 billion dollars over the next decade.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/president-obamas-2016-budget-targets-retirement-accounts-2015-02-05?page=2


----------



## Mahdeew

patcollins, Why would anyone want to invest their retirement in G-fund in 2001?
'








Source


----------



## RobS888

> Some peoples idea of compromise is asking for a million dollars, when the other person says no they say how about we compromise and you just give me $500k.
> 
> - patcollins


Exactly!


----------



## patcollins

> patcollins, Why would anyone want to invest their retirement in G-fund in 2001?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> - mrjinx007


It would be a choice, one that wouldn't lose money and one that will get a better return on your investment than Social Security will give you.


----------



## RobS888

> In Australia they tie the retirement fund called a "superannuation fund" to the person, not the company like we do. Makes more sense to me, why should my company decide what funds I get to choose from. It is even in the contract that your pay is such and such with 7% Super. That means an extra 7% of your pay is deposited into you retirement fund. That is on top of your pay, so if you make 10,000, you get 10,000 and 700 goes into your super. You administer it yourself.
> 
> What a beautiful idea!
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Nothing wrong with that at all, it is somewhat similar to an IRA I can go out and do myself though.
> 
> I think your employer should just pay you a set amount and you are on your own for things such as that and health insurance, but then again people have to think and be responsible for themselves and we can t have that.
> 
> - patcollins


Makes sense to me.


----------



## DrDirt

> Wow!
> So 50 votes to end the ACA with nary a vote to modify is what an attempt to compromise?
> This isn t an argument about who is evil, but about who is more evil. And Republicans win that, hands down.
> 
> - RobS888


Sounds like how ACA was passed in the first place… but that was the "other guys"

BWA Ha ha ha ha ha

So you couldn't find an example of compromise by Obama - where he sat and NEGOTIATED with the other side and found solution in compromise. (I couldn't either) 
So lets stop lying about how emminently RATIONAL and BALANCED - and *"Compromising"* Barry has been.

so now you are arguing about which corrupt bastards are MORE evil. Nice - - just like I responded to Topa about the fix being in for elections, that they are about LESSER OF TWO EVILS… not about some leader having any good ideas. .....just who is Not as bad.

So Suppose this makes me the "glass is half full" guy because I pick the lesser of two evils…. you chose the Eviler of two evils.


----------



## patcollins

> Some peoples idea of compromise is asking for a million dollars, when the other person says no they say how about we compromise and you just give me $500k.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> - RobS888


So Obama asked for a million dollars but took 500k instead he compromised.

Hey Rob, give me a million dollars.


----------



## Mahdeew

Pat,
I bet someone would come up with a proposal to protect us from ourselves if that happened.. lol
I stand corrected on the inheritance proposal:
Allow Non-Spouse Beneficiary 60-Day Rollovers For Inherited IRA And Employer Retirement Plan Accounts
While the standard rules for IRAs and employer retirement plans is that account owners can move their retirement accounts using either a trustee-to-trustee transfer, or by taking a distribution of the funds and "rolling them over" within 60 days, a notable exception applies in the case of inherited retirement accounts.

Under IRC Section 408(d)(3)(C), a 60-day rollover is not permitted for the non-spouse beneficiary, although it is allowed for a surviving spouse (who can roll over the funds into his/her own account). This somewhat arbitrary restriction on 60-day rollovers for non-spouse beneficiaries means, unfortunately, that once a beneficiary receives a distribution check from an inherited account, it is irrevocably distributed, even if the beneficiary meant to just transfer it (but failed to actually do a trustee-to-trustee transfer).

To ease the situation, the budget proposal would change the existing rules under IRC Section 408(d)(3)(C), and allow surviving non-spouse beneficiaries of an inherited employer retirement plan or inherited IRA to roll over any distribution from such accounts into an inherited IRA within 60 days (as long as the inherited IRA is established properly with the new IRA provider).

The rules do not specifically indicate whether inherited IRA 60-day rollovers would have to be coordinated with the new once-per-year rule on 60-day rollovers from the beneficiary's own IRAs.

The proposal would allow for a 60-day rollover of any distributions from inherited retirement accounts that occurs in 2016 or beyond.


----------



## RobS888

> Weird, I inherited an IRA last year.
> 
> Since, you asked I ll keep my facts to myself.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Haven t seen anything about confiscation of inherited IRA s - - only a proposal in the 2016 budget that mandates you cannot hold accounts beyond 5 years…
> 
> So 11 year old Timmy, would have to drain grandma s IRA he inherited before his 23rd birthday (5 years after turning 18)... whereas under todays laws, he could keep the money growing as savings towards his own retirement.
> 
> *Not passed… just been proposed in the budget.*
> 
> I too inherited an IRA last year.
> 
> *8. Mandatory five-year rule for non-spouse beneficiaries*
> 
> Proposal - The overwhelming majority of non-spouse beneficiaries would be forced to empty their inherited retirement accounts by the end of the fifth year after the account owner s death. To be very clear, this provision would effectively mark the death of the "stretch IRA," and all the tax benefits that come along with it. The provision would, however, exempt certain beneficiaries, such as those that are disabled, chronically ill and aren t more than 10 years younger than the deceased retirement account owner from the more restrictive rules. Minor children would also be given a break, but would still be required to distribute their inherited retirement account no later than five years after they reach the age of majority.
> 
> The proposal wouldn t impact those who are already beneficiaries, but rather, only those who inherit in 2016 and beyond.
> 
> Comment - If retirement accounts are really for retirement, then as much as you may not like this provision (I don t either), it isn t an unreasonable position for the administration to take. Our government is broke and the stretch IRA, by providing tax benefits to individuals the accounts were never really intended to benefit, costs the government a lot of money. In fact, the budget proposal estimates that by implementing this change, it could collect almost an additional $5.5 billion dollars over the next decade.
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/president-obamas-2016-budget-targets-retirement-accounts-2015-02-05?page=2
> 
> - DrDirt


Mine was non spousal and I have to take minimal disbursements based on some complex formula that is beyond me, so I'm taking 5 yearly chunks to avoid that. I would have preferred just adding it to my own, but that isn't allowed also I have to pay 10% tax. Still it wasn't my money that was excluded from tax, so it seems ok to me.

I don't see the big deal.


----------



## RobS888

> Some peoples idea of compromise is asking for a million dollars, when the other person says no they say how about we compromise and you just give me $500k.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So Obama asked for a million dollars but took 500k instead he compromised.
> 
> Hey Rob, give me a million dollars.
> 
> - patcollins


No, but I have some fresh snow you can have…


----------



## RobS888

> Pat,
> I bet someone would come up with a proposal to protect us from ourselves if that happened.. lol
> I stand corrected on the inheritance proposal:
> Allow Non-Spouse Beneficiary 60-Day Rollovers For Inherited IRA And Employer Retirement Plan Accounts
> While the standard rules for IRAs and employer retirement plans is that account owners can move their retirement accounts using either a trustee-to-trustee transfer, or by taking a distribution of the funds and "rolling them over" within 60 days, a notable exception applies in the case of inherited retirement accounts.
> 
> Under IRC Section 408(d)(3)(C), a 60-day rollover is not permitted for the non-spouse beneficiary, although it is allowed for a surviving spouse (who can roll over the funds into his/her own account). This somewhat arbitrary restriction on 60-day rollovers for non-spouse beneficiaries means, unfortunately, that once a beneficiary receives a distribution check from an inherited account, it is irrevocably distributed, even if the beneficiary meant to just transfer it (but failed to actually do a trustee-to-trustee transfer).
> 
> To ease the situation, the budget proposal would change the existing rules under IRC Section 408(d)(3)(C), and allow surviving non-spouse beneficiaries of an inherited employer retirement plan or inherited IRA to roll over any distribution from such accounts into an inherited IRA within 60 days (as long as the inherited IRA is established properly with the new IRA provider).
> 
> The rules do not specifically indicate whether inherited IRA 60-day rollovers would have to be coordinated with the new once-per-year rule on 60-day rollovers from the beneficiary's own IRAs.
> 
> The proposal would allow for a 60-day rollover of any distributions from inherited retirement accounts that occurs in 2016 or beyond.
> 
> - mrjinx007


So they aren't trying to take our retirement funds?


----------



## Mahdeew

If there is a bail-in, why not?


----------



## RobS888

> Sounds like how ACA was passed in the first place… but that was the "other guys"
> 
> BWA Ha ha ha ha ha
> 
> So you couldn t find an example of compromise by Obama - where he sat and NEGOTIATED with the other side and found solution in compromise. (I couldn t either)
> So lets stop lying about how emminently RATIONAL and BALANCED - and *"Compromising"* Barry has been.
> 
> so now you are arguing about which corrupt bastards are MORE evil. Nice - - just like I responded to Topa about the fix being in for elections, that they are about LESSER OF TWO EVILS… not about some leader having any good ideas. .....just who is Not as bad.
> 
> So Suppose this makes me the "glass is half full" guy because I pick the lesser of two evils…. you chose the Eviler of two evils.
> 
> - DrDirt


There were 50 useless votes *against* the ACA.

I never looked for compromises by the president. You can't compromise with "people" determined to see you fail and abdicate all duties to try to bring that about. He went 97% to meet the Weeper of the house, what more would you want?

President Obama has had a Sisyphean task since day 1. Based on your disrespect for him, you were in that group on day 1. I suspect you fight to keep your comments about him within the posting rules.


----------



## RobS888

> If there is a bail-in, why not?
> 
> - mrjinx007


So are you saying a bail-in for retirement is really a money grab and not a way to get people with no sense of mortality to invest?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> You honestly believe Pre reagan the candidates weren t chosen by the bankers/CEO s and Union bosses in the back rooms?? That "money" never had anything to do with politics back in the days of Teddy Roosevelt, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie , or the JP Morgan (the man who was rich enough to PERSONALLY bail out the US Goverment from bankruptcy in 1895…. and banking bailouts in 1907)?
> 
> I a stunned that you actually appear to claim that pre-Reagan money in politics was illegal?
> 
> like this?
> 
> In 1899, two rival mining company owners-W.G. Conrad and William Clark-paid more than $1 million in bribes in hopes of obtaining a Montana Senate seat, according to Wendy Schiller, a political science professor at Brown University. The contest lasted through 17 ballots before a winner could be decided, and the two candidates had to pay up before each day's ballot to prevent their supporters from switching sides, she said.
> 
> Clark eventually won, but the U.S. Senate refused to seat him and the spot was vacant for two years. - See more at: http://thenews.choate.edu/article/history-buying-senate-seats#sthash.igZJXGxX.dpuf
> 
> - DrDirt


As I said the Roosevelts, Teddy and FDR fixed that. It was illegal for corporations to buy politicians. The Supreme Court declared money to be speech starting about 1974 +/-. That should be a violation of the 1st Amendment since money is not free and therefore there is no longer free speech is there? It is really too bad they no longer teach American history and civics in public schools. ;-((

There have always been influences by power brokers of one form or another, but pre-Reaganomics, they were not radical right wing libertarians and fascists.


----------



## Mahdeew

Cypress style bail-in adopted by G-20 can bail-in up to 80% of your money in banks.


----------



## DrDirt

> There were 50 useless votes *against* the ACA.


A Posturing vote isn't a finished deal. So still - - tell us how he (Obama) even talked to the other side?



> I never looked for compromises by the president. You can t compromise with "people" determined to see you fail and abdicate all duties to try to bring that about. He went 97% to meet the Weeper of the house, what more would you want?


He went 97%... suuuuuurrre he did. Glad REAL presidents like Clinton and Reagan didn't take the "you just cant talk to those People attitude.


> President Obama has had a Sisyphean task since day 1. Based on your disrespect for him, you were in that group on day 1. I suspect you fight to keep your comments about him within the posting rules.
> 
> - RobS888


Sisyphean - - nice word!
however…
LEADERS - - work with the other side. Do you figure Tip O'neal was a Reagan Supporter?

Thinking that perhaps Newt Gingrich and the 'Contract with America'- was supporting Clinton?

Bush got no child left behind passed… he did it in a bipartisan way in 2001

The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller* (D-CA)*, and Senators Edward Kennedy * (D-MA)* and Judd Gregg (R-NH).

It was a program (No Child Left Behind) Ultimately uprooted by comnom core, but Bush the dumber actually got together with Ted Kennedy and passed education reform. is there anything REMOTELY similar by this president?

Show me something similar where Obama reached out to the other side to get something done.

Maybe Obama should have listened more to the 9 democratic senators that voted FOR the Keystone pipeline.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-support-for-keystone-pipeline-omitted-from-news-reports-on-obama-veto/article/2560723?custom_click=rss
After the bill, which would have approved the construction of an oil pipeline from Canada through the U.S., was vetoed, Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, said in a statement, "Watching bipartisan legislation come to a halt in one swift veto can be frustrating…"
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said, "The bottom line is with nine bipartisan Democrats and Republicans working together, all we're asking [the president] for is: Look at the bill, look at the jobs it creates, look at the security it gives our nation."

I see Obama as a dictator… not a Leader


----------



## Mahdeew

Some discussion about bail-in to consider.


----------



## RobS888

> Cypress style bail-in adopted by G-20 can bail-in up to 80% of your money in banks.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Ok, but what does that mean to me and the immediate future here in the states?


----------



## RobS888

> Sisyphean - - nice word!
> however…
> LEADERS - - work with the other side. Do you figure Tip O neal was a Reagan Supporter?
> 
> Thinking that perhaps Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America - was supporting Clinton?
> 
> Bush got no child left behind passed… he did it in a bipartisan way in 2001
> 
> The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller* (D-CA)*, and Senators Edward Kennedy * (D-MA)* and Judd Gregg (R-NH).
> 
> It was a program (No Child Left Behind) Ultimately uprooted by comnom core, but Bush the dumber actually got together with Ted Kennedy and passed education reform. is there anything REMOTELY similar by this president?
> 
> Show me something similar where Obama reached out to the other side to get something done.
> 
> Maybe Obama should have listened more to the 9 democratic senators that voted FOR the Keystone pipeline.
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-support-for-keystone-pipeline-omitted-from-news-reports-on-obama-veto/article/2560723?custom_click=rss
> After the bill, which would have approved the construction of an oil pipeline from Canada through the U.S., was vetoed, Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, said in a statement, "Watching bipartisan legislation come to a halt in one swift veto can be frustrating…"
> Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said, "The bottom line is with nine bipartisan Democrats and Republicans working together, all we're asking [the president] for is: Look at the bill, look at the jobs it creates, look at the security it gives our nation."
> 
> I see Obama as a dictator… not a Leader
> 
> - DrDirt


People like you are ruining the internet! Throwing around words like dictator that you don't have a clue what they mean. I bet you compare him to Hitler as well.

Just sad that you don't know English or your hatred blinds you. A little Hobson's choice for you, I don't know for sure, but I suspect the latter.


----------



## RobS888

> Cypress style bail-in adopted by G-20 can bail-in up to 80% of your money in banks.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Ok, but what does that mean to me and the immediate future here in the states?

Edit: are you referring to the G20 taking bank accounts to pay for the huge Cypriot debt? I seem to recall that was mostly Russian money being snuck into the EU.
- RobS888


----------



## DrDirt

> There have always been influences by power brokers of one form or another, but pre-Reaganomics, they were not radical right wing libertarians and fascists.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


C'mon - -the John Birchers got started in the late 50's

No radicals in the 'prohibition party' in the 1890's

Most historians show that Mark Hanna (businessman) bought William McKinley the presidency.

The progressive era of Eugenics , including 
Winston Churchill,
Margaret Sanger (PLANNED PARENTHOOD FOUNDER) 
Theodore Roosevelt, 
Herbert Hoover, 
George Bernard Shaw - (pro Euthanization of all non-productive people),
John Maynard Keynes (Keynesian Economics we follow today under Obama)

No radicals or fascists driving politics and channeling money before 1974? not buying it.

Everything was not rainbows and Unicorn farts before Reagan took office.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

I have to apologize, I said the Weeper got 97% of what he wanted in a debt deal, that was in 2011 and it was over raising the debt ceiling. Well I was way off, he got 98% of what he wanted.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/174925-boehner-i-got-98-percent-of-what-i-wanted-in-debt-deal.

After that I wouldn't deal with the punk unless I had absolutely no choice…


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> I have to apologize, I said the Weeper got 97% of what he wanted in a debt deal, that was in 2011 and it was over raising the debt ceiling. Well I was way off, he got 98% of what he wanted.
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/174925-boehner-i-got-98-percent-of-what-i-wanted-in-debt-deal.
> 
> After that I wouldn t deal with the punk unless I had absolutely no choice…
> 
> - RobS888


I suppose you need to study a calendar more. When you started (regardless of teh 97 or 98% number) you claimed Boner got nearly eveything he wanted…what did Obama have to give up (besides in your view some dignity) to pass a CR to raise the debt ceiling??

And they all agree there should be a bicameral commitee to 'look for savings' wink wink before the next debt ceiling debate. by creating the Sequester…..back in 2011.

Wait!! remind me what happened to all this in 2013 when we actually did shut the government down because of the sequester?

Tell me about the time there was NO increase in the debt ceiling…..(chirp chirp)

Clinton getting with Gingrich for Welfare Reform….. you know…. actual POLICE and Lawmaking stuff, versus as pat points out the "Debate" about whether to over-spend by 1 trillion or 2 trillion going forward.

What CONCESSION was made by barry?

We will have to see how long a discussion like this lasts since today the FCC passed net neutrality.

Nothing facist about government control of the internet…. works great in Iran and China.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> No radicals in the prohibition party in the 1890 s
> 
> Most historians show that Mark Hanna (businessman) bought William McKinley the presidency.
> 
> - DrDirt


Bringing up incidents from the 19th century does not disprove what I said about the 20th ;-)

Of course, there have been plenty of radicals and ideas presented in the 20th century, but they were not public policy until supply side economics began dismantling the middle class and turning us, U.S., into a 3rd world exporter of natural resources rather than a producer of wealth and finished products.


----------



## RobS888

> I suppose you need to study a calendar more.
> 
> - DrDirt


Why?


----------



## RobS888

> No radicals in the prohibition party in the 1890 s
> 
> Most historians show that Mark Hanna (businessman) bought William McKinley the presidency.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Bringing up incidents from the 19th century does not disprove what I said about the 20th ;-)
> 
> Of course, there have been plenty of radicals and ideas presented in the 20th century, but they were not public policy until supply side economics began dismantling the middle class and turning us, U.S., into a 3rd world exporter of natural resources rather than a producer of wealth and finished products.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


It's all deflection away from the discussion, he won't settle on discussing something, because then he can be proved wrong.


----------



## DrDirt

> Bringing up incidents from the 19th century does not disprove what I said about the 20th ;-)
> 
> Of course, there have been plenty of radicals and ideas presented in the 20th century, but they were not public policy until supply side economics began dismantling the middle class and turning us, U.S., into a 3rd world exporter of natural resources rather than a producer of wealth and finished products.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


ummm really?
Planned Parenthood was 19th century?
Here I thought those Eugenicists were involved leading up to WW2… not 19th century.

Teddy Roosevelt was president during the 20th century.

Stopping production of manufactured goods…. would be a result of globalization…. It started with teh Japanese kicking our asses making better cars then GM/Ford?Chrysler
Toyota USA started in California in 1958

That was BASIC capitalism…. they built a great product with their name on it an put it up for sale.
Same for Sony Televisions…. they WON in the market.
(as opposed to today where the US brands are outsourced production and imported).

The situation of today where everyone demands Walmart prices… yet Walmart employees need government assistance is a failure of the 'great society'.

Open borders will keep wages down - - Mexicans are the 21st century Slave Trade. Use them up and get a new one. Indians (from India) on an H1B visa are much the same. Microsoft brings them on a visa then sends them home rather than pay US wages.
That is not reaganomics.

Suppose it was true that "only nixon can go to china" too bad he came back.

Certainly I am not advocating things are rosy today… but I don't see January 20, 1981 as the tipping point of the doomsday clock.
The degradation has a much longer history.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Put all the history and BS aside. What is the point of ending the middle class in America and consolidating everything under the control of half a dozen multinational corps? Who does that benefit other than a few egos and billionaires?


----------



## RobS888

> Put all the history and BS aside. What is the point of ending the middle class in America and consolidating everything under the control of half a dozen multinational corps? Who does that benefit other than a few egos and billionaires?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


It proved that trickle down didn't. ;-)


----------



## patcollins

> Put all the history and BS aside. What is the point of ending the middle class in America and consolidating everything under the control of half a dozen multinational corps? Who does that benefit other than a few egos and billionaires?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


First you have to define what middle class is, I find a whole lot of people call lower class middle class to avoid offending them.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> First you have to define what middle class is, I find a whole lot of people call lower class middle class to avoid offending them.
> - patcollins


The economy and opportunity we had in the 60's the day before Kennedy was assassinated.


----------



## Mahdeew

Rob, did you watch the video?
Immediate future is another relative term. To me it means next 5 to years. What does it mean to you?


----------



## Mahdeew

*5 to 10


----------



## patcollins

> The economy and opportunity we had in the 60 s the day before Kennedy was assassinated.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Not a fan of Johnson's Great Society?


----------



## RobS888

> Rob, did you watch the video?
> Immediate future is another relative term. To me it means next 5 to years. What does it mean to you?
> 
> - mrjinx007


Sorry, I didn't see the link, I've been busy scraping dirt off my shoe.


----------



## RobS888

> The economy and opportunity we had in the 60 s the day before Kennedy was assassinated.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Not a fan of Johnson s Great Society?
> 
> - patcollins


I am, amazing stuff LBJ got passed into law.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The economy and opportunity we had in the 60 s the day before Kennedy was assassinated.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Not a fan of Johnson s Great Society?
> 
> - patcollins


He wasn't prez yet ;-)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

1960 America

And Nixoncare but he didn't get it enacted.


----------



## Mahdeew

COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America . 
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 7.8%. 
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work? 
ABBOTT: No, that's 14.7%. 
COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%. 
ABBOTT: 7.8% Unemployed. 
COSTELLO: Right 7.8% out of work. 
ABBOTT: No, that's 14.7%. 
COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 14.7% unemployed. 
ABBOTT: No, that's 7.8%. 
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or 14.7%? 
ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work. 
COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed. 
ABBOTT: No, Congress said you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed. 
COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!! 
ABBOTT: No, you miss his point. 
COSTELLO: What point? 
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair. 
COSTELLO: To whom? 
ABBOTT: The unemployed. 
COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work. 
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed. 
COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment? 
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely! 
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work? 
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how it gets to 7.8%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. 
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number? 
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct. 
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job? 
ABBOTT: Correct. 
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job? 
ABBOTT: Bingo. 
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work. 
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like an Economist. 
COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said! 
ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like a Politician.


----------



## patcollins

> The economy and opportunity we had in the 60 s the day before Kennedy was assassinated.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Not a fan of Johnson s Great Society?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I am, amazing stuff LBJ got passed into law.
> 
> - RobS888


Sure if you like enslaving people to generational poverty, the destruction of the family structure, and turning them into nothing more than pets.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob, did you watch the video?
> Immediate future is another relative term. To me it means next 5 to years. What does it mean to you?
> 
> - mrjinx007


I listened to the first 2 or 3 minutes. He said Cypriots ended up loosing 47% of their bank accounts for the bail out, not bad to keep your country afloat in my opinion.

There are only 1.1 million Cypriots & GDP is $23 billion, so we should be cautious in extrapolating anything about them to the US 320 million people & $16.7 trillion GDP or even to Greece, 10.1 million people & $271 billion GDP. Not quite, but close to orders of magnitudes different.

He mentioned Canada was in a housing bubble, so I looked that up and apparently that has been a scare for, well since 2007. Canada & Australia didn't participate in the 2008 financial crash, not directly anyway. They both have what would be considered very conservative lending rules. Needing 20% down that kind of thing. Canada & Australia have very high housing costs because they didn't crash, so now people point and say you're gonna crash.

There is a website called canadabubble.com that has 96 pages of links to articles going back to 2007 about the "bubble". Now oil crashing could bring it down, but it doesn't seem to have collapsed under its own weight even 7 years after most other countries.

So right off, I heard things that sounded wrong or at least tortured to make his point. That tends to make me discount the source.


----------



## RobS888

> The economy and opportunity we had in the 60 s the day before Kennedy was assassinated.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Not a fan of Johnson s Great Society?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I am, amazing stuff LBJ got passed into law.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sure if you like enslaving people to generational poverty, the destruction of the family structure, and turning them into nothing more than pets.
> 
> - patcollins


Me think you exaggerate. A lot! Care to back that up with some facts? Perhaps showing how African American poverty going from 22% to 12% is causing enslavement?

Facts from big sources, like large newspapers (Washingtonexaminor) is not an acceptable source. And not opinion pieces either, just the facts to prove your opinion.


----------



## patcollins

> The economy and opportunity we had in the 60 s the day before Kennedy was assassinated.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Not a fan of Johnson s Great Society?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I am, amazing stuff LBJ got passed into law.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sure if you like enslaving people to generational poverty, the destruction of the family structure, and turning them into nothing more than pets.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Me think you exaggerate. A lot! Care to back that up with some facts? Perhaps showing how African American poverty going from 22% to 12% is causing enslavement?
> 
> Facts from big sources, like large newspapers (Washingtonexaminor) is not an acceptable source. And not opinion pieces either, just the facts to prove your opinion.
> 
> - RobS888


Actually treating them like people and allowing them real education, and get into good jobs had a lot more to do with that.

If you look at this link the poverty rate was on the decline before the great society. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/


----------



## Mahdeew

While world GDP in notional terms is somewhere around 65 trillion, don't forgot the $600 trillion"derivatives"..
This is why Brussels will do anything and as many times as it takes to bailout Greece. They are leveraged big time and their default can massively affect the rest of the western world, thanks to JPM for helping them cook the books so they could comply with EU requirements. I use derivatives all the time. I can buy a google Jan 2016 call at the strike price of $600 for $28 at 9:14 this AM. Imagine what you can do with a few billions. If Greece defaults, there will be trillions of derivative bets that will be holding the bag on the other side of the bit. 80% of US derivatives are concentrated in the 4 big banks. All it takes is another bank or country like Greece to default and there will be a trickle effect very much like what happened in 2008. However, neither the treasury nor the Federal Reserve will be coming asking for bazookas and start the printing press. They just use your money to buy the worthless bank shares instead. I am still like to know what immediate future means to you. BTW, I was in Saskatchewan a few months back in a small community 40 miles to a nearest town. Across the railroad tracks, brand new $4-$12 million dollar houses with $50-$100,000.00 boats in the marina were common and from the landscape, it was obvious much more were about to be built. It looked like a bubble to me.


----------



## RobS888

> While world GDP in notional terms is somewhere around 65 trillion, don t forgot the $600 trillion"derivatives"..
> This is why Brussels will do anything and as many times as it takes to bailout Greece. They are leveraged big time and their default can massively affect the rest of the western world, thanks to JPM for helping them cook the books so they could comply with EU requirements. I use derivatives all the time. I can buy a google Jan 2016 call at the strike price of $600 for $28 at 9:14 this AM. Imagine what you can do with a few billions. If Greece defaults, there will be trillions of derivative bets that will be holding the bag on the other side of the bit. 80% of US derivatives are concentrated in the 4 big banks. All it takes is another bank or country like Greece to default and there will be a trickle effect very much like what happened in 2008. However, neither the treasury nor the Federal Reserve will be coming asking for bazookas and start the printing press. They just use your money to buy the worthless bank shares instead. I am still like to know what immediate future means to you. BTW, I was in Saskatchewan a few months back in a small community 40 miles to a nearest town. Across the railroad tracks, brand new $4-$12 million dollar houses with $50-$100,000.00 boats in the marina were common and from the landscape, it was obvious much more were about to be built. It looked like a bubble to me.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I wasn't aware that expensive houses meant a bubble. And I don't mean this as an insult, but aren't you joining a long list of "experts" proclaiming a bubble?

When I have to visit Texas, I'm struck at how dirt cheap their real estate prices are.
I saw houses with a 3 car garage just north of Dallas, starting at $211,000! Where I live that is dirt cheap. (On the down side, it is in Texas). When I looked into it, I found out they had a bubble that collapsed in the 80s and the prices haven't caught up.

Now, I should point out I'm judging a state by its largest city, you're judging the second largest country in the world by a small community in a sparsely populated province. See any difference. What are the 3 most important things about real estate again?

Also, I'm not very knowledgable about real estate markets, but wouldn't a bubble be based on short term doubling of value? Like a $100,000 house in 2005 selling for $200,000 the following year? If prices climb steadily over decades is that a bubble?


----------



## RobS888

> Actually treating them like people and allowing them real education, and get into good jobs had a lot more to do with that.
> 
> If you look at this link the poverty rate was on the decline before the great society. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/
> 
> - patcollins


Fighting poverty is only a small part of "the great society" laws.

In your link there is a chart that shows poverty for children and the elderly, that shows decline prior to the fight against poverty, but I can't see what that means for poverty as a whole from '59 to '65.

Your link actually has a lot of great results for the fight against poverty, thank you.


----------



## RobS888

> I am still like to know what immediate future means to you.


 Immediate future to me is 2 years or less.


----------



## Mahdeew

I am an old beat up man and thus I rarely take offense to anything.
I think gradual increases in anything is not indicative of a bubble. Perhaps just a catching up with the inflation. However, from what I understand, currently, most of the real estate in US and Canada is being bought by the Chinese who are going off the grid sorta. Location definitely means everything as it relates to real estate. Just a few weeks ago, my wife and I were looking at property prices in my favorite place in Canada (Prince Rupert). Plenty of $50-$70 grand houses there to buy. It would be a different thing if we all lived in a vacuum and were not interconnected globally, financially and economically. However, that is not true any more. If we are in a global recession, then real estate prices should reflect that as well. The reason it doesn't is reflection of two things, 1- The foreigners are hiding their money in US and Canada real estate because their country currency is being devalued. 2- Due to low mortgage rates, people are falling into the same trap of buying and flipping or renting homes again. The end game will be the same; someone will be without a seat when the music stops. Real estate especially productive farmland is certainly an excellent investment once we get out of this deflation period and inflation kicks in. Now, by saying there is no real estate bubble, aren't you also claiming to be an expert?


----------



## DrDirt

> People like you are ruining the internet! Throwing around words like dictator that you don t have a clue what they mean. I bet you compare him to Hitler as well.
> 
> Just sad that you don t know English or your hatred blinds you. A little Hobson s choice for you, I don t know for sure, but I suspect the latter.
> 
> - RobS888


I agree - Obama's idea of compromise is always just Hobsons Choice.
He has an idea, if there is opposition, rather than LEAD…. and work out a COMPROMISE…. we just brand the "party of no".... he reached out to the R's blah blah blah….

He has never WORKED with the other side. just made demands.

I like the Wiki description of dictator.. it applies quite well.
Maybe you live too close to the beltway, such that you are now "noseblind" to the stench of corruption.

In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly[citation needed]. Dictatorships are often characterised by *some *of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality.
So - let's see…. Amnesty?
IRS as a weapon to 'repress political opponents" as Lois lerner "takes the fifth" 
here's a few more, 
of course the Oh- Bahhhh Ma, Oh-Baaaah ma chants to inflate the efo and 'cult of personality.

The signs of overreach and acting without legislative restraing are obvious to anyone paying attention.

but you are OK with it all because there is a 'D' next to his name… Baaaaaa Baaaaaaa

••• First President to Systematically Release Detained Illegal Aliens Charged With Homicide Into the U.S. Population (Source: USA Today)

••• First President to Release 40,000 Illegal Aliens with Serious and/or Violent Criminal Records Inside the U.S. (Source: Judicial Watch)

• First President to create his own propaganda news network and "bypass journalists … [having] developed [his] own network of websites, social media and even created an online newscast to dispense favorable information and images" (Source: Associated Press)

• First President to Barricade Open-Air Government Monuments During a Partial Government Shutdown (Source: Rep. Steve Stockman)

• First President to Issue Unlawful "Recess-Appointments" Over a Long Weekend-While the U.S. Senate Remained in Session (against the advice of his own Justice Department - Source: United States Court of Appeals)

• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case (Source: Gawker)

• First President to Sue States for Enforcing Voter ID Requirements, Which Were Previously Ruled Legal by the U.S. Supreme Court (Source: CNN)

Mr. I have a Phone and a Pen… is ruling as a dictator. Hugo Chavez would be clapping

glad you envision me as having the power to "ruin the internet" on a woodworking blog. Geeze I must be related to Al Gore who created the internet in his garage… Brian Williams was there to cover the go live moment.


----------



## TexasTodd

I don't get it, what is wrong with income inequality? Why should income be equal? This makes no sense…. Maybe I missed that post as I haven't read all 1800, but I really don't see this as a problem. Is taking money away from the super rich people going to help the poor people? I don't see any correlation…..


----------



## RobS888

> People like you are ruining the internet! Throwing around words like dictator that you don t have a clue what they mean. I bet you compare him to Hitler as well.
> 
> Just sad that you don t know English or your hatred blinds you. A little Hobson s choice for you, I don t know for sure, but I suspect the latter.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> I agree - Obama s idea of compromise is always just Hobsons Choice.
> He has an idea, if there is opposition, rather than LEAD…. and work out a COMPROMISE…. we just brand the "party of no".... he reached out to the R s blah blah blah….
> 
> He has never WORKED with the other side. just made demands.
> 
> I like the Wiki description of dictator.. it applies quite well.
> Maybe you live too close to the beltway, such that you are now "noseblind" to the stench of corruption.
> 
> In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly[citation needed]. Dictatorships are often characterised by *some *of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality.
> So - let s see…. Amnesty?
> IRS as a weapon to repress political opponents" as Lois lerner "takes the fifth"
> here s a few more,
> of course the Oh- Bahhhh Ma, Oh-Baaaah ma chants to inflate the efo and cult of personality.
> 
> The signs of overreach and acting without legislative restraing are obvious to anyone paying attention.
> 
> but you are OK with it all because there is a D next to his name… Baaaaaa Baaaaaaa
> 
> ••• First President to Systematically Release Detained Illegal Aliens Charged With Homicide Into the U.S. Population (Source: USA Today)
> 
> ••• First President to Release 40,000 Illegal Aliens with Serious and/or Violent Criminal Records Inside the U.S. (Source: Judicial Watch)
> 
> • First President to create his own propaganda news network and "bypass journalists … [having] developed [his] own network of websites, social media and even created an online newscast to dispense favorable information and images" (Source: Associated Press)
> 
> • First President to Barricade Open-Air Government Monuments During a Partial Government Shutdown (Source: Rep. Steve Stockman)
> 
> • First President to Issue Unlawful "Recess-Appointments" Over a Long Weekend-While the U.S. Senate Remained in Session (against the advice of his own Justice Department - Source: United States Court of Appeals)
> 
> • First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case (Source: Gawker)
> 
> • First President to Sue States for Enforcing Voter ID Requirements, Which Were Previously Ruled Legal by the U.S. Supreme Court (Source: CNN)
> 
> Mr. I have a Phone and a Pen… is ruling as a dictator. Hugo Chavez would be clapping
> 
> glad you envision me as having the power to "ruin the internet" on a woodworking blog. Geeze I must be related to Al Gore who created the internet in his garage… Brian Williams was there to cover the go live moment.
> 
> - DrDirt


TLR

But I do suspect your English comprehension. Look up Hobson's choice and then re-read what dictator means.


----------



## RobS888

> I don t get it, what is wrong with income inequality? Why should income be equal? This makes no sense…. Maybe I missed that post as I haven t read all 1800, but I really don t see this as a problem. Is taking money away from the super rich people going to help the poor people? I don t see any correlation…..
> 
> - TexasTodd


I think the problem isn't that there is income inequality, just the amount of inequality.


----------



## Mahdeew

Texas,
As one of the richest countries in the world, we should at least have the same standard of living for our people as those countries below us. Don't you agree with that?


----------



## DrDirt

> TLR
> 
> - RobS888


Of course not…. it wouldn't agree with your world view so you want to claim it doesn't exist.

it included a definition of dictator and explanation of hobsons… but you wouldn't know
look up "Willful Ignorance" - - it has your picture
baaaaaaa baaaaaaa


----------



## RobS888

> Texas,
> As one of the richest countries in the world, we should at least have the same standard of living for our people as those countries below us. Don t you agree with that?
> 
> - mrjinx007


What does below us mean? I don't see Canada or Oz below in anything except size.


----------



## RobS888

> TLR
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Of course not…. it wouldn t agree with your world view so you want to claim it doesn t exist.
> 
> it included a definition of dictator and explanation of hobsons… but you wouldn t know
> look up "Willful Ignorance" - - it has your picture
> baaaaaaa baaaaaaa
> 
> - DrDirt


I'm starting to worry about you… You really are blinded by hatred. Your believing that an elected US president is a dictator is ridiculous. It reminds me of some nuts I saw sitting in BWi with pictures of the president with a Hitler moustache. Just kooky.

Well, I see that you are beyond reason, so I guess it comes down to that is "your opinion" again.

Just a quick question, did you buy guns in 2008 because "Obama was gunna take 'em"?


----------



## TexasTodd

To be honest, I don't think it should be anyone's business what other people make or earn. It is easy to be envious of people who make more, but I am in no position to judge the merits of their income. It is easy to be derisive of those who earn little, but again, what do I know about that person's life? 
There are undoubtedly people who are happy making very little. There are people unhappy making much more. There are so many factors that tilt the scales of income, fairness really has nothing to do with it. I am certain that every person could conceive of some level of unfairness in their compensation. That is human nature. 
Free markets are the best and most equitable way to determine income. If someone is willing to pay x and someone else is willing to work for x, seems like a perfect arrangement to me. 
I really don't get the income inequality argument…..
Best Regards!


----------



## RobS888

> To be honest, I don t think it should be anyone s business what other people make or earn. It is easy to be envious of people who make more, but I am in no position to judge the merits of their income. It is easy to be derisive of those who earn little, but again, what do I know about that person s life?
> There are undoubtedly people who are happy making very little. There are people unhappy making much more. There are so many factors that tilt the scales of income, fairness really has nothing to do with it. I am certain that every person could conceive of some level of unfairness in their compensation. That is human nature.
> Free markets are the best and most equitable way to determine income. If someone is willing to pay x and someone else is willing to work for x, seems like a perfect arrangement to me.
> I really don t get the income inequality argument…..
> Best Regards!
> 
> - TexasTodd


If you look at the prosperity of the country over the decades, the more people that made more money the better the country. Why should McDonalds be able to have 5 billion in profits, but many of their employees can't survive without public assistance. If our way is so great why do Canadians have more disposable income than we do?


----------



## DrDirt

Todd - there is just a group of people that honestly believe that you can grab a 5 gallon bucket and scoop water out of the deep end of the pool, and pour it in the shallow end…. to make the shallow end deeper.

- - that is income redistribution… can look busy, expend a lot of effort but really change nothing.

While there is and always has been corruption… the "concrete" foundation of the pool that makes one end shallow or deep is really rooted in drive, education, and ethic.
People have the ability to move from one end to the other… but too many choose to do nothing.

People like to claim "victimhood" because then they are not responsible for their situations. They will tell you they should have a better job… ask them if they have applied for one… they will tell you "no" 
Ask if they are taking night classes, improving their skills, and taking ownership of their lives…. that is met with a blank stare.


----------



## TexasTodd

The 5 Billion profits of McDonalds is spread over millions of shareholders. If you like the profit McDonalds is making, buy some stock. I have no problem with someone who owns a share of MCD receiving a 4.5% yield on their $98 investment in a share of the stock. If you want to invest $98 and earn a $4.41 annual return by way of dividend, I don't see any problem. 
Also, if someone decides to work at MCD and earn $7.00 (+/- whatever) per hour for their efforts, who is harmed? Maybe that person likes selling happy meals. What do we know about it? It is far too easy to be judgmental about the fairness of this scenario…. I really don't see any person who is being deprived anything.
Best Regards!


----------



## DrDirt

> You really are blinded by hatred. Your believing that an elected US president is a dictator is ridiculous.
> - RobS888


Ah - - lets brand anyone that disagrees a "hater" ... you mentioned you qualify for VA benefits, so I didnt assume you were 12.

I agree with teh Wiki dictator definition
In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly

I see the use of Exective orders on amnesty…. the Veto on Keystone… the release of murderers awaiting deportation… and using teh IRS to tamp down dissent.
That is what a dictator does… and is aligned with the definition of one.

Since you choose to go there.. Hitler was ELECTED… so was Hugo Chavez.
In your world does being ELECTED, mean they aren't a dictator?


----------



## RobS888

> The 5 Billion profits of McDonalds is spread over millions of shareholders. If you like the profit McDonalds is making, buy some stock. I have no problem with someone who owns a share of MCD receiving a 4.5% yield on their $98 investment in a share of the stock. If you want to invest $98 and earn a $4.41 annual return by way of dividend, I don t see any problem.
> Also, if someone decides to work at MCD and earn $7.00 (+/- whatever) per hour for their efforts, who is harmed? Maybe that person likes selling happy meals. What do we know about it? It is far too easy to be judgmental about the fairness of this scenario…. I really don t see any person who is being deprived anything.
> Best Regards!
> 
> - TexasTodd


Well, I don't know that the decision to work at McD's is made amongst plenty of offers. I believe most work there as a last resort.


----------



## CharlesA

The dictator thing is rubbish. This is his third veto in 6 years, I believe. And a veto is lawful and can be overridden. there's nothing dictator like about a veto. Every president vetoes legislation. Reagon had 78 vetoes, Obama 3. Pretty wimpy dictator

Ronald Reagan 39 39 78 9 12% 23%
George H. W. Bush3[4] 29 15 44 1 2% 2%
Bill Clinton 36 1 37 2 5% 6%
George W. Bush 11 1 12 4 33% 36%
Barack Obama 3 0 3 0 0% 0%

And the congress can enact laws to overturn his executive actions, they just don't have the votes to do so at the moment. And he'll be out of office in 2 years no matter what.


----------



## TexasTodd

I do agree with you there Rob. Most people probably work at McDonalds because they have to, but you have to admit that neither you nor I really know that. Does seem a reasonable thought however.
But if that person made a reasonable living wage (by our definition), maybe they would never want to work anywhere else. That would inevitably lead to an increase in demand for these jobs and McDonalds only has need for so many employees. Would we then demand that McDonalds make more of these jobs available so that currently unemployed people can work at decent jobs too? Why not then require people to buy more hamburgers so that McDonalds can supply more good paying jobs?
Once you crack the free market equilibrium, all heck breaks loose.


----------



## RobS888

> You really are blinded by hatred. Your believing that an elected US president is a dictator is ridiculous.
> - RobS888
> 
> Ah - - lets brand anyone that disagrees a "hater" ... you mentioned you qualify for VA benefits, so I didnt assume you were 12.
> 
> I agree with teh Wiki dictator definition
> In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly
> 
> I see the use of Exective orders on amnesty…. the Veto on Keystone… the release of murderers awaiting deportation… and using teh IRS to tamp down dissent.
> That is what a dictator does… and is aligned with the definition of one.
> 
> Since you choose to go there.. Hitler was ELECTED… so was Hugo Chavez.
> In your world does being ELECTED, mean they aren t a dictator?
> 
> - DrDirt


To quote "the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly_" 
End quote. Could you provide proof of laws the president has made?

No, I never said that or implied it. A dictator can originally be elected, but at some point they bypass the rules and assume "extraordinary powers" has the president done so? NO he has not. Oh noes he vetoed something he didn't believe in burn him! If using executive orders makes him a dictator than all recent US presidents are dictators.

No one used the IRS to "tamp down" dissent they just lost their tax exempt status that they didn't deserve, since the law has said for decades no politics for tax exempt groups. They were able to do or say what they wanted, they just couldn't deduct the cost of insulting the president. Seems fair to me.

Try again. This is fun, but I have to go clean some more dirt of the bottom of my boot.


----------



## RobS888

> The dictator thing is rubbish. This is his third veto in 6 years, I believe. And a veto is lawful and can be overridden. there s nothing dictator like about a veto. Every president vetoes legislation. Reagon had 78 vetoes, Obama 3. Pretty wimpy dictator
> 
> Ronald Reagan 39 39 78 9 12% 23%
> George H. W. Bush3[4] 29 15 44 1 2% 2%
> Bill Clinton 36 1 37 2 5% 6%
> George W. Bush 11 1 12 4 33% 36%
> Barack Obama 3 0 3 0 0% 0%
> 
> And the congress can enact laws to overturn his executive actions, they just don t have the votes to do so at the moment. And he ll be out of office in 2 years no matter what.
> 
> - CharlesA


Shhhh you can't bring history and facts into this! ;-)


----------



## RobS888

> I do agree with you there Rob. Most people probably work at McDonalds because they have to, but you have to admit that neither you nor I really know that. Does seem a reasonable thought however.
> But if that person made a reasonable living wage (by our definition), maybe they would never want to work anywhere else. That would inevitably lead to an increase in demand for these jobs and McDonalds only has need for so many employees. Would we then demand that McDonalds make more of these jobs available so that currently unemployed people can work at decent jobs too? Why not then require people to buy more hamburgers so that McDonalds can supply more good paying jobs?
> Once you crack the free market equilibrium, all heck breaks loose.
> 
> - TexasTodd


I don't believe all he'll will break loose, far from it, McDs will have kids working there.

The most glaring thing to me is that minimum wage is less now than in 1973 in 1972 dollars.that means adults now are able to buy less than kids in 1973, that is sad. The free market needs to be less free.


----------



## Mahdeew

Free markets are not usually manipulated by central banks.


----------



## TexasTodd

I disagree entirely. The free market is not free enough. We can opine about the inequalities and what we believe, but that has no relevance to anything that is real. The real world says that MCD wants to sell a happy meal for $5 and make $5 Billion for it's millions of shareholders (while paying it's employees $8 per hour). 
You and I might agree that it should sell its happy meal for $6 and make $4 Billion for it's millions of shareholders (while paying it's employees $15 per hour). 
Are we really in a better position to determine all of this than the parties who are directly involved, i.e., shareholders, employees and customers?


----------



## DrDirt

make sure you taste it first…. cause it smells like political promise 

When you say
Your believing that an elected US president is a dictator is ridiculous. ….. you IMPLY the election process necessarily precludes acting as a dictator.

Tamping down dissent via the IRS was beyond "avoiding making a decision on applications" 
ordering audits.
Demanding audits and confidentialn lists of contributors - and then forwarding that list to political opposition (a felony)
In short the IRS was used as a tool for INTIMIDATION and SILENCING opposition.
Groups identified, just "Magically" found themselves all audited, both business and personal.
Then OSHA comes in..

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/04/irs-tea-party-harassment/2388203/

Perhaps you should read Article 2 of the impeachment of Nixon.


----------



## RobS888

> I disagree entirely. The free market is not free enough. We can opine about the inequalities and what we believe, but that has no relevance to anything that is real. The real world says that MCD wants to sell a happy meal for $5 and make $5 Billion for it s millions of shareholders (while paying it s employees $8 per hour).
> You and I might agree that it should sell its happy meal for $6 and make $4 Billion for it s millions of shareholders (while paying it s employees $15 per hour).
> Are we really in a better position to determine all of this than the parties who are directly involved, i.e., shareholders, employees and customers?
> 
> - TexasTodd


I believe only the shareholders really have a say.


----------



## Mahdeew

As a share holder of MACD who never allow their hamburger go through my digestive system, I believe we should pay those uneducated, no good, lazy bastard workers $2/hour and if everyone else did same, lets see if they can find a job anywhere else. After all, we give them 10% discount for their meals at our store. What a bunch of greedy people. If we do this, we can raise the dividend to 7 or 8% so I can go on vacation 4 times a year instead of 3.


----------



## DrDirt

> I believe only the shareholders really have a say.
> 
> - RobS888


No - - only the Board of Directors has a say.

All the thousands of folks with an E-trade account with shares, have no say.
If you dug around in your 401K you would find you are a shareholder of many companies, that have never asked your opinion on hiring or wages.

I


----------



## RobS888

> make sure you taste it first…. cause it smells like political promise
> 
> When you say
> Your believing that an elected US president is a dictator is ridiculous. ….. you IMPLY the election process necessarily precludes acting as a dictator.
> 
> Tamping down dissent via the IRS was beyond "avoiding making a decision on applications"
> ordering audits.
> Demanding audits and confidentialn lists of contributors - and then forwarding that list to political opposition (a felony)
> In short the IRS was used as a tool for INTIMIDATION and SILENCING opposition.
> Groups identified, just "Magically" found themselves all audited, both business and personal.
> 
> Perhaps you should read Article 2 of the impeachment of Nixon.
> 
> - DrDirt


You are correct that your comments are like political promises: made to elicit an emotional response, but lacking in any substance.

Yes I believe that the elected president isn't a dictator and would be removed the moment he acted as such. Your opinion really means little on this since you obviously hate him.

If they didn't try to get tax exempt status when they obviously didn't deserve it, against the law, they wouldn't have got the attention of the IRS. I still don't see a problem here.
I wonder if this period will be called Issisism like McCarthyism?


----------



## TexasTodd

Rob,
You know full well that people utilize free will in choosing to eat at McDonalds. Further, nobody is forced to work there. I am confident that many people like working there. Finally, most shareholders don't give it a second thought. Most shares are owned by pensions, unions and mutual funds. Individual investors either throw away their proxy or send it in with the recommendations of the current management. The truth is they want the yield. If they didn't, they wouldn't buy a high yielding stock like MCD.
It all seems like a cabal, but it isn't. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. This capitalist thing really works the way it is supposed to. It is all about freedom!
Best Regards!


----------



## RobS888

> I believe only the shareholders really have a say.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> No - - only the Board of Directors has a say.
> 
> All the thousands of folks with an E-trade account with shares, have no say.
> If you dug around in your 401K you would find you are a shareholder of many companies, that have never asked your opinion on hiring or wages.
> 
> I
> 
> - DrDirt


Who picks the board? Hmmmm?


----------



## RobS888

> Rob,
> You know full well that people utilize free will in choosing to eat at McDonalds. Further, nobody is forced to work there. I am confident that many people like working there. Finally, most shareholders don t give it a second thought. Most shares are owned by pensions, unions and mutual funds. Individual investors either throw away their proxy or send it in with the recommendations of the current management. The truth is they want the yield. If they didn t, they wouldn t buy a high yielding stock like MCD.
> It all seems like a cabal, but it isn t. I don t subscribe to conspiracy theories. This capitalist thing really works the way it is supposed to. It is all about freedom!
> Best Regards!
> 
> - TexasTodd


So why is it not doing as well as a social democracy?


----------



## TexasTodd

I believe we have a social democracy now. I don't know if you live in the USA, but I would say we are squarely defined as a social democracy now. I am 47 years old and I think the USA has been a social democracy my entire life. I am not sure if you are comparing the USA to your country or something else.


----------



## RobS888

> I believe we have a social democracy now. I don t know if you live in the USA, but I would say we are squarely defined as a social democracy now. I am 47 years old and I think the USA has been a social democracy my entire life. I am not sure if you are comparing the USA to your country or something else.
> 
> - TexasTodd


I live in the US and many conservatives don't believe we are a democracy. In fact somewhere in this thread Dr Dirt and I discussed that very topic.

I was referring to Canada, Canadians have more buying power than we do, they haven't had a real estate crash, they didn't buy into derivatives, so their banks didn't need to be bailed out. So what if we have a high flying free system, that seems to go splat and give most of the earnings back with a stunning regularity. Canada and Australia seemed to be missed by most of the problems since 2007, why? More control on the economy I bet.


----------



## Mahdeew

I think the culture has a lot to do with it. People in Germany think that if they come to the US, and get in an argument with someone, they will get shot. Folks in Canada are totally different culturally than us. They still respect the queen and traditions for example. Very nice people in general.


----------



## Mahdeew

Here is a good old dictator:


----------



## TexasTodd

I tend to steer clear of political debate, too much emotion on that avenue. People get really upset when you start insulting their politics. I don't intend any offense to anyone!
We don't live in a perfect country, but it is the best country on earth! It is the best country that has ever been. It is the best country that ever will be. The reason is because of people like you and me. We are able to debate things right here on an open forum. We are able to articulate the pros and cons of various points of view. 
What could be better than that? Thanks for your thoughts Rob, I do appreciate your perspective. We probably agree more than we disagree.

Best Regards!


----------



## RobS888

> I think the culture has a lot to do with it. People in Germany think that if they come to the US, and get in an argument with someone, they will get shot. Folks in Canada are totally different culturally than us. They still respect the queen and traditions for example. Very nice people in general.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I don't believe they are totally different culturally than us, very similar… Probably the closest to us there is. And we to them, I suspect many people might not even notice it is not the states right away.


----------



## Mahdeew

Maybe I should have said attitude. My entire wife's family are Canadian and previous to our marriage I spend a while in Canada while riding my bike from MA to AK. Big difference in people compared to us. They Still have some of that European attitude. Same with places like ND where there are concentration of Norwegian-American. Totally different than Brooklyn with a large Italian-American or FL with Cuban-Americans. LA, well, depends on which neighborhood.


----------



## RobS888

> I tend to steer clear of political debate, too much emotion on that avenue. People get really upset when you start insulting their politics. I don t intend any offense to anyone!
> We don t live in a perfect country, but it is the best country on earth! It is the best country that has ever been. It is the best country that ever will be. The reason is because of people like you and me. We are able to debate things right here on an open forum. We are able to articulate the pros and cons of various points of view.
> What could be better than that? Thanks for your thoughts Rob, I do appreciate your perspective. We probably agree more than we disagree.
> 
> Best Regards!
> 
> - TexasTodd


No offence Todd, but under what metric are we the best? Loving your country is fine, but we should keep it real. We aren't the happiest, healthiest, best educated, or longest lived. We have less upward mobility, than all advanced nations except the UK (a country with nobility).

We are the most predatory economically and we fight for our interests globally. You should see what tobacco companies are doing in undeveloped countries. Things that would get them in big trouble here.

I've debated with people all over the world and with the exception of Saudi Arabia was never concerned. I mean I was in the country not on line. My travels opened my eyes.

I don't even know if we are freer than other countries, people in most developed nations don't have to be concerned with who may be carrying a gun. They have the freedom from medical bankruptcy. Seriously we poisoned the world economy with our derivatives that were designed to hide the crap, so it is like we sucked other countries into paying for our real estate crash.


----------



## RobS888

> Maybe I should have said attitude. My entire wife s family are Canadian and previous to our marriage I spend a while in Canada while riding my bike from MA to AK. Big difference in people compared to us. They Still have some of that European attitude. Same with places like ND where there are concentration of Norwegian-American. Totally different than Brooklyn with a large Italian-American or FL with Cuban-Americans. LA, well, depends on which neighborhood.
> 
> - mrjinx007


My mother is a Canadian, so I totally understand. I visit my sister in Ont every year and love the place.


----------



## Mahdeew

Interesting analogy.


----------



## TexasTodd

Rob,
You do have good examples of things that the free people of our country have exploited, polluted, corrupted, etc. That is all unfortunate. Whatever examples I evidence as "the best" can and will be dissected, but I'll give it a shot. The USA is the best in these categories:
Compassionate, caring, giving, generous, intelligent, ambitious, creative, kindness, neighborly, humanitarian, eco-friendly, manufacturing, service industries, higher education (and public schools for those that desire it), family oriented, equal rights, melting pot, welcoming, FREEDOM (deteriorating slowly but we still have the Bill of Rights), politically diverse, religious, human rights, competitiveness in general and specific in almost all areas, woodworking (at least on this site) just to name a few….
all endowed to each of us from our Creator
Happiest - we are free to choose
Healthiest - we are free to choose
Best Educated - we are free to choose
Longest Lived - we are free to choose - God willing

The point is that Freedom is the American way. Where we have gone wrong is where we have lost track of that fundamental aspect of what made America great! It is great to have high-minded ideals about what is and what should not be. Just remember that when you choose a higher minimum wage (for example), the person who pays it and the person who receives it just lost a choice.


----------



## RobS888

> Interesting analogy.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Pretty funny. Everyone's lot in life improves if it is more equal.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The economy and opportunity we had in the 60 s the day before Kennedy was assassinated.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Not a fan of Johnson s Great Society?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I am, amazing stuff LBJ got passed into law.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sure if you like enslaving people to generational poverty, the destruction of the family structure, and turning them into nothing more than pets.
> 
> - patcollins


Hartmann points out the reason for the endless cycle of economic disaster and despair followed by recovery is generational memory. When those who remember the Great Depression pass from policy making positions, we are doomed to repeat it. Now, those under 50 do not remember the prosperity and freedom America in the stability of post WWII before the regressive policies starting in the 80s.


----------



## RobS888

> The economy and opportunity we had in the 60 s the day before Kennedy was assassinated.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Not a fan of Johnson s Great Society?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I am, amazing stuff LBJ got passed into law.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sure if you like enslaving people to generational poverty, the destruction of the family structure, and turning them into nothing more than pets.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Hartmann points out the reason for the endless cycle of economic disaster and despair followed by recovery is generational memory. When those who remember the Great Depression pass from policy making positions, we are doomed to repeat it. Now, those under 50 do not remember the prosperity and freedom America in the stability of post WWII before the regressive policies starting in the 80s.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I believe that.


----------



## Mahdeew

Topo,
I'll settle for mid to late 60's at this point.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I don t get it, what is wrong with income inequality? Why should income be equal? This makes no sense…. Maybe I missed that post as I haven t read all 1800, but I really don t see this as a problem. Is taking money away from the super rich people going to help the poor people? I don t see any correlation…..
> 
> - TexasTodd


It shouldn't, that will never work because of what it takes to make it happen and human nature. Taking money away from the super rich giving to the poor does not necessarily help anyone. In many ways the poor were better off in the 50s and 60s before Johnson's War on Poverty. Many years ago, probably in the late 90s, the late, great Paul Harvey pointed out we spent enough to give the welfare recipients enough money to own all the farm land in the US and all the Fortune 500 companies at that time. They are no better off than when we started and they have lost their pride and initiative to help themselves.

When we need to tax the rich, not necessarily for redistribution to the poor, is their wealth accumulation begins to threaten the free state and their speculation causes boom bust cycles in the markets. We have seen both of these detrimental affects increasing since the late 80s.


----------



## Mahdeew

In memory of the man in black. May he be closer to his source.


----------



## DrDirt

> Who picks the board? Hmmmm?
> 
> - RobS888


Other boards… it is a cozy little club where board members "Invite" other CEO's and powerful folks to sit on boars of directors.

Not Joe Stockholder.

Who did you pick to be on the board of the companies your 401K has stock in?

Sure I get an occasional shareholder report…. but not picking merger targets, or CEO's or the next takeover target/outsoucing plan.



> It shouldn't, that will never work because of what it takes to make it happen and human nature. Taking money away from the super rich giving to the poor does not necessarily help anyone. In many ways the poor were better off in the 50s and 60s before Johnson's War on Poverty.


Topa completely nailed it !!! the 'Robin Hood' method of governance won't work.


----------



## RobS888

> Who picks the board? Hmmmm?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Other boards… it is a cozy little club where board members "Invite" other CEO s and powerful folks to sit on boars of directors.
> 
> Not Joe Stockholder.
> 
> Who did you pick to be on the board of the companies your 401K has stock in?
> 
> Sure I get an occasional shareholder report…. but not picking merger targets, or CEO s or the next takeover target/outsoucing plan.
> 
> It shouldn't, that will never work because of what it takes to make it happen and human nature. Taking money away from the super rich giving to the poor does not necessarily help anyone. In many ways the poor were better off in the 50s and 60s before Johnson's War on Poverty.
> 
> Topa completely nailed it !!! the Robin Hood method of governance won t work.
> 
> - DrDirt


Perhaps you should research who elects the board a little more carefully.

My 401k has shares of funds, the funds hold the stock. My fund could vote on directors depending on how many share they hold. I think you are out of you wheelhouse today.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Perhaps you should research who elects the board a little more carefully.
> 
> My 401k has shares of funds, the funds hold the stock. My fund could vote on directors depending on how many share they hold. I think you are out of you wheelhouse today.
> 
> - RobS888


I used to vote my few shares in lots of the elections, but share holder initiatives are pretty much declared advisory if they go against management since the 90s, maybe earlier. The biggest problem is the institutional share holders, mutual funds, pension plans, ect, they are reluctant to rock the boat and risk getting shunned in the financial world ;-(

I figured this out 15 years ago when I investigated why Merrill Lynch was such a disaster for our IRAs. For the foreseeable future, you can expect corporate management continue to manage for personal bonus plans of upper management. I hate to sound like a broken record, but all the laws and rules about corporate governance were changed in the 80s to facilitate, you guessed it, Reaganomics ;-(( The way shareholders are being screwed today would have been impossible in 40s through 70s.


----------



## patcollins

> To be honest, I don t think it should be anyone s business what other people make or earn. It is easy to be envious of people who make more, but I am in no position to judge the merits of their income. It is easy to be derisive of those who earn little, but again, what do I know about that person s life?
> There are undoubtedly people who are happy making very little. There are people unhappy making much more. There are so many factors that tilt the scales of income, fairness really has nothing to do with it. I am certain that every person could conceive of some level of unfairness in their compensation. That is human nature.
> Free markets are the best and most equitable way to determine income. If someone is willing to pay x and someone else is willing to work for x, seems like a perfect arrangement to me.
> I really don t get the income inequality argument…..
> Best Regards!
> 
> - TexasTodd
> 
> If you look at the prosperity of the country over the decades, the more people that made more money the better the country. Why should McDonalds be able to have 5 billion in profits, but many of their employees can t survive without public assistance. If our way is so great why do Canadians have more disposable income than we do?
> 
> - RobS888


You do realize the McDonalds does not pay a large number of those people, they are paid for the most part by local franchise owners.


----------



## RobS888

> To be honest, I don t think it should be anyone s business what other people make or earn. It is easy to be envious of people who make more, but I am in no position to judge the merits of their income. It is easy to be derisive of those who earn little, but again, what do I know about that person s life?
> There are undoubtedly people who are happy making very little. There are people unhappy making much more. There are so many factors that tilt the scales of income, fairness really has nothing to do with it. I am certain that every person could conceive of some level of unfairness in their compensation. That is human nature.
> Free markets are the best and most equitable way to determine income. If someone is willing to pay x and someone else is willing to work for x, seems like a perfect arrangement to me.
> I really don t get the income inequality argument…..
> Best Regards!
> 
> - TexasTodd
> 
> If you look at the prosperity of the country over the decades, the more people that made more money the better the country. Why should McDonalds be able to have 5 billion in profits, but many of their employees can t survive without public assistance. If our way is so great why do Canadians have more disposable income than we do?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> You do realize the McDonalds does not pay a large number of those people, they are paid for the most part by local franchise owners.
> 
> - patcollins


True, the individual franchisee runs the franchise, but the corp owns the property and takes a chunk of the proceeds. Actually, that is even worse since it is a local 1%er not paying them a living wage instead of the corp.

Look to Costco to see what a real company can do.


----------



## Mahdeew

I think Wal-Mart and others that are raising wages to $9 and then to $10 by 2016 are doing because they anticipate a lawsuit or sort since a good portion of their associates get public assistance coming out of the taxpayer pocket.


----------



## Mahdeew

I think Wal-Mart and others that are raising wages to $9 and then to $10 by 2016 are doing because they anticipate a lawsuit or sort since a good portion of their associates get public assistance coming out of the taxpayer pocket.


----------



## RobS888

> I think Wal-Mart and others that are raising wages to $9 and then to $10 by 2016 are doing because they anticipate a lawsuit or sort since a good portion of their associates get public assistance coming out of the taxpayer pocket.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I suppose that is something, but still is along the lines of paying the least you can, not what they need.


----------



## Mahdeew

True, to be motivated because of cost of a lawsuit doesn't say much about the character.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> True, to be motivated because of cost of a lawsuit doesn t say much about the character.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Probably more motivated by public image and maintaining market share. Their growth has stagnated. There tactics of breaking the middle class and working poor are working too well. They are finally beginning to see the results of cutting their own throat ;-))

There was a recent story on the news in Seattle about the Space Needle workers who have not had a raise in 5 years +/-. The Needle's rates have risen 4x during the same period if I recall correctly. The workers make between 12 and 17/hr. The parent company sent out an email with information telling the employees how to get by with less. They interviewed one 30 something living with his parents because he can't afford to live in Seattle on that kind of money.


----------



## Mahdeew

Topa, It is as sad as it can get. I wish they would legalize pot nationally because the whole country can use a good laugh right now. All mortar and bricks companies are going to be obsolete pretty soon. I can buy +$30 from Amazom free shipping and not pay 10% tax on top of the markup.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I thought Nixon was nuts declaring war on drugs. Didn't work during Prohibition. All they got out of that was organized crime well established. The War on Drugs has given us drug cartels with more power, money and fire power than the gov'ts of their countries.

I doubt brick and mortar will go obsolete. Too many love to go to the 'Mall" ;-)

I found a guy who is bringing back demand side economics


----------



## RobS888

So if you raise the tax on the wealthy they work to make up the difference, and everyone benefits! Sounds better than trickle down.


----------



## Bonka

Over the past 100 years, there have been three major periods of tax-rate cuts in the U.S." the Harding-Coolidge cuts of the mid-1920s; the Kennedy cuts of the mid-1960s and the Reagan cut of the early 1908s. Each of these periods of tax cuts was remarkably successful as measured by virtually any public policy metric.
As an example.if income is taxed at 100% how many people are going to work other than in the underground economy? Hence virtually no government tax revenue. If the income tax rate is 0% again no tax revenue. There has to be a reasonable balance. We are not under taxed we are over spent by many magnitudes.
I think it was in 2012 it was calculated that if all those with taxable income of one million dollars or more were taxed at 100% the revenue would be $98 billion dollars.
What is the definition of "Rich"? Those with incomes in the stratosphere are not taxed at income rates. They usually are taxed in the capital gains code. If that goes way up what will they do? They will find other areas to protect their wealth.
A person works for income not to pay taxes. The money is ours yet it is treat by the government as theirs.


----------



## RobS888

> Over the past 100 years, there have been three major periods of tax-rate cuts in the U.S." the Harding-Coolidge cuts of the mid-1920s; the Kennedy cuts of the mid-1960s and the Reagan cut of the early 1908s. Each of these periods of tax cuts was remarkably successful as measured by virtually any public policy metric.
> As an example.if income is taxed at 100% how many people are going to work other than in the underground economy? Hence virtually no government tax revenue. If the income tax rate is 0% again no tax revenue. There has to be a reasonable balance. We are not under taxed we are over spent by many magnitudes.
> I think it was in 2012 it was calculated that if all those with taxable income of one million dollars or more were taxed at 100% the revenue would be $98 billion dollars.
> What is the definition of "Rich"? Those with incomes in the stratosphere are not taxed at income rates. They usually are taxed in the capital gains code. If that goes way up what will they do? They will find other areas to protect their wealth.
> A person works for income not to pay taxes. The money is ours yet it is treat by the government as theirs.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


You've described the Laffer curve, unfortunately it isn't proved where the ideal point is. Empirical evidence suggests a higher rate produces more economic activity.
During the Dumber Bush years we were given a tax refund. That refund for the wealthy amounted to just under a billion dollars over 8 years. Setting greed aside for the moment, let's assume the majority of that money that the "job creators" saved should have shown up in business purchases, equipment purchases and the like. Guess what the only place that had a large bump was in foreign stocks. Yes children, the job creators moved 3/4 of a billion dollars off shore. So giving them that refund was a waste to the US economy. Yet some were willing to shut down the government to maintain that reduced rate. Just sad.


----------



## patcollins

> I think Wal-Mart and others that are raising wages to $9 and then to $10 by 2016 are doing because they anticipate a lawsuit or sort since a good portion of their associates get public assistance coming out of the taxpayer pocket.
> 
> - mrjinx007


It helps eliminate the competition that can't afford to pay more. It will put Target under a lot of pressure.


----------



## Mahdeew

patcollins, I thing TGT did the same almost immediately after.


----------



## Mahdeew

Trickle down economics: I (the government) give you tax break, incentives to make a billion for every million only if you would spend 10 cents on the dollar you get from me (tax payers) to do my bedding by hiring folks to make more billion to make me look good; Amen? HECK YEA… Let's do it.


----------



## RobS888

> Trickle down economics: I (the government) give you tax break, incentives to make a billion for every million only if you would spend 10 cents on the dollar you get from me (tax payers) to do my bedding by hiring folks to make more billion to make me look good; Amen? HECK YEA… Let s do it.
> 
> - mrjinx007


That's why the smarter Bush called it Voodoo. It makes no sense, although it was during the late 80s and early 90s that CEO pay went through the roof, so like usual greed got in the way. Oh well, doesn't really matter it didn't trickle.


----------



## RobS888

> I think Wal-Mart and others that are raising wages to $9 and then to $10 by 2016 are doing because they anticipate a lawsuit or sort since a good portion of their associates get public assistance coming out of the taxpayer pocket.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> It helps eliminate the competition that can t afford to pay more. It will put Target under a lot of pressure.
> 
> - patcollins


Hmm it will put Le Target under pressure, but ok for Wally World? 
I think paying more than mandated is anathema to them. Costco pays almost $20/hour and it doesn't seem to affect Sam's club at all, except to people like me that appreciate that type of ethic. Sorry, they both see some writing on the wall.


----------



## patcollins

> I think Wal-Mart and others that are raising wages to $9 and then to $10 by 2016 are doing because they anticipate a lawsuit or sort since a good portion of their associates get public assistance coming out of the taxpayer pocket.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> It helps eliminate the competition that can t afford to pay more. It will put Target under a lot of pressure.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Hmm it will put Le Target under pressure, but ok for Wally World?
> I think paying more than mandated is anathema to them. Costco pays almost $20/hour and it doesn t seem to affect Sam s club at all, except to people like me that appreciate that type of ethic. Sorry, they both see some writing on the wall.
> 
> - RobS888


There are some retailers that are much less profitable than others, Best Buy comes to mind.

Then there is Mom and Pop. My Target and Walmart are about a mile apart if that, Walmart has a very large number of Filipino workers where Target is mostly a bunch of white teenagers, I find that interesting.

Costco also expects a lot more from employees and I know of at least one that will not hire anyone with experience from Walmart. Someone close to me is a department head at a Walmart and she told me the last time that Walmart bumped up pay they reduced the number of workers (notice how you can never find anyone for help?) and required each person to do more. Not sure it is as good as face value.

And Costco is tiny, what they do has little consequence to most of retail, Walmart on the other hand *is* retail.


----------



## Bonka

So where is Utopia?


----------



## patcollins

> So where is Utopia?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


For some the answer is always "not here" or "somewhere else".


----------



## RobS888

> Hmm it will put Le Target under pressure, but ok for Wally World?
> I think paying more than mandated is anathema to them. Costco pays almost $20/hour and it doesn t seem to affect Sam s club at all, except to people like me that appreciate that type of ethic. Sorry, they both see some writing on the wall.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> There are some retailers that are much less profitable than others, Best Buy comes to mind.
> 
> Then there is Mom and Pop. My Target and Walmart are about a mile apart if that, Walmart has a very large number of Filipino workers where Target is mostly a bunch of white teenagers, I find that interesting.
> 
> Costco also expects a lot more from employees and I know of at least one that will not hire anyone with experience from Walmart. Someone close to me is a department head at a Walmart and she told me the last time that Walmart bumped up pay they reduced the number of workers (notice how you can never find anyone for help?) and required each person to do more. Not sure it is as good as face value.
> 
> And Costco is tiny, what they do has little consequence to most of retail, Walmart on the other hand *is* retail.
> 
> - patcollins


Costco: 671 stores, 112 billion in sales.

Sam's club: 632 in US, no sales number, but they are ranked second behind Costco.

Walmart has 11,000 stores and 485 billion in sales including Sam's club and all other divisions. Walmart makes 285 billion in the US, from all divisions. About 1/2 from the Wally World stores.

Interesting that Costco spanks Walmart in their business. Costco isn't a retail store like Walmart. I hope they move into that market though.

So Costco isn't so tiny is it?


----------



## RobS888

> So where is Utopia?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Are there only 2 choices: dystopia and utopia? There may be better places, or places with better approaches. Why can't we learn from other countries. It seems that, to some of you, we are the best regardless of how we actually are.

If you had a plebiscite in the UK or Canada about keeping their healthcare (approach to health in total) or ours they would reject any changes. How do you think it would go here?

On healthcare, take a look at this Canadian doctor testifying before the US senate.
One senator makes the point that the Canadians know about the US system, but have no interest in it.


----------



## RobS888

> So where is Utopia?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson
> 
> For some the answer is always "not here" or "somewhere else".
> 
> - patcollins


Your kidding right.


----------



## patcollins

> Your kidding right.
> 
> - RobS888


Not at all, my dad use to say he could walk down the isle at work handing out ten dollar bills and a good number of people would bitch that he didn't give them two fives instead.


----------



## patcollins

> Hmm it will put Le Target under pressure, but ok for Wally World?
> I think paying more than mandated is anathema to them. Costco pays almost $20/hour and it doesn t seem to affect Sam s club at all, except to people like me that appreciate that type of ethic. Sorry, they both see some writing on the wall.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> There are some retailers that are much less profitable than others, Best Buy comes to mind.
> 
> Then there is Mom and Pop. My Target and Walmart are about a mile apart if that, Walmart has a very large number of Filipino workers where Target is mostly a bunch of white teenagers, I find that interesting.
> 
> Costco also expects a lot more from employees and I know of at least one that will not hire anyone with experience from Walmart. Someone close to me is a department head at a Walmart and she told me the last time that Walmart bumped up pay they reduced the number of workers (notice how you can never find anyone for help?) and required each person to do more. Not sure it is as good as face value.
> 
> And Costco is tiny, what they do has little consequence to most of retail, Walmart on the other hand *is* retail.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Costco: 671 stores, 112 billion in sales.
> 
> Sam s club: 632 in US, no sales number, but they are ranked second behind Costco.
> 
> Walmart has 11,000 stores and 485 billion in sales including Sam s club and all other divisions. Walmart makes 285 billion in the US, from all divisions. About 1/2 from the Wally World stores.
> 
> Interesting that Costco spanks Walmart in their business. Costco isn t a retail store like Walmart. I hope they move into that market though.
> 
> So Costco isn t so tiny is it?
> 
> - RobS888


Compared to Walmart it is. 130,000 employed, vs 1.5 million. In the hour and half it takes me to drive to the closest Costco I pass 4 Walmarts just on that route.


----------



## RobS888

> Your kidding right.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Not at all, my dad use to say he could walk down the isle at work handing out ten dollar bills and a good number of people would bitch that he didn t give them two fives instead.
> 
> - patcollins


I take your point that some people are never satisfied, but reject the comparison. For me and others to be in the analogy, in the other isles people would got $15 dollars in any chosen denomination.

This may be tough for you to grok, but we can see that others have a better approach and would like that to be considered. It seems that getting some people to even consider the possibility that there may be better ways is un-American.

I use Canada & Australia in comparisons because many of us think the EU is a socialist hell hole and they should shut up since we saved them. Well Canada and Oz weren't saved that much, if at all. They come from the same place as us. They are English countries with English laws like us. There are just smaller in population.


----------



## RobS888

> Hmm it will put Le Target under pressure, but ok for Wally World?
> I think paying more than mandated is anathema to them. Costco pays almost $20/hour and it doesn t seem to affect Sam s club at all, except to people like me that appreciat that type of ethic.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Compared to Walmart it is. 130,000 employed, vs 1.5 million. In the hour and half it takes me to drive to the closest Costco I pass 4 Walmarts just on that route.
> 
> - patcollins


I specifically compared Costco to Sam's not all of Walmart. Did you miss that?

Compare the two yourself, if you don't believe me. Costco pays twice as much as *Sam's* and covers 85% for healthcare, yet is number one in the market. And my point was that Costco's wages don't affect Sam's wages. So your point about Walmart raising wages being painful to target isn't valid.

Also, Costco making about 1/4 in sales with 1/10 the people is embarrassing. I can go 8 miles to either the Costco in Columbia or the one near the casino. I can go 2 miles to a walmart if I wanted to, but I never do. Walmart's prevalence means nothing to me.

I go out of my way to go to Loews now as well. Ever since I saw how much HD paid their CEO to go away. I'm not helping them get that $150 million back.


----------



## patcollins

> I specifically compared Costco to Sam s not all of Walmart. Did you miss that?
> 
> Compare the two yourself, if you don t believe me. Costco pays twice as much as *Sam s* and covers 85% for healthcare, yet is number one in the market. And my point was that Costco s wages don t affect Sam s wages. So your point about Walmart raising wages being painful to target isn t valid.
> 
> Also, Costco making about 1/4 in sales with 1/10 the people is embarrassing. I can go 8 miles to either the Costco in Columbia or the one near the casino. I can go 2 miles to a walmart if I wanted to, but I never do. Walmart s prevalence means nothing to me.
> 
> I go out of my way to go to Loews now as well. Ever since I saw how much HD paid their CEO to go away. I m not helping them get that $150 million back.
> 
> - RobS888


So you want to compare Costco to Sams club to prove what Walmart does doesn't matter?


----------



## RobS888

> I specifically compared Costco to Sam s not all of Walmart. Did you miss that?
> 
> Compare the two yourself, if you don t believe me. Costco pays twice as much as *Sam s* and covers 85% for healthcare, yet is number one in the market. And my point was that Costco s wages don t affect Sam s wages. So your point about Walmart raising wages being painful to target isn t valid.
> 
> Also, Costco making about 1/4 in sales with 1/10 the people is embarrassing. I can go 8 miles to either the Costco in Columbia or the one near the casino. I can go 2 miles to a walmart if I wanted to, but I never do. Walmart s prevalence means nothing to me.
> 
> I go out of my way to go to Loews now as well. Ever since I saw how much HD paid their CEO to go away. I m not helping them get that $150 million back.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So you want to compare Costco to Sams club to prove what Walmart does doesn t matter?
> 
> - patcollins


No I used them to show that one company in a market's pay doesn't force the other to follow.

You claimed target would have to follow Walmart's pay raise or be hurt, I ask why if the same hasn't been true for Costco and Sam's club. You then tried to discount ;-) Costco as being teeny. I then showed they aren't teeny. You then got very anecdotal about stores near you.

There isn't a Costco near salisbury, should the people there doubt the existence of Costco?


----------



## mandatory66

Thanks for this, I will stay in the USA to try for my Billion.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> So where is Utopia?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


For those of old enough to remember, it was immediately before Laffer and Supply Side economics. Supply does not create demand, so nothing trickled down to workers who were not needed to man the plants that were not built to make the products for unnecessary inventory. It was a Demand Side economics where someone would move to fill every demand a populace with cash in their pockets desired. That may not have been Utopia, but it is as close as the world ever got. Everyone unsatisfied with there place in the world wanted to come to the USA. Many are still flocking here to pick up the crumbs.


----------



## Bonka

Well it seams President Reagan makes this administration look like saints.


----------



## RobS888

> Well it seams President Reagan makes this administration look like saints.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


In almost every way!


----------



## patcollins

> Your kidding right.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Not at all, my dad use to say he could walk down the isle at work handing out ten dollar bills and a good number of people would bitch that he didn t give them two fives instead.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I take your point that some people are never satisfied, but reject the comparison. For me and others to be in the analogy, in the other isles people would got $15 dollars in any chosen denomination.
> 
> This may be tough for you to grok, but we can see that others have a better approach and would like that to be considered. It seems that getting some people to even consider the possibility that there may be better ways is un-American.
> 
> I use Canada & Australia in comparisons because many of us think the EU is a socialist hell hole and they should shut up since we saved them. Well Canada and Oz weren t saved that much, if at all. They come from the same place as us. They are English countries with English laws like us. There are just smaller in population.
> 
> - RobS888


I have seen how things in the EU work and some things are better, some worse, some a lot better, some a lot worse.



> I specifically compared Costco to Sam s not all of Walmart. Did you miss that?
> 
> Compare the two yourself, if you don t believe me. Costco pays twice as much as *Sam s* and covers 85% for healthcare, yet is number one in the market. And my point was that Costco s wages don t affect Sam s wages. So your point about Walmart raising wages being painful to target isn t valid.
> 
> Also, Costco making about 1/4 in sales with 1/10 the people is embarrassing. I can go 8 miles to either the Costco in Columbia or the one near the casino. I can go 2 miles to a walmart if I wanted to, but I never do. Walmart s prevalence means nothing to me.
> 
> I go out of my way to go to Loews now as well. Ever since I saw how much HD paid their CEO to go away. I m not helping them get that $150 million back.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So you want to compare Costco to Sams club to prove what Walmart does doesn t matter?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> No I used them to show that one company in a market s pay doesn t force the other to follow.
> 
> You claimed target would have to follow Walmart s pay raise or be hurt, I ask why if the same hasn t been true for Costco and Sam s club. You then tried to discount ;-) Costco as being teeny. I then showed they aren t teeny. You then got very anecdotal about stores near you.
> 
> There isn t a Costco near salisbury, should the people there doubt the existence of Costco?
> 
> - RobS888


Do you not understand what Walmarts size does? Most communities do not have a Costco so what they pay is of little consequence, however just about every community has a Walmart. Of the people in the area that work retail a much bigger percentage of them work at Walmart than anywhere else. You can always find a job at a Walmart if your record is clean (and sometimes not).


----------



## patcollins

> So where is Utopia?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson
> 
> For those of old enough to remember, it was immediately before Laffer and Supply Side economics. Supply does not create demand, so nothing trickled down to workers who were not needed to man the plants that were not built to make the products for unnecessary inventory. It was a Demand Side economics where someone would move to fill every demand a populace with cash in their pockets desired. That may not have been Utopia, but it is as close as the world ever got. Everyone unsatisfied with there place in the world wanted to come to the USA. Many are still flocking here to pick up the crumbs.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Topa a link I provided quite a few posts back showed the poverty rate and how it has declined since the late 50's. I am seriously asking you if things were so great back then how come the poverty rate was so much higher? I seriously think you are looking at things through rose colored glasses of those in the manufacturing side of things.

What do you consider middle class? Without defining middle class saying the middle class had it better then means nothing.

The poor today have far more than what the middle class had in 1950.


----------



## RobS888

> I have seen how things in the EU work and some things are better, some worse, some a lot better, some a lot worse.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Do you not understand what Walmarts size does? Most communities do not have a Costco so what they pay is of little consequence, however just about every community has a Walmart. Of the people in the area that work retail a much bigger percentage of them work at Walmart than anywhere else. You can always find a job at a Walmart if your record is clean (and sometimes not).
> 
> - patcollins


Sure and that job and some government subsidy will almost make a living wage.

I don't shop there, so I'm not that concerned with how many there are.

You took the number 1 & number 2 companies in a market and said that A raising their pay (possibly to avoid being sued) will force B to do the same.

I showed you a very similar market where the number 1 company pays a living wage and number 2 does not. Number 2 does not seem to feel any pressure to raise wages.

I showed you how similar the 2 companies are (Costco & Sam's) and how strangely the one with the much higher wages is the market leader.

The relative size or ubiquity of Wallmart really isn't part of the discussion.


----------



## RobS888

> Topa a link I provided quite a few posts back showed the poverty rate and how it has declined since the late 50 s. I am seriously asking you if things were so great back then how come the poverty rate was so much higher? I seriously think you are looking at things through rose colored glasses of those in the manufacturing side of things.
> 
> What do you consider middle class? Without defining middle class saying the middle class had it better then means nothing.
> 
> The poor today have far more than what the middle class had in 1950.
> 
> - patcollins


That link showed the poverty rate for *children* & the *elderly*. Not the entire US public.

Every one has more *things* than they did in 1950. I believe that abject poverty has been seriously reduced, but there are still many people that have very *few options* in life. Having a refrigerator doesn't mean you aren't poor especially if it came with your apartment.

Topo may be referring to the future being open to many more people than before. The war was over, many were able to attend college that couldn't have done so before.


----------



## Mahdeew

You might be a terrorist, if....


----------



## Mahdeew

You might be an extremist if..... They just about have everyone covered wit this one.


----------



## DrDirt

> The relative size or ubiquity of Wallmart really isn t part of the discussion.
> 
> - RobS888


Because you like to Cull the data.
You have a company - the same bunch of folks booking containerships from China, are the buyers for walmart AND Sams club.
So their buying power, and market impacts are driving by the prices they negotiated on massive volume.

Companies have items called "loss leaders" where they can shuffle out costs/bury losses.
Car companies routinely made such models to meet CAFE standards, and get market share…. or build repeat business.
Ultimately it is a perversion, that a HUGE company makes up for in other areas.

You show Sams and Costco each being between 600 and 700 stores.

But if you are actually buying/negotiating and shipping for 11,700 stores, vs 700 stores you can set up a different model.

Once you have driven out the competition, you can suddently appear "charitable" at 9 dollars an hour.

Curious - 
Do you support Apple?
They manufacture with Chinese slave labor, who are jumping to their deaths, while being able to sell to a lined up throng of people at top dollar….. why not pay better for a smaller profit?

Is Steve Jobs rotting in hell for this?

The are also Supply Side participants…. where was the DEMAND for an I-pod? They made a ton of money convincing people that you need the Ipod-> Iphone-> Iphone 2, 3, 4, 5, 5c, 5s now 6…. Is anyone really saying their phone doesn't do enough?


----------



## patcollins

> I showed you how similar the 2 companies are (Costco & Sam s) and how strangely the one with the much higher wages is the market leader.
> 
> - RobS888


The only close warehouse club I have is a BJs wholesale but I have shopped at a Sams before and there is really nothing special about it, you can buy the same stuff at Walmart for the same price or darn close to it. Many people here drive the hour and a half to Costco simply because they "have better stuff". They target a different consumer, Sams business model is to target people that need to save money where Costco targets a wealthier consumer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/16/sams-club-vs-costco_n_5332306.html

Once a year I get a coupon in the mail for a free 90 days membership at BJs and use that, last year I found some really nice floor mats for my car and truck that I bought. Unless you have a whole bunch of kids or run a business buying in bulk really doesn't save as much as people think it does. Costco knows this so they try to make their offerings unique.


----------



## DrDirt

Wow Pat… this line in the article was a real shock to me!!

Given that about 75 percent of Costco's operating profit comes from membership fees alone, "literally every decision Costco makes comes down to what the member wants," Altukhaim wrote. And members are evidently happy: The warehouse chain has a renewal rate of nearly 90 percent.

75% of their operating profit is NOT from sales of merchandise!! when the business is big box retail.


----------



## patcollins

> Wow Pat… this line in the article was a real shock to me!!
> 
> Given that about 75 percent of Costco s operating profit comes from membership fees alone, "literally every decision Costco makes comes down to what the member wants," Altukhaim wrote. And members are evidently happy: The warehouse chain has a renewal rate of nearly 90 percent.
> 
> 75% of their operating profit is NOT from sales of merchandise!! when the business is big box retail.
> 
> - DrDirt


I saw that, but I have a really hard time believing it is correct.


----------



## RobS888

> The relative size or ubiquity of Wallmart really isn t part of the discussion.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Because you like to Cull the data.
> You have a company - the same bunch of folks booking containerships from China, are the buyers for walmart AND Sams club.
> So their buying power, and market impacts are driving by the prices they negotiated on massive volume.
> 
> Companies have items called "loss leaders" where they can shuffle out costs/bury losses.
> Car companies routinely made such models to meet CAFE standards, and get market share…. or build repeat business.
> Ultimately it is a perversion, that a HUGE company makes up for in other areas.
> 
> You show Sams and Costco each being between 600 and 700 stores.
> 
> But if you are actually buying/negotiating and shipping for 11,700 stores, vs 700 stores you can set up a different model.
> 
> Once you have driven out the competition, you can suddently appear "charitable" at 9 dollars an hour.
> 
> Curious -
> Do you support Apple?
> They manufacture with Chinese slave labor, who are jumping to their deaths, while being able to sell to a lined up throng of people at top dollar….. why not pay better for a smaller profit?
> 
> Is Steve Jobs rotting in hell for this?
> 
> The are also Supply Side participants…. where was the DEMAND for an I-pod? They made a ton of money convincing people that you need the Ipod-> Iphone-> Iphone 2, 3, 4, 5, 5c, 5s now 6…. Is anyone really saying their phone doesn t do enough?
> 
> - DrDirt


I have no idea what you are trying to say. Comparing Costco and Sam's club is perfectly valid, but it totally destroys the point Pat was trying to make, so I understand why he might not like the comparison, but why don't you?

Please try to keep it centred around the economics of Costco and Sam's if you would.
Perhaps how Sam's doesn't seem to benefit from the massive economies of scale you mentioned.


----------



## CharlesA

hmmmm


> 9. Costco makes virtually no profit on the stuff it sells
> 
> Okay, this requires a bit of explanation: Costco typically marks up its goods a maximum of 14% over its cost (most items have an 8% to 10% markup - Kirkland Signature brand has a 15% markup). After accounting for expenses such as real estate costs and wages, Costco just about breaks even on those goods.
> 
> Sol Price, the company's founder, once said: "My 'secret' is so simple that I'm reluctant to speak openly about it for fear of appearing stupid. I sell things as cheaply as I can."
> 
> Eighty percent of the company's gross profit actually comes from the membership fees (between $55 to $110) from its 64 million members. That's nothing to sneeze at: Costco's annual profit is roughly $1.5 billion. Nearly 90% of its customers renew their membership every year.
> 
> There's another benefit to requiring people to become members in order to shop: a customer who has to provide his details in the membership registration form is less likely to write bad checks or steal. Costco suffers only one-tenth the level of those two types of losses as compared to the average supermarket.


----------



## RobS888

> Wow Pat… this line in the article was a real shock to me!!
> 
> Given that about 75 percent of Costco s operating profit comes from membership fees alone, "literally every decision Costco makes comes down to what the member wants," Altukhaim wrote. And members are evidently happy: The warehouse chain has a renewal rate of nearly 90 percent.
> 
> 75% of their operating profit is NOT from sales of merchandise!! when the business is big box retail.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I saw that, but I have a really hard time believing it is correct.
> - patcollins


So they pay way more, cover 85% with health care, have their own line and still spank Sam's club. Perhaps those economies of scale don't help them at all.

The head of Costco told Wall Street to go pound sand! Meaning he won't pander to what they want, but to what he thinks is proper.


----------



## RobS888

Duplicate post.


----------



## Bobbal

Finally, I'm at the top of one of these charts.


----------



## patcollins

> I have no idea what you are trying to say. Comparing Costco and Sam s club is perfectly valid, but it totally destroys the point Pat was trying to make, so I understand why he might not like the comparison, but why don t you?


No it doesn't, I can't see why you refuse to believe that Walmart being so large actually can cause a ripple in the labor market where Costco can not cause nearly the ripple. It is such news because Walmart does matter more than any other retail employer, nobody whines about what Target, Bed Bath and Beyond or Kohls pays their employees and it isn't because they pay more.

Here are a few people that agree with my assessment. If you Google it you will find a whole lot more.

http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employees-pay
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/money/2015/02/28/low-wage-workers-pay/24201463/
http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/02/26/retail-ceos-dish-on-wal-marts-pay-raise/
http://aflcionc.org/why-worker-pay-at-walmart-matters-to-everyone/


----------



## RobS888

> I have no idea what you are trying to say. Comparing Costco and Sam s club is perfectly valid, but it totally destroys the point Pat was trying to make, so I understand why he might not like the comparison, but why don t you?
> 
> No it doesn t, I can t see why you refuse to believe that Walmart being so large actually can cause a ripple in the labor market where Costco can not cause nearly the ripple. It is such news because Walmart does matter more than any other retail employer, nobody whines about what Target, Bed Bath and Beyond or Kohls pays their employees and it isn t because they pay more.
> 
> Here are a few people that agree with my assessment. If you Google it you will find a whole lot more.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employees-pay
> http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/money/2015/02/28/low-wage-workers-pay/24201463/
> http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/02/26/retail-ceos-dish-on-wal-marts-pay-raise/
> http://aflcionc.org/why-worker-pay-at-walmart-matters-to-everyone/
> 
> - patcollins


I hope you are correct and this causes all retail wages to go up.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Well it seams President Reagan makes this administration look like saints.
> - Gerald Thompson


Hardly, Obama is trying to make Wall Street behave and serve the investors interests rather than rape them. The Rs have been quite successful keeping fraudulent activities legal and refusing funding for enforcement for the few rules that do promote honesty. Meanwhile, Eric Holder helps Chase cover up their illegal activites, but I have posted those links before.



> What do you consider middle class? Without defining middle class saying the middle class had it better then means nothing.
> 
> The poor today have far more than what the middle class had in 1950.


I don't doubt they do have more than they did in 1950, but not by 1960 and beyond. I went to school with kids who had a mom at home and their dad's worked as minimum wage farm workers. You don't see that today. 2 income households barely making it.

Kids used to work minimum wage jobs to get through college and they came out relatively debt free to a job that paid good money. Today the costs of education have risen exponentially to fund tax cuts and to finance the scams by the educators that are being run on text books and work book combinations that cannot be resold. College loans and debt are a way of life and only 30% of those coming out find a job with in a few years.

Middle class meant upward mobility with an expectation of doing better than your parents did. It meant a relatively secure job in a labor market than paid reasonable wages for anyone willing to work and educate themselves. It meant the probability of relatively secure retirement for those willing to save and invest relatively free from the scams Wall Street invented in the 90s and continue to enhance today. It meant most of the labor force employed most of the time, not 66% participation with the claim of 7% unemployment.



> Topo may be referring to the future being open to many more people than before. The war was over, many were able to attend college that couldn t have done so before.
> 
> - RobS888


That pretty well sums it up. Not just being able to attend college, but the whole population including those who dropped out of high school and started as sweepers at the local plant had a future of some kind. There were no "tent cities" in church parking lots in most major metro areas.


----------



## DrDirt

> I have no idea what you are trying to say. Comparing Costco and Sam s club is perfectly valid, but it totally destroys the point Pat was trying to make, so I understand why he might not like the comparison, but why don t you?
> 
> Please try to keep it centred around the economics of Costco and Sam s if you would.
> Perhaps how Sam s doesn t seem to benefit from the massive economies of scale you mentioned.
> 
> - RobS888


You cannot make comparisons to compare a "division" of one company to the entirety of another.

Just as if you were comparing car companies… you really cannot EXTRACT… e.g. Cadillac from GM and compare it to Kia. Because much of Cadillac's support/R&D, IT, and production facilities are shared expenses, so while the KIA numbers would represent totals, division costs are shifted from account to account to make divisions look better or worse depending on the quarter.

Its Apples and watermelons

Just as taking the Entirety of Costco and comparing to a small division of Walmart…less than 6% of Walmarts operation is Sams Club.


----------



## RobS888

> I have no idea what you are trying to say. Comparing Costco and Sam s club is perfectly valid, but it totally destroys the point Pat was trying to make, so I understand why he might not like the comparison, but why don t you?
> 
> Please try to keep it centred around the economics of Costco and Sam s if you would.
> Perhaps how Sam s doesn t seem to benefit from the massive economies of scale you mentioned.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> You cannot make comparisons to compare a "division" of one company to the entirety of another.
> 
> Just as if you were comparing car companies… you really cannot EXTRACT… e.g. Cadillac from GM and compare it to Kia. Because much of Cadillac s support/R&D, IT, and production facilities are shared expenses, so while the KIA numbers would represent totals, division costs are shifted from account to account to make divisions look better or worse depending on the quarter.
> 
> Its Apples and watermelons
> 
> Just as taking the Entirety of Costco and comparing to a small division of Walmart…less than 6% of Walmarts operation is Sams Club.
> 
> - DrDirt


It seems that comparing two business units that attempt to do the same thing is about as proper a comparison as one could make. Comparing Costco to Walmart as a whole is cra cra. Costco to Sams is proper.

Could one compare Harley Davidson's operations to Honda or BMW's motorcycles operations? Or should it be entire company against entire company?


----------



## DrDirt

> Could one compare Harley Davidson s operations to Honda or BMW s motorcycles operations? Or should it be entire company against entire company?
> 
> - RobS888


Depends what you are comparing….

If you are comparing e.g. labor costs to run production sure.
If you are comparing the businesses, NO.

Easy for me, apparently you struggle, with the idea that profits and sales from teh Automotive side of the business can subsidize the construction of new factories for the motorcycles.

Or honda Generators

Or now Honda wants to make aircraft… there is no way to get an apples to apples comparison, if someone has decided to subsidize market penetration and sell at a loss for X years to build market share. 
That is not a measure of the comparative success. the Motorcycle division is not standing on its own, it gets 'carried' on the books when there are downturns, or the winter sales rate on motorcycles stink.
Harley has to survive on its own, *so must have a fundamentally different business model and acceptable risk and debt load.*
There is no corporate sugardaddy.

whether that helps or hinders someones argument is irrelevant, the comparison doesn't work.

e.g. you can find that hondajet gets slammed on biz jet sales, and drags down Honda earnings …does that mean the CAR company sucks?










You need to take a more wholistic (no i don't mean holistic) approach than that.


----------



## RobS888

> Could one compare Harley Davidson s operations to Honda or BMW s motorcycles operations? Or should it be entire company against entire company?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Depends what you are comparing….
> If you are comparing e.g. labor costs to run production sure.
> If you are comparing the businesses, NO.
> 
> You need to take a more wholistic (no i don t mean holistic) approach than that.
> 
> - DrDirt


Thank you for seeing my point* finally*! Comparing labor cost at Costco and Sams club is valid. That is what I was doing. I have *no idea *what you were doing, but my point was about *labor cost.*

You were comparing purchasing arrangements. Perhaps you *misunderstood* that a Target vs. WallyWorld comparison is similar to Costco vs. Sam's club. That is all Pat and I were discussing. My point is WallyWord raising minimum pay doesn't force Target to, just look at Sam's paying less than 1/2 of what Costco does. Pat says (and has corroboration) that WallyWords 5,500 US stores have massive clout and everyone will be forced to raise pay.

What number 1 does in a segment doesn't mean number 2 is under pressure to follow.

And since, as of today, Target isn't raising pay to follow, I'm correct.

I wish I wasn't correct, I think Costco's approach is the best for everyone.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I don't really see how you can compare anything at WallyWorld's Sam's club vs. Costco. Cheapest is best vs. quality. How does that compare?


----------



## patcollins

> You were comparing purchasing arrangements. Perhaps you *misunderstood* that a Target vs. WallyWorld comparison is similar to Costco vs. Sam s club. That is all Pat and I were discussing. My point is WallyWord raising minimum pay doesn t force Target to, just look at Sam s paying less than 1/2 of what Costco does. Pat says (and has corroboration) that WallyWords 5,500 US stores have massive clout and everyone will be forced to raise pay.
> 
> What number 1 does in a segment doesn t mean number 2 is under pressure to follow.
> 
> And since, as of today, Target isn t raising pay to follow, I m correct.
> 
> I wish I wasn t correct, I think Costco s approach is the best for everyone.
> 
> - RobS888


My reasoning is that if there is a Target in town chances are there is also a Walmart, retail employees for the most part are not loyal, why should they be? They simply have to go to Walmart for $1 more an hour, no brainer. There is a lot less of a chance that a disgruntled Sams Club employee has a Costco in the same town to go to, even less of a chance that there being one in each surrounding town like there is a Walmart.

My first job was a ********************ty job at the grocery store Kroger, paid minimum wage, the union took a big chunk of my check, the first chance I got a job that paid more I was out the door. I went from $35 pay check a week to $55 paychecks for the same amount of work.

Hell I know people that make $50/hr or more that are not loyal. When Lockheed Martin was spooling up with the Joint Strike Fighter many Boeing employees jumped ship for more pay and a ton of over time hours and these were people with pensions full medical etc.


----------



## RobS888

> I don t really see how you can compare anything at WallyWorld s Sam's club vs. Costco. Cheapest is best vs. quality. How does that compare?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


He he. I heard that.


----------



## RobS888

> You were comparing purchasing arrangements. Perhaps you *misunderstood* that a Target vs. WallyWorld comparison is similar to Costco vs. Sam s club. That is all Pat and I were discussing. My point is WallyWord raising minimum pay doesn t force Target to, just look at Sam s paying less than 1/2 of what Costco does. Pat says (and has corroboration) that WallyWords 5,500 US stores have massive clout and everyone will be forced to raise pay.
> 
> What number 1 does in a segment doesn t mean number 2 is under pressure to follow.
> 
> And since, as of today, Target isn t raising pay to follow, I m correct.
> 
> I wish I wasn t correct, I think Costco s approach is the best for everyone.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> My reasoning is that if there is a Target in town chances are there is also a Walmart, retail employees for the most part are not loyal, why should they be? They simply have to go to Walmart for $1 more an hour, no brainer. There is a lot less of a chance that a disgruntled Sams Club employee has a Costco in the same town to go to, even less of a chance that there being one in each surrounding town like there is a Walmart.
> 
> My first job was a ********************ty job at the grocery store Kroger, paid minimum wage, the union took a big chunk of my check, the first chance I got a job that paid more I was out the door. I went from $35 pay check a week to $55 paychecks for the same amount of work.
> 
> Hell I know people that make $50/hr or more that are not loyal. When Lockheed Martin was spooling up with the Joint Strike Fighter many Boeing employees jumped ship for more pay and a ton of over time hours and these were people with pensions full medical etc.
> 
> - patcollins


Well, let's hope it happens that way.

Did you get freezing rain this afternoon?


----------



## patcollins

> Well, let s hope it happens that way.
> 
> Did you get freezing rain this afternoon?
> 
> - RobS888


About 2-3 minutes worth, Sunday night we had our fill though.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I heard on the radio today during a homelessness discussion a typical studio apartment rents for $1400 in Seattle. I checked a few ads and found 900 to 1800.

WA minimum wage is $9.47×160 =$1515/mo -151 for SS, medicare and income tax = 1364 take home which is only $36 short of the month's rent without utilities, food, clothes, transportation…....... WalMart may have to abandon business here. I don't think they can find workers who can make it even on public assistance for the working poor.

About a week ago I heard there would be a lottery for public housing. I can't remember how many were applying but it was in the thousands. Only a few hundred would make it on the 6 year waiting list. Another blow to Wally World and the minimum wage crowd ;-(

BTW, the homeless discussion was about the end of the 10 year Homeless Plan. It did not work, it is worse than it was 10 years ago.


----------



## DrDirt

> About a week ago I heard there would be a lottery for public housing. I can t remember how many were applying but it was in the thousands. Only a few hundred would make it on the 6 year waiting list. Another blow to Wally World and the minimum wage crowd ;-(
> 
> BTW, the homeless discussion was about the end of the 10 year Homeless Plan. It did not work, it is worse than it was 10 years ago.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Suppose if you are a single person, working at McDonalds, you have to either commute from your apartment down by Sea-Tac for 550.
http://www.forrent.com/apartment-community-profile/1007728.php

Sounds like the housing projects built with good intentions and successful for a decade…. then the good people flee to the suburbs and crime takes over, then they are bulldozed.
Like Brewster Douglass in Detroit, Cabrini Green in Chicago, Iberville in NOLA and dozens of others.

Post WW2 urban planning led to gentrification.

Of course unaffordable housing is now a big problem in Aspen Colorado. You now have a bunch of part time "Vacation house" owners from California that drove real estate out of sight… but since they are only there a couple weeks a year, there is no supportable tax base, too few people to keep paying sales tax at the grocery stores (especially outside ski season) to keep police, and schools available, so the people that are year-round residents that work in Aspen, and take care of properties, and run the resorts, have to live dozens of miles to the west.
http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/local/colorado/2015/01/12/colorado-resort-towns-working-class-squeezed-rich-move/21637213/


----------



## Mahdeew

Politicians ask to double their salaries.

The Independent Citizens Commission in its initial review in January recommended Supreme Court justice pay be increased from $149,589 to $166,500 for associate justices and from $161,601 to $180,000 for the chief justice.

By a 95-2 vote, the House approved a proposal to cut income taxes by 1 percent for those making between $21,000 and $75,000 a year. Hutchinson, a Republican who was sworn in earlier this month, campaigned on the tax cut proposal and has called it his priority this session.

By a 95-2 vote, the House approved a proposal to cut income taxes by 1 percent for those making between $21,000 and $75,000 a year. Hutchinson, a Republican who was sworn in earlier this month, campaigned on the tax cut proposal and has called it his priority this session.

"Arkansas middle class gets a "historic 1% tax break.

What a Joke!


----------



## patcollins

> Politicians ask to double their salaries.
> 
> The Independent Citizens Commission in its initial review in January recommended Supreme Court justice pay be increased from $149,589 to $166,500 for associate justices and from $161,601 to $180,000 for the chief justice.
> 
> By a 95-2 vote, the House approved a proposal to cut income taxes by 1 percent for those making between $21,000 and $75,000 a year. Hutchinson, a Republican who was sworn in earlier this month, campaigned on the tax cut proposal and has called it his priority this session.
> 
> By a 95-2 vote, the House approved a proposal to cut income taxes by 1 percent for those making between $21,000 and $75,000 a year. Hutchinson, a Republican who was sworn in earlier this month, campaigned on the tax cut proposal and has called it his priority this session.
> 
> "Arkansas middle class gets a "historic 1% tax break.
> 
> What a Joke!
> 
> - mrjinx007


Reducing the state income tax from 7% to 6% is a 14% reduction in their tax bill. I would be happy to have that.


----------



## Mahdeew

Obama's Action Gives Illegal Immigrants Billions in Tax Credits


----------



## RobS888

> Well, let s hope it happens that way.
> 
> Did you get freezing rain this afternoon?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> About 2-3 minutes worth, Sunday night we had our fill though.
> 
> - patcollins


We got a bunch this after noon in Columbia.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Obama's Action Gives Illegal Immigrants Billions in Tax Credits
> 
> - mrjinx007


Why don't we just extend this courtesy to everyone world wide? Why make them have to cross the border, hike through the desert and risk being bitten by a rattlesnake to cash in? Obviously they will not be crossing the northern border, even Americans have a heck of a time getting back across that one ;-((


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Suppose if you are a single person, working at McDonalds, you have to either commute from your apartment down by Sea-Tac for 550.
> http://www.forrent.com/apartment-community-profile/1007728.php
> 
> - DrDirt


There are plenty of cases where public housing has been totally destroyed by those it was built to house ;-( I have no clue what the answer is, but massing billions for a few while billions have nearly nothing isn't it!

No point for anyone living in Sea-Tac to take the bus to Seattle to work for $9.47/ hr. Sea-Tac's minimum is $15 plus the news has reports of homeless living on the bus with all their worldly belongings while sleeping on 2 or 3 seats or the floor. No room left for commuters. Probably better to get an old RV and park it on the street in the industrial area south of town and walk to work. There are too many of them. They can't find and tow them all.

I just finished reading "The Wieser Indians." A book about a small band of Shoshones of southwestern Idaho. It is the history of the native Americans removal from their homelands and the ensuing wars. It tells how the Indians were induced to sign treaties and go to reservations. They were supposed to learn to farm and support themselves, but there were no plows, no teams, no tools, nothing to build houses, no food. They had to return to the hunting and gathering areas to feed themselves every year. But those areas were taken over by settlers. The Camas Prairie was being ruined by hogs and cattle. Even Eagle Eye who avoided war most of his life and even protected the settlers in his area finally joined warring bands. At some point the choice was fight or starve. Not much to loose either way. Seems to me the [email protected][email protected]$ with the power are doing the same thing now, just a different set of circumstances in a different year.


----------



## DrDirt

The Robin Hood method is also a failure. Taking of wealth by force to give to loyal voting blocks is not governance.
If one doesn't think the system uses force, just skip paying your taxes to the IRS, or your property tax…. the Sherriff will show up to auction your house and forcibly move you as well.

We aren't really being treated better than the indians ourselves.

The history of the Shoshones under Andrew Johnson, is not so different than the "trail of tears" under Andrew Jackson and nearly every other native group.

Seems the only natives doing well are the eskimos, being paid with oil dollars in Alaska.


----------



## DrDirt

> "Arkansas middle class gets a "historic 1% tax break.
> 
> What a Joke!
> 
> - mrjinx007


If you are making 75K… that 1% tax difference is 29 dollars in each 'biweekly check'

that extra 30 bucks every two weeks is a big deal at the gas station or grocery store.

750/year in takehome pay (I'll take an extra 62.50 per month)


----------



## Mahdeew

I guess my point was comparison as the topic was going that way. Comparing politicians 100% raise in salary compared to citizen's 1%. If I was a politician, I would decrease citizen's income tax to zero and raise my salary by 800%.


----------



## DrDirt

> I guess my point was comparison as the topic was going that way. Comparing politicians 100% raise in salary compared to citizen s 1%. If I was a politician, I would decrease citizen s income tax to zero and raise my salary by 800%.
> 
> - mrjinx007


indeed - gotta be careful, because 1% moving from 7% to 6% is a big deal, cutting your taxes by ~15%

7% of 75K is 5250
6% of 75K is 4500.
A 750 dollar savings per year, which is nice.

versus the headline, which reads like it is only a 1% change in taxes paid. 
which if you are paying your tax bill of 5250, then taking 1% off the tax BILL would be 52 bucks a year….which is nothing

But even on legislators…doubling depends on where you start…
from the article:
*The panel voted to increase legislators' pay from $15,869 a year to $39,400,*

15869 as a full time job (which congress SHOULDN"t be but defacto is) works out to 7.93/hour

So that isn't like they are at US congress salaries now, and wanting to double from 174K to 348K/year.

our city commission gets a 300 dollar/month stipend. so 3600 dollars a year. nearly any increase would be a big percent change


----------



## Mahdeew

Correct, just got my property tax and it had gone up over 12%... food prices, lumber and even firewood is up substantially. The cooked CPI numbers are another joke. We all know there exist a huge price inflation even in none paper commodities. All of these are hidden taxes we don't take into account. It appears we are experiencing one heck of a stagflation at this point.


----------



## Mahdeew

I know the salaries appear to be low. They are not full-time Legislators they go to the capital only during the sessions. Their full time job is fundraising. So, the question becomes, why a millionaire raises 21 million in fundraising to work a $16000 job? I already know the answer and have seen the result.


----------



## DrDirt

yeah - inflation is something… they tell us how low it is, but it excludes gas and groceries.









So at first glance you would think food prices "recovered" after 2008

But the Cumulative picure is different. they give us the rosy picture of rate of increase.. not cumulative.

WHy is the beef that falls from the table and is ground to make weiners… over 4.50 a pound for Oscar Meyer weiners.? (3.98 for 14 ounces)

Don't get started on Bacon. it is 6 bucks a pound here (5 dollars for now 12 ounces not 16 so people don't get out the torches and pitchforks)!!

Shrinking the packages is popular…. Orange Juice is not in gallon or half gallons anymore…. it LOOKS like they are but no.
the 64ounce half gallon is only 59 ounces today.


----------



## patcollins

> There are plenty of cases where public housing has been totally destroyed by those it was built to house ;-( I have no clue what the answer is, but massing billions for a few while billions have nearly nothing isn t it!
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I've always thought you need to give them opportunities instead, make welfare etc require community service, in turn this community service becomes your resume, have it administered by the best of the people that used it to their benefit.

When you just give people stuff they don't care, if you sit in an H&R Block you will see the people that get the EITC blow it on stupid stuff like the refund anticipation loans just because "Im getting so much anyway" It is just part of the way the human mind works and may even be tied to evolution.

After hurricane Katrina my solution was to hand everyone a W-2 form, a set of work boots, work gloves, and a shovel or broom but I knew that would never happen.

I love the way Habitat for Humanity works.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## RobS888

> I ve always thought you need to give them opportunities instead, make welfare etc require community service, in turn this community service becomes your resume, have it administered by the best of the people that used it to their benefit.
> 
> When you just give people stuff they don t care, if you sit in an H&R Block you will see the people that get the EITC blow it on stupid stuff like the refund anticipation loans just because "Im getting so much anyway" It is just part of the way the human mind works and may even be tied to evolution.
> 
> After hurricane Katrina my solution was to hand everyone a W-2 form, a set of work boots, work gloves, and a shovel or broom but I knew that would never happen.
> 
> I love the way Habitat for Humanity works.
> 
> - patcollins


I agree, no free money. Take classes, street sweep, or whatever is needed, but nothing should be free.


----------



## DanYo

> I ve always thought you need to give them opportunities instead, make welfare etc require community service, in turn this community service becomes your resume, have it administered by the best of the people that used it to their benefit.
> 
> When you just give people stuff they don t care, if you sit in an H&R Block you will see the people that get the EITC blow it on stupid stuff like the refund anticipation loans just because "Im getting so much anyway" It is just part of the way the human mind works and may even be tied to evolution.
> 
> After hurricane Katrina my solution was to hand everyone a W-2 form, a set of work boots, work gloves, and a shovel or broom but I knew that would never happen.
> 
> I love the way Habitat for Humanity works.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I agree, no free money. Take classes, street sweep, or whatever is needed, but nothing should be free.
> 
> - RobS888


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I ve always thought you need to give them opportunities instead, make welfare etc require community service, in turn this community service becomes your resume, have it administered by the best of the people that used it to their benefit.
> 
> When you just give people stuff they don t care, if you sit in an H&R Block you will see the people that get the EITC blow it on stupid stuff like the refund anticipation loans just because "Im getting so much anyway" It is just part of the way the human mind works and may even be tied to evolution.
> 
> After hurricane Katrina my solution was to hand everyone a W-2 form, a set of work boots, work gloves, and a shovel or broom but I knew that would never happen.
> 
> I love the way Habitat for Humanity works.
> 
> - patcollins


Who said anything about freebies or taxation for redistribution? Taxation should be for infrastructure that facilitates business and the economy. Of course the 1% think the working poor should provide it so they can park their money offshore in Swiss tax evading accounts. The other purpose is to stabilize the financial markets.

The Rs would never allow handing everyone a W-2 form, a set of work boots, work gloves, and a shovel or broom. That would require an expenditure on public works. No corps would benefit from that ;-(


----------



## Mahdeew




----------



## Mahdeew




----------



## patcollins

> Who said anything about freebies or taxation for redistribution? Taxation should be for infrastructure that facilitates business and the economy. Of course the 1% think the working poor should provide it so they can park their money offshore in Swiss tax evading accounts. The other purpose is to stabilize the financial markets.
> 
> The Rs would never allow handing everyone a W-2 form, a set of work boots, work gloves, and a shovel or broom. That would require an expenditure on public works. No corps would benefit from that ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Unfortunately neither side really cares about infrastructure, it is boring and has never won anyone a national election. It is also the first thing that gets cut for pet projects. I think the boring mundane things are what should sway people how to vote, who makes sure that the roads are taken care of properly etc.

Maryland seems especially bad about this.


----------



## DrDirt

> I agree, no free money. Take classes, street sweep, or whatever is needed, but *nothing should be free.
> *
> - RobS888


Holy Crap!!! On this we have reached Detente!! 
---------------
Seperate but related:
I think the EITC is bull (in how it works).
We already have specific entitlement programs. I agree with people at the bottom not owing taxes. however the "earned income" side seems to get dropped.

You should not be able to get a "refund" from the IRS that is more than the total you ever paid in.

The IRS should be about tax collection, not welfare distribution. (HHS, and the Department of Agriculture handle distribution already)


----------



## DrDirt

> The Rs would never allow handing everyone a W-2 form, a set of work boots, work gloves, and a shovel or broom. That would require an expenditure on public works. No corps would benefit from that ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


You mean the D's would support a work requirement? Never seen anything like that since the WPA.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The Rs would never allow handing everyone a W-2 form, a set of work boots, work gloves, and a shovel or broom. That would require an expenditure on public works. No corps would benefit from that ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> You mean the D s would support a work requirement? Never seen anything like that since the WPA.
> 
> - DrDirt


I do not say that. It is not either or with R&D, both are screwing U! ;-((


----------



## DrDirt

> The Rs would never allow handing everyone a W-2 form, a set of work boots, work gloves, and a shovel or broom. That would require an expenditure on public works. No corps would benefit from that ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> I do not say that.


Sorry - I guess when i read "THE R's would never do that….no Corps would benefit" I didn't see anything about the democrats….

That doesn't read as R&D are equal opportunity offenders.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> You mean the D's would support a work requirement? Never seen anything like that since the WPA…..................
> 
> Sorry - I guess when i read "THE R s would never do that….no Corps would benefit" I didn t see anything about the democrats….
> 
> That doesn t read as R&D are equal opportunity offenders.
> 
> - DrDirt


They shaft us in different ways at different times. I'm sure the Ds would support public works programs as opposed to a give away only program if the the Rs would allow it to pass through Congress, which they never will allow either. There is plenty of work to do. It would take at least 2 trillion to return our infrastructure back to the level it was in 1980.

Setting ones biases aside to analyze the current condition of us, U.S., reveals the regressive disaster of the last 30 years. The loss of our equity in our education, earning power, upward mobility, pension assets and in our homes is the biggest wealth transfer in the history of the world. It cannot continue without severe consequences at some point in the future. It will be interesting to see the format of that reversal.


----------



## DrDirt

> Setting ones biases aside to analyze the current condition of us, U.S., reveals the regressive disaster of the last 30 years. The loss of our equity in our education, earning power, upward mobility, pension assets and in our homes is the biggest wealth transfer in the history of the world. It cannot continue without severe consequences at some point in the future. It will be interesting to see the format of that reversal.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Education has been on the down swing since Carter created the Dept of Education.
College tuitions have exploded at a rate more than double the healthcare expenditures. Only a small portion of that unaffordability is due to states backing off their support.
The rest is bloated administration and easy money.
Liz Warren somehow believes that the answer to the 57K/year tuition at Harvard is to have student loans at the 0.7% federal loan rate.
I think maybe college should be less expensive…. not just less interest on ever larger debt.

On incomes - - outsourcing and globalization have our standard of living in the crosshairs.
Interesting that many of the most vocal critics of outsourcing, shop at Walmart and harbor Freight, and get groceries at Wal-Mart. And somehow then thing that the problem is Political.
people are unwilling to pay US wages for goods. So the "discount" chains are busy as ever.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The real issues are US trade and tax policy. What you cite are results, not causes. If the policies were corrected, the opportunities for consumers to be morons would be dramatically reduced and they would be able to afford to by American they way they did before Jack Welch, GE CEO, invented outsourcing; or at least he brags about inventing it in his autobiography.


----------



## DrDirt

So is the person that puts cheap chinese goods on the shelf the problem

Or the consumer slitting their own throats, as they happily pay low prices, and watch their neighbors home go into forclosure.

So long as we are addicted to cheap China goods, the standard of living will continue to go down, and we will all be working the counter at McDonalds, and SOcial Security will go under, because there just isn't enough money coming in from 10 dollar/hour jobs to keep it afloat.

But we can thank 'favored nation trade status for Chi-coms' and Nafta. Then rather than have taxes that reflect government spending, we borrow money from china to give away.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

If you want to single out anyone to blame, it would be the people putting cheap garbage on the shelf. They are the ones with the money to buy the prostitutes in Congress that set trade and tax policy. (No offense to prostitutes intended.)

The results of favored nation trade status and NAFTA were and are quite predictable. When Pepsi sent Nixon to China, he said they had a billion consumers for American products. I said they have no money but they have a billion cheap laborers to take American jobs. Who was right about that?

There is really nothing you can do about it at this point other than try to educate and inspire you fellow Americans to go to the polls. 45% are right wing authoritarian personalities and / or single issue hot button voters. They will vote against their own best interests based on 10,000 years of evolution and emotion. Getting 10% in the middle to the polls that are capable of understanding the issues and consequences is the key to turning around this regressive march back to the policies of the 19th Century complete with boom bust cycles and monopoly control of the market place. If that does not happen, we will eventually see chaos in the streets or socialism. Look at what Bush the dumber and Cheney/Halliburton left in Iraq. They have totally open free markets controlled by a few, peanut wages with high unemployment and everything else the 1% wants for us, U.S. ;-(


----------



## DanYo

> They have totally open free markets controlled by a few, peanut wages with high unemployment and everything else the 1% wants for us, U.S. ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Dan um Style


----------



## RobS888

> So is the person that puts cheap chinese goods on the shelf the problem
> 
> Or the consumer slitting their own throats, as they happily pay low prices, and watch their neighbors home go into forclosure.
> 
> So long as we are addicted to cheap China goods, the standard of living will continue to go down, and we will all be working the counter at McDonalds, and SOcial Security will go under, because there just isn t enough money coming in from 10 dollar/hour jobs to keep it afloat.
> 
> But we can thank favored nation trade status for Chi-coms and Nafta. Then rather than have taxes that reflect government spending, we borrow money from china to give away.
> 
> - DrDirt


What is wrong with NAFTA? Comparing most favoured nation status with China to NAFTA isn't proper. Mexico and Canada are capitalist countries that pay living wages. China is not and doesn't.

China holds what, 1/15th of the US debt, Japan holds almost as much. About 1.2 trillion each.

The 1 billion/day interest is what is killing us, not who owns it. If China doesn't want it they can sell it. They can't hurt us with it. They are like non voting stock holders.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It started with NAFTA. If Mexico is so great, why are they all trying to come here?


----------



## RobS888

> It started with NAFTA. If Mexico is so great, why are they all trying to come here?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I never said great or otherwise, just that they are capitalist and can earn a living. Compared to China, Mexico may be a great place to live.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

yeah, and I don't remember who is undercutting China, Maybe India?


----------



## patcollins

> yeah, and I don t remember who is undercutting China, Maybe India?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


India, Pakistan, and wait until someone figures out how to exploit Africa for its labor.

African labor will make China look expensive in the not too distant future.


----------



## RobS888

> yeah, and I don t remember who is undercutting China, Maybe India?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> India, Pakistan, and wait until someone figures out how to exploit Africa for its labor.
> 
> African labor will make China look expensive in the not too distant future.
> 
> - patcollins


Well, I read China is making serious investments in Africa, so probably not too far of the mark.


----------



## DrDirt

> yeah, and I don t remember who is undercutting China, Maybe India?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


India has high import duties to keep Chinese goods out.

There are no capitalist countries. As soon as the government sets wages, hours, welfare, food, education, and freedom of speech… then decided who is "too big to fail" offers kickbacks/bailouts etc….. this system left being a free market 50 years ago, when Dwight Eisenhower talked about the military industrial complex.

Nevermind Washington - - look at Bloomberg…. he spent 650 million of his own money being mayor for 3 terms.
The New republican governor of Illinois…. same deal spent 27 million of his own money.

NAFTA is a problem because we then moved manufacturing to enjoy SLAVE WAGES, and near zero environmental laws. I have no issues with Canada as a trading partner.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> There are no capitalist countries. As soon as the government sets wages, hours, welfare, food, education, and freedom of speech… then decided who is "too big to fail" offers kickbacks/bailouts etc….. this system left being a free market 50 years ago, when Dwight Eisenhower talked about the military industrial complex.
> 
> - DrDirt


Chile is finally recovering from a "free market." Honduras and Iraq have a nearly totally "free market" complete with total chaos. We are marching rapidly towards a "free market" with some sort of chaos in our future. A "free market" creates a few monopolies that control everything. The gov't doesn't decide who is too big to fail or jail. That is a function of the magic of the "free market." Those monopolies who establish themselves as too big to fail or jail buy up enough of gov't to maintain their position and prevent any regulations that might threaten their immoral ventures by making them criminal as they were pre-1980.

The first stabilization of the economy and markets that happened in the early 20th century by Teddy R and others, got a small foothold. Post 1980 policies of that time lead to the Roaring 20s. That economic engine hadn't built any resilience yet, so when the collapse came, the Great Depression resulted. This time it will have taken 30 or 40 years to cause a Great Depression.

50 years ago, when Dwight Eisenhower talked about the military industrial complex, tax and to some extent trade policy regulated the market and economy creating stable conditions that begat the greatest economic engine the world has ever seen. It is so resilient, over 30 years of mismanagement has not been able to destroy it. It is still the largest economy in the world, but that will change soon. The greed of the 1% is destroying the market and infrastructure they depend on to facilitate conducting their enterprises.

If this were a football game, it would be like having normal games with rules pre-1980. At that point we would start eliminating rules. First to go could be roughing the kicker. Why give them special protection? Everyone else takes their hits. How about pass interference? Why not knock the receiver down and grab the ball? What about breaking the quarterback's arm. Nobody wants to have the other team throwing long passes, do they? Matter of fact, do away with unnecessary roughness. That would lead to no referees. Why have them if there are no rules?

Now we have created 21st century football without any rules. Throw the ball onto a field for anyone who wants to show up and see what happens. What is the point of the game? Get the ball and keep all to yourself if you can.


----------



## RobS888

> yeah, and I don t remember who is undercutting China, Maybe India?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> India has high import duties to keep Chinese goods out.
> 
> There are no capitalist countries. As soon as the government sets wages, hours, welfare, food, education, and freedom of speech… then decided who is "too big to fail" offers kickbacks/bailouts etc….. this system left being a free market 50 years ago, when Dwight Eisenhower talked about the military industrial complex.
> 
> Nevermind Washington - - look at Bloomberg…. he spent 650 million of his own money being mayor for 3 terms.
> The New republican governor of Illinois…. same deal spent 27 million of his own money.
> 
> NAFTA is a problem because we then moved manufacturing to enjoy SLAVE WAGES, and near zero environmental laws. I have no issues with Canada as a trading partner.
> 
> - DrDirt


Capitalist and free markets aren't the same thing at all. Don't free markets lead to monopolies. The complaints you made about Mexico; slave wages and no environmental control laws are more a condition of free markets. Didn't we have that in the late 1800s? That is why we have a lot of the laws we have now.

I'm not an economist and based on my latest tool purchase, I may not know the value of money either ;-)

I did read that Canada is our largest trading partner and that we have the largest trading relationship of any two countries. Actually, we are each other's largest trading partners.

Mexico may have slave wages, I don't know, but aren't the Chinese closer to actual slaves?


----------



## DrDirt

> Capitalist and free markets aren t the same thing at all. Don t free markets lead to monopolies. The complaints you made about Mexico; slave wages and no environmental control laws are more a condition of free markets. Didn t we have that in the late 1800s? That is why we have a lot of the laws we have now.
> 
> I m not an economist and based on my latest tool purchase, I may not know the value of money either ;-)
> 
> I did read that Canada is our largest trading partner and that we have the largest trading relationship of any two countries. Actually, we are each other s largest trading partners.
> 
> Mexico may have slave wages, I don t know, but aren t the Chinese closer to actual slaves?
> 
> - RobS888


In free markets you would CHOOSE who you do business with. Just as people CHOOSe to go to the a 'whole foods store' and not a Walmart Supercenter.

If mexico's wages were good, they wouldn't be working for near nothing picking fruit and paying the drug runners to get their kids up here.
Yes China is worse… but you cannot just WALK to a better country without getting shot. And only the US has open borders

If wages were high, there would suddenly not be an incentive to MOVE production south of the border.

like this:
http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article1054371.html

Making business jets, isn't a 'commodity/low margin' proposition. So all the union assembly and machinist jobs to build "lear" jets went away…. so now those folks work at McDonalds or as a Walmart stocker/greeter instead.
So standard of living for the community falls.


----------



## RobS888

> In free markets you would CHOOSE who you do business with. Just as people CHOOSe to go to the a whole foods store and not a Walmart Supercenter.
> 
> If mexico s wages were good, they wouldn t be working for near nothing picking fruit and paying the drug runners to get their kids up here.
> Yes China is worse… but you cannot just WALK to a better country without getting shot. And only the US has open borders
> 
> If wages were high, there would suddenly not be an incentive to MOVE production south of the border.
> 
> like this:
> http://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article1054371.html
> 
> Making business jets, isn t a commodity/low margin proposition. So all the union assembly and machinist jobs to build "lear" jets went away…. so now those folks work at McDonalds or as a Walmart stocker/greeter instead.
> So standard of living for the community falls.
> 
> - DrDirt


In a free market Walmart would buy up whole foods, so you would only have the illusion of choice. Recent history is full of cases where a large, less competitive company purchases rivals. Free market yes, competition & choice, no.

I think in a micro sense free markets may work, like vendors in a farmers market perhaps, but not on the larger scale.

The Sherman antitrust laws has this explanation:

The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.

The free market will ultimately lead to oligarchs and monopolies.


----------



## Mahdeew

I think a lot of people confuse wages with money.


----------



## DrDirt

> The Sherman antitrust laws has this explanation:
> 
> The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.
> 
> The free market will ultimately lead to oligarchs and monopolies.
> 
> - RobS888


The government is interested in control and power over people.

They will always CLAIM that every law they pass is for our own good, because they know better.

Remember "we are from the government and are here to help"


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The government is interested in control and power over people.
> 
> They will always CLAIM that every law they pass is for our own good, because they know better.
> 
> Remember "we are from the government and are here to help"
> 
> - DrDirt


We, the people, are the gov't. The Oligarchs acquire the means to corrupt it. That is why they have to be taxed back to civility when they threaten the viability of the free state. It is also why the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed and why Reagan suspended enforcement. It is also whey all the states admitted in the late 19th century have an initiative process for the people to directly pass laws in their state constitutions. Corruption was out of control then as it is now.


----------



## RobS888

> The government is interested in control and power over people.
> 
> They will always CLAIM that every law they pass is for our own good, because they know better.
> 
> Remember "we are from the government and are here to help"
> 
> - DrDirt


I must be a glass 1/2 full on the government because I don't believe your claims are at all true. Most regulations are written in blood.

Also, anything Raygun said is automatically a lie to me. I realize that to many he was sanctified, if not deified, but to some of us he was a buffoon that didn't even know where he was or what the words meant he was reading from the prompter.

He couldn't even become a Republican now after doubling the debt. How's your trickle down going? Enjoying the scraps?


----------



## RobS888

> I think a lot of people confuse wages with money.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Wages:
An amount of money that a worker is paid based on the number of hours, days, etc., that are worked.

Do you mean compensation? That could include benefits like health care that aren't money.


----------



## CharlesA

I prefer my wages in money.


----------



## RobS888

> I prefer my wages in money.
> 
> - CharlesA


Me to!

I work with a guy that claims he works for cookies, that seems to get him a full wage and a lot of cookies.


----------



## DrDirt

> I must be a glass 1/2 full on the government because I don t believe your claims are at all true. Most regulations are written in blood.
> 
> Also, anything Raygun said is automatically a lie to me. I realize that to many he was sanctified, if not deified, but to some of us he was a buffoon that didn t even know where he was or what the words meant he was reading from the prompter.
> 
> He couldn t even become a Republican now after doubling the debt. How s your trickle down going? Enjoying the scraps?
> 
> - RobS888


I see Obama as you see Reagan… everything Obama says is a lie.
If you like your doctor you can keep him.

I will have the most transparent administration ever

I am not king, i cannot do amnesty by executive order…...

Please do tell us how NAFTA under clinton improved manufacturing job growth in the USA…..



> We, the people, are the gov't.


Not since the 1800's… maybe not even then. Woodrow Wilson, FDR and the progressives were always well connected rich folks, working on how to screw over the working man and retain/grow power for themselves..

Representation went toward mob rule when the 17th ammendment was pushed through by progressives like William Jennings Bryant (Wilson's secretary of state) to have direct elections of senators. It has been high dollar buying of offices and fleecing voters ever since.

Gee maybe Hillary will roll back Bush's policies and the patriot act….. but I wouldn't hold my breath


----------



## DrDirt

For me a lot of the concerns really make good questions about thom Hartmans reagan issue…. on his site.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/11/antitrust-why-does-thom-still-blame-reagan
I believe these are the two main culprits:
Telecommunications Act of 1996
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

For antitrust and Reagan -Probably it's policies that encouraged monopolies to form that are to blame.
80% of all media is owned by six individuals/corporations.
A few too big to fail banks control well over half of the nation's financial system.

But arguably both of these examples can also be blamed on laws passed during the CLINTON years.

Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

Technology has had a huge impact - - more so than MERGERS….

Who did Walmart MERGE with?
Who did Amazon MERGE with
Indeed those are examples of essentially Monopolies forming…. but they had little/nothing to do with changes to Antitrust under Reagan, that dealt with Mergers and Acquisitions.

The small Mom/pop stores cannot compete with Amazon Prime, with free shipping to your door, and no need to maintain a brick and mortar store front.

I will even grant Obama - that as we look around, there are fewer service jobs…. with ATM's instead of going to a bank.. Who actually goes inside to deposit a paycheck (many employers MANDATE direct deposit)
Smart Phone Aps for pizza rather than a counter person. that makes a job recovery more difficult.

I believe the minimum wage debate will drive this further. The more expensive we make labor… the easier it is to justify installing a touch screen.

Just look at the trend for "self Checkout" at Lowes/Krogers/Dillons/Safeway/Home Depot etc. Where do those workers go?

Or Robots at Lowes.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/newest-workers-for-lowes-robots-1414468866

WHere does this finally play out…. 
I remember the Twilight Zone version: Th Brain Center at WHipples
http://www.hulu.com/watch/440854


----------



## RobS888

> I see Obama as you see Reagan… everything Obama says is a lie.
> If you like your doctor you can keep him.
> 
> I will have the most transparent administration ever
> 
> I am not king, i cannot do amnesty by executive order…...


Attacking the current president doesn't lesson RayGuns crimes.
Voodoo economics aside, Iran-contra anyone, good thing Bush senior was around to make a pardon.

Even from before he was elected he was a lying liar, the whole debate gate and there you go again. What a load of crap that was. Negotiating to have Iran keep the hostages longer to make Carter look bad. Just the saddest thing I could imagine a president doing.

Ronnie makes President Obama look like a saint.


----------



## DanYo

Please steer the topic back on course guys.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## Mahdeew

No, I was not including benefits. I should have said, people confuse money wage with real wage instead of 
"I think a lot of people confuse wages with money."


----------



## Mahdeew

Neoconservatives smelling blood. Will the next war be paid with our pensions and social security?


----------



## RobS888

> Please steer the topic back on course guys.
> 
> - Dan um Style


RayGun helped bring about the current situation we are discussing.


----------



## RobS888

> Neoconservatives smelling blood. Will the next war be paid with our pensions and social security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - mrjinx007


I'm ashamed of what we did to Iran.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Technology has had a huge impact - - more so than MERGERS….
> 
> Who did Walmart MERGE with?
> Who did Amazon MERGE with
> Indeed those are examples of essentially Monopolies forming…. but they had little/nothing to do with changes to Antitrust under Reagan, that dealt with Mergers and Acquisitions.
> 
> - DrDirt


They did not merge with anyone. Antitrust enforcement does not allow market domination by a monopoly whether enforcement is by way of the Dept of Justice or civil action by an injured party being locked out to he market place.

There has been and always will be individuals displaced by advancements in technology. Look what the internal combustion engine did to the harness makers and wheelwrights! Some will make the transition and some will not. If a job is worth doing, it should pay a living wage. If it is not worth a living wage, then it is not necessary or will be replaced by technological advances. All these issues will work themselves out in the "magic" of the market place in a viable economy which creates wealth, which we do not. We have been exporting it for over 30 years.

PS, I used to do service work for a guy who won an antitrust suit because he was able to show collusion by 2 major players in the local market locked him out of the steel business. After he got into the steel business, he told me all his profits want to me to keep his antiquated equipment operating. He probably should have banked the money and lived happily ever after ;-))


----------



## Mahdeew

Reagan represented an image of a cowboy which he played in his movies. Bush used the same "bring it on" attitude and was adorned for it. Arnold could't run for president and Clint; he probably could have had a good chance. John Wayne would get it in 2016 if he was alive. We need a good western movie hero to save the day!


----------



## RobS888

> Reagan represented an image of a cowboy which he played in his movies. Bush used the same "bring it on" attitude and was adorned for it. Arnold could t run for president and Clint; he probably could have had a good chance. John Wayne would get it in 2016 if he was alive. We need a good western movie hero to save the day!
> 
> - mrjinx007


True, he was an actor playing a role.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Now we know why Wally World is having to raise wages


----------



## Mahdeew

Topa, 
It goes back to the money wage vs real wage. People are moving to a higher paying jobs because they can't buy a gallon of milk with their current pay like they used to. Money wage is going up only to adjust for inflation; the real wage will stay the same. This is why politicians are doubling their salaries, they want real wages while we are getting a 1% income tax break. It is fine and dandy for MACD workers to make $15/hour but what good does it do when the price of gallon of milk and everything else has already baked into that money wage.


----------



## DrDirt

> They did not merge with anyone. Antitrust enforcement does not allow market domination by a monopoly whether enforcement is by way of the Dept of Justice or civil action by an injured party being locked out to he market place.


You mean like the governmetn break-up of Ma Bell…. and the government
Collusion is one thing… who did Amazon Collude with?



> There has been and always will be individuals displaced by advancements in technology.
> Look what the internal combustion engine did to the harness makers and wheelwrights!
> - TopamaxSurvivor


But there were *more* jobs in making cars than there were buggywhip manufacturers and wheelwrights

Now tehnology is going towards fewer jobs.
Where can people physically go anymore?


----------



## RobS888

> Collusion is one thing… who did Amazon Collude with?
> - DrDirt


Who said they are a monopoly and who said they colluded with anyone? Being dominant doesn't mean a monopoly. One can buy from many online resellers, so there are many choices. I can't see how Amazon matters to this at all.

You always get stuck on these vivid examples.


----------



## DrDirt

> Collusion is one thing… who did Amazon Collude with?
> - DrDirt
> 
> Who said they are a monopoly and who said they colluded with anyone? Being dominant doesn t mean a monopoly. One can buy from many online resellers, so there are many choices. I can t see how Amazon matters to this at all.
> 
> You always get stuck on these vivid examples.
> 
> - RobS888


Rob Topa and I were discussing Antitrust. He mentioned the problems of collusion between large players to keep small players out, and "preventing" market domination.
Amazon is DOMINANT
Facebook is DOMINANT
Google is DOMINANT

The argument was that this is all Reagans Fault which is BS. Reagan's antitrust changes were around Mergers and acquisions. Nothing about his changes had anything to do with Walmart and Amazon and the others growing into Behemoths that crushed the smaller competition.

They didn't get that way through "LAX merger and Acquisition rules"

You say Amazon has competition online… that is true.. just as true as there are mom and pop hardware stores you can go to instead of the BORG, and markets other than Wallyworld too.

That is not to say that the big guys don't run the show.
.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob Topa and I were discussing Antitrust. He mentioned the problems of collusion between large players to keep small players out, and "preventing" market domination.
> Amazon is DOMINANT
> Facebook is DOMINANT
> Google is DOMINANT
> 
> The argument was that this is all Reagans Fault which is BS. Reagan s antitrust changes were around Mergers and acquisions. Nothing about his changes had anything to do with Walmart and Amazon and the others growing into Behemoths that crushed the smaller competition.
> 
> They didn t get that way through "LAX merger and Acquisition rules"
> 
> You say Amazon has competition online… that is true.. just as true as there are mom and pop hardware stores you can go to instead of the BORG, and markets other than Wallyworld too.
> 
> That is not to say that the big guys don t run the show.
> - DrDirt


The funny thing is, you are mentioning relatively new companies in your example 2 of which don't even charge consumers for use. We should look at companies that existed in the 80s, perhaps Microsoft would be a good example or IBM or Lucent.


----------



## Mahdeew

I am assuming that when it is said, Reagan did this or Charter did that, we all know that no one person is capable of changing anything by themselves if congress does not go along with it. This is why powerful lobby line the pocket of both presidential and congressional races on both side of the isle. It's a win/win situation.


----------



## DrDirt

> The funny thing is, you are mentioning relatively new companies in your example 2 of which don t even charge consumers for use. We should look at companies that existed in the 80s, perhaps Microsoft would be a good example or IBM or Lucent.
> 
> - RobS888


Well since you think they are relevant…. fire away? what about them? P.S. Lucent was part of the break-up of Ma Bell…. the former R&D Powerhouse of 'Bell Labs' became lucent Technology

But since you bring them up….make your point.

If you are really believing that you are not "paying" for google and facebook that is sad
What "government antitrust laws' that evil Reagan changed prevented them from getting 'too big' ?

I see Microsoft as a pretty evil company that has been in trouble… 
But FOCUS young Jedi…. what did microsoft do that they would have been stopped by Pre-Reagan? or say a Jimmy Carter Second term…. none of 'exactly what' woudl have happened.

But since Bill Gates has his foundation, and they "Promise" to give their fortune away when they die instead of to any heirs….. they are untouchable 'Royals' since they are libs.


----------



## RobS888

> The funny thing is, you are mentioning relatively new companies in your example 2 of which don t even charge consumers for use. We should look at companies that existed in the 80s, perhaps Microsoft would be a good example or IBM or Lucent.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Well since you think they are relevant…. fire away? what about them? P.S. Lucent was part of the break-up of Ma Bell…. the former R&D Powerhouse of Bell Labs became lucent Technology
> 
> But since you bring them up….make your point.
> 
> If you are really believing that you are not "paying" for google and facebook that is sad
> What "government antitrust laws that evil Reagan changed prevented them from getting too big ?
> 
> - DrDirt


Don't confuse paying with being charged. I don't use facebook, but I realize some companies have a large presence, but that is part of their marketing and CRM. If they go to a trade show it goes into the bottom line, so to me, that is a price of their doing bidness. I don't have a dog in this fight, I just wonder how Amazon got into a monopolies discussion.

On Reagan being evil, we agree! Worst "president" ever.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*What "government antitrust laws that evil Reagan changed prevented them from getting too big ?*

Reagan did not change any laws unilaterally. Selective prosecution is at the pleasure of all administrations. He simply quit enforcing Sherman antitrust. No one else has started. Clinton sure as 7734 wasn't gong to do it. He has no core values, just in there for ego and personal gratification. Neither of the Bushes would go against the grain. Now we are to Obama. He isn't going to disrupt those who are too big to fail or jail. Eric Holder even helps Chase cover their crimes against us, U.S., rather than prosecute. Loretta Lynch is a corporate &^%$#* too! So, if she gets confirmed, expect more of the same.


----------



## DrDirt

Yeah Reagan listened to Alan Greenspan.

Kos has a different history than the Reagan as Antichrist approach…it is scary to quote the Daily Kos as being 'rational'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/15/358067/-Fed-Judges-schooled-in-allowing-Monopolies

There is a great discussion on how the system was changed by 'training judges'

Loretta Lynch - the queen of civil forfeiture, she will do financially what Holder did racially


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

An economic ladder upward is useless and unstable without its middle rungs.


----------



## DrDirt

> An economic ladder upward is useless and unstable without its middle rungs.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


How much is due to Californians selling their McMansions to the rich Chinese, and moving to "Cheaper" seattle…. and driving what was once middle class home prices out of sight?

The California Migration into Colorado has been a real problem. You bring in people that think a 2 bedroom house with no garage "SHOULD" cost 600K….
Next thing you know the local wage base cannot support median homes.


----------



## Mahdeew

Colorado real estate is going nuts for sure. Real estate in general is doing well except for the oil producing states. Time to move to Alaska?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> An economic ladder upward is useless and unstable without its middle rungs.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> How much is due to Californians selling their McMansions to the rich Chinese, and moving to "Cheaper" seattle…. and driving what was once middle class home prices out of sight?
> 
> The California Migration into Colorado has been a real problem. You bring in people that think a 2 bedroom house with no garage "SHOULD" cost 600K….
> Next thing you know the local wage base cannot support median homes.
> 
> - DrDirt


Real estate prices are not driving down or stagnating incomes.


----------



## DrDirt

> Real estate prices are not driving down or stagnating incomes.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


True - But lack of affordable housing, to transition from apartment… to nice apartment… to condo…. to FAMILY home does have the effect of creating a barrier to economic mobility
The more extreme cases like the folks buying up "vacation homes" where they only pay property taxes, but are not around long enough to keep grocery stores open, and teachers paid to have a functioning economy.

The economy is a lot like the game Kerplunk









You keep pulling out supposedly unimportant sticks…. reassuring yourself (e.g. NAFTA) that the jobs lost wont be missed, and that those people will be retrained for 'better jobs'... until the whole thing crashes.

Now to Seattle, if all you can have is some rich folks, and then a group that has to survive on Subsidies… you create a situation where folks say "seattle is nice, but I cannot afford to live there", then indeed housing doesn't drive down wages, but it does drive the absence of the middle class.

As your article showed, you either have to be rich…. or dependent on government as your sugar daddy. those in the middle can't afford it.


----------



## DrDirt

> Colorado real estate is going nuts for sure. Real estate in general is doing well except for the oil producing states. Time to move to Alaska?
> 
> - mrjinx007


Alaska has some of the same troubles… with the "Buying Alaska" on the discovery channel, you have wealthy Californians coming up in the middle of summer and saying WOW… Beautiful…. and buying a Cabin built on Permafrost, so there is no septic or running water… and paying more than 100K for a 800 square foot cabin with an outhouse, that you have to haul water to, and drain your sink into a bucket.

Some of that is because real-estate is seen as a stable safe haven, so folks put money into places that then sit vacant, while there is scarcity of homes, and high prices for people that want to be year around residents.

Supply and Demand controls prices.

Likely the Bakken region in the Dakota's may be different.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> You keep pulling out supposedly unimportant sticks…. reassuring yourself (e.g. NAFTA) that the jobs lost wont be missed, and that those people will be retrained for better jobs … until the whole thing crashes.
> - DrDirt


I never said NAFTA jobs would not be missed. Maybe all the interrelated issues I point out are a bit too complex to be easily followed?

Here is a case where gov't regulation is going to cut into profits!


----------



## DrDirt

No, but you made the claim that housing prices and the loss of the middle class are UNRELATED


> Real estate prices are not driving down or stagnating incomes.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I pointed out that the economy has a BUNCH of interrelated points, that don't allow one to just say "no link between home price and pay" is too simplistic…. not too complex.

People like Krugman that pimped NAFTA claimed that there is really no downside.

Here was Paul Krugmans 11/1993 synopsis:
The truth about NAFTA may be summarized in five propositions:


NAFTA will have no effect on the number of jobs in the United States;


NAFTA will not hurt and may help the environment;


NAFTA will, however, produce only a small gain in overall U.S. real income;


NAFTA will also probably lead to a slight fall in the real wages of unskilled U.S. workers;


For the United States, NAFTA is essentially a foreign-policy rather than an economic issue.
http://www.pkarchive.org/trade/ForeignPolicyStupid.html

I think we have seen after 20 years of this, that it has not been such a benevolent policy.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The point of that article is what little bit of middle class that is left is being driven out of Seattle.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Here is a poll for you to mull over ;-) Looks like a lot of people are voting against their positions on the issues.


----------



## Mahdeew

Me and 24000 families left Alaska in 1986 because of the recession. At that time I could homestead a 40 acre or a 110 acre plot and own it within 7 years if I meet certain criterion. Several years prior, my friend had bought a house for 85 G's and many brand new houses better looking than his had popped up in the neighborhood for less than 80 G's. He finally sold it for much less, swallowed the loss and retired in Hawaii. These housing cycles seem to happen every 20 years or so.


----------



## DrDirt

> Here is a poll for you to mull over ;-) Looks like a lot of people are voting against their positions on the issues.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


It would be more interesting to see the funding side.

Sure many think that Pre-K education would be good
Adding green energy jobs is good.

Everyone likes all kinds of programs until you hand them the bill.

there iis a guaranteed work question (similar to the old WPA)....
If the question e.g. the spend money on infrastructure at 400Billion a year, were asked the following way:
"do agree/disagree/neutral" that "We should borrow 400 billion dollars from China EVERY year to fix the infrastructure, and get flyover country high speed internet" 
*
I bet the results would be very different.*

Same with "Debt Free" education, paid for by "the government"......asked to a bunch of kids on cell phones that couldn't tell you who the president is, but can name all the characters from Jersey Shore.

It is easy for these folks to see federal money as "Free Manna from Heaven" to pay for everything.

Hence the questions like "Federal Matching donations to political campaigns" 
as though that "gets money out of politics"

That the Post office should become a community bank to 'Compete" with Citibank and other banks….(likely with the same success that the Post office competes with Fedex on package delivery)

Most interesting Question I saw was near the end….









*To your question on voting against beliefs….if it were really 3/4 of people across all political denominations feel this way…. why hasn't it changed?*
Why were these NSA behaviours RE-approved and expanded?


----------



## DrDirt

Antitrust in Europe…. filed by General Mills…. 203 Million dollar fine (192 million Euro) 
Yogurt Price Fixing by the French Cartel.

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/03/13/general-mills-exposes-illegal-yogurt-price-fixing-in-france/

The ruling found that the companies agreed on how and when to raise prices from 2006 to 2012, and divided up volumes.

The last big ruling by the competition authority targeted makers of toothpaste, shampoo and cleaning products. The regulator fined 13 consumer-products makers about 950 million euros for price-fixing, including U.S.-based Colgate-Palmolive, Procter & Gamble, and Sara Lee and Anglo-Dutch firm Unilever.


----------



## Mahdeew

Just got this in the mail:
*This is too true to be funny.

The next time you hear a politician use the
Word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about
whether you want the 'politicians' spending
YOUR tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,
But one advertising agency did a good job of
Putting that figure into some perspective in
One of its releases.

A.
A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

B.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

C.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were
living in the Stone Age.

D.
A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

E.
A billion dollars ago was only
8 hours and 20 minutes,
at the rate our government
is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain…
let's take a look at New Orleans …
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.

Louisiana Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D)
was asking Congress for
250 BILLION DOLLARS
To rebuild New Orleans . Interesting number…
What does it mean?

A.
Well .. If you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans 
(every man, woman and child)
You each get $516,528

B.
Or… If you have one of the 188,251 homes in
New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.

C.
Or… If you are a family of four…
Your family gets $2,066,012.

Washington , D.C

HELLO!
Are all your calculators broken??

Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax (Fed)
Federal Unemployment Tax (FU TA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax 
State Income Tax 
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax 
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
(And to think, we left British Rule to avoid so many taxes)

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago…
And our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt…
We had the largest middle class in the world…
And Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What happened?
Can you spell

'politicians'!

And I still have to
Press '1'
For English.

I hope this goes around the
USA
At least 100 times

What the hell has happened to our country?????
*


----------



## DrDirt

Mr Jinkx- - - it is the death by 1000 paper cuts.

each one passed because EACH one (except property and Federal income tax for the to 53%) is "minor"

Indeed it too Woodrow Wilson to begin the individual income tax - - as one of the early progressives, with ideas on public works in the place of any kind of personal responsibility or independence.

If you oppose it when they want an extra 0.25% 'Temporary' price increase to build a water park… you must hate children… or be Anti Science etc.

All well meaning folks addicted to Opium… i mean O-P-M… Other Peoples Money. They have great ideas that the personally don't want to pay for but feel a need to pick our collective pockets for *their* "great idea"


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*Same with "Debt Free" education, paid for by "the government"…...asked to a bunch of kids on cell phones that couldn't tell you who the president is, but can name all the characters from Jersey Shore.*

We had debt free education before 1980 or before Reagan destroyed it in California.

*To your question on voting against beliefs….if it were really 3/4 of people across all political denominations feel this way…. why hasn't it changed?
Why were these NSA behaviours RE-approved and expanded?*

People are ignorant and do not know what is happening. The media being crippled by the end of the Fairness Doctrine is a big problem. How many know Bush the dumber started illegal eavesdropping in Feb 2001 long before 911? His vindictive retribution towards Qwest for resisting caused that company's bankruptcy as reported by TH.

*That the Post office should become a community bank to 'Compete" with Citibank and other banks….(likely with the same success that the Post office competes with Fedex on package delivery)*

If the Rs removed the poison pill requiring the USPS to fund a $75 billion trust fund for retirement of employees that have not been born yet, they would be in good shape. The unnecessary $5 billion/year expense is a significant burden designed to end the PO as we have known it. Lets see Fed Ex or UPS take a letter from New Orleans to Nome for $.50. I will never happen ;-)

When I was a R party officer, I wondered why are we trying to destroy the middle class and this country? It is quite traumatic discovering the people you support are stabbing you in the back every chance they get. Like Hartmann says, there are 2 kinds of Rs, the rich and the suckers ;-(


----------



## DanYo

> Just got this in the mail:
> *This is too true to be funny.
> 
> The next time you hear a politician use the
> Word billion in a casual manner, think about
> whether you want the politicians spending
> YOUR tax money.
> 
> A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,
> But one advertising agency did a good job of
> Putting that figure into some perspective in
> One of its releases.
> 
> A.
> A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
> 
> B.
> A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
> 
> C.
> A billion hours ago our ancestors were
> living in the Stone Age.
> 
> D.
> A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
> 
> E.
> A billion dollars ago was only
> 8 hours and 20 minutes,
> at the rate our government
> is spending it.
> 
> While this thought is still fresh in our brain…
> let s take a look at New Orleans …
> It s amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
> 
> Louisiana Senator,
> Mary Landrieu (D)
> was asking Congress for
> 250 BILLION DOLLARS
> To rebuild New Orleans . Interesting number…
> What does it mean?
> 
> A.
> Well .. If you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans
> (every man, woman and child)
> You each get $516,528
> 
> B.
> Or… If you have one of the 188,251 homes in
> New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
> 
> C.
> Or… If you are a family of four…
> Your family gets $2,066,012.
> 
> Washington , D.C
> 
> HELLO!
> Are all your calculators broken??
> 
> Building Permit Tax
> CDL License Tax
> Cigarette Tax
> Corporate Income Tax
> Dog License Tax
> Federal Income Tax (Fed)
> Federal Unemployment Tax (FU TA)
> Fishing License Tax
> Food License Tax
> Fuel Permit Tax
> Gasoline Tax
> Hunting License Tax
> Inheritance Tax
> Inventory Tax
> IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
> IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
> Liquor Tax
> Luxury Tax
> Marriage License Tax
> Medicare Tax
> Property Tax
> Real Estate Tax
> Service charge Taxes
> Social Security Tax
> Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
> Sales Taxes
> Recreational Vehicle Tax
> School Tax
> State Income Tax
> State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
> Telephone Federal Excise Tax
> Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
> Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
> Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
> Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
> Telephone State and Local Tax
> Telephone Usage Charge Tax
> Utility Tax
> Vehicle License Registration Tax
> Vehicle Sales Tax
> Watercraft Registration Tax
> Well Permit Tax
> Workers Compensation Tax
> (And to think, we left British Rule to avoid so many taxes)
> 
> STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
> 
> Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago…
> And our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
> 
> We had absolutely no national debt…
> We had the largest middle class in the world…
> And Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
> 
> What happened?
> Can you spell
> 
> politicians !
> 
> And I still have to
> Press 1
> For English.
> 
> I hope this goes around the
> USA
> At least 100 times
> 
> What the hell has happened to our country?????
> *
> 
> - mrjinx007


----------



## roman

debate is about as useful as being the only guy without a finger on a trigger in a room full of guns










make no mistake, the people with the gift of the trigger,will always pick a picture where the target, stays focused on what counts


----------



## roman

I found Putin


----------



## Mahdeew

Short California, ND, TX, OK or long something else?


----------



## Mahdeew

I encourage you to allocate at least 2% of your portfolio into water funds.


----------



## Mahdeew

Putin has become a hero because of our dysfunctional government. This is nothing to make fun off or joke about. Both Russia and China have come up with their own SWIFT. The de-dollorazation among the Chines and Russians are being most welcomed by the rest of the world, especially the bricks and other tangible producers . Our option; war war, war.. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately we don't have the funds unless you want to give another 30% of your salary, social security and medicaid to Tom Cotton to start another war to line his pocket for the next united states presidential election. This is as sick as sick can get.


----------



## roman

Im a " Canadian" and he I share the same oceans

Shared through the barrel of a gun, rich in history, where just about every well meaning soul wants dumpster diving to end, and to keep an odd perspective on history, its wasn't long ago when earth was long covered in the colour of red, for hearts bleed dry

We have a large french populous here

Divorcing them would be downright ugly ........ divorce conflict isnt really understood until you pay the wife ?

Its often bitter and one sided, I cant help but think that the russians invested heavily into their friends, and just like a wife, robbed bald
not like any other guy or country or woman or man and coming out kicking and screaming

I think the west thinks they own the trigger, and I hope they do and fear the day they dont

Freedom is often won through smells of aromatherapy that children shouldn't have to experience unless the super fat ********************er should eventually have to walk

I do ask myself, when I look at a guy who hunts off the steepes of Mongolia, where not a shrivel of life ever embraces a footstep, and the man is happy

My fear is that those who cant even master their own language, and know something, will one day succeed into the abyss of a

dumpster


----------



## roman

if water was a concern

i wouldn't live there : )


----------



## roman

if I was to shoot my mouth off

Canada has enuf oil to feed the world forever, and the water to prove it : )


----------



## roman

its real

like a nuclear ship

not everyone has one : )


----------



## Mahdeew

Yea, Canada.


----------



## roman

vote oil

?


----------



## roman

hope the day comes where "reload"

never happens


----------



## Adrock1

What is fundamentally evil or unfair about wealth? If 1 person had 99% of the wealth in this country why would that fundamentally be bad? I say good for him.

Its not a zero sum game. No one has to suffer in order for the rich man to be rich. To the contrary, many many people have probably profited and prospered fro his wealth in the form of the people he employed, the money he spent, etc.

Wealth inequality is a straw man, a non issue. In America if you have even a half decent work ethic and desire to succeed you almost cant help but make decent living. If your poor in America there is a reason, and its got nothing to do with rich folk.


----------



## TravisH

I don't think anyone would pick to live 100 years ago, contrary to email snipet above. Lets take a look at 100 years ago how would things be different. Rockefeller controlled 1.5% of the US GDP (his 900 million adjusted to inflation 325 billion dollars today). Most of us would be farming, mining, mills, or working hours that make a 50 hr work week laughable for little pay and no benefits. Heck my grandfather along with 25 or more kids in his area were riding flat cars to pick strawberries (12 and under) to earn money to help support the "American Farmer".

Sanitation, health conditions, medical care all were stellar of course during that time, many of you yearning for years of old would be in coffins as the life expectancy was mid 50's or so. Several would be living in very different conditions here in the states (Irish, Italians, African Americans, etc…) with the best plan for money and improvement in life status was waiting to join a war (hmmm….nah). We think Ferguson is bad… hmmm step back into that time frame.

Best yet none of us would be doing woodworking as a hobby or have the idle time to participate in discussions about how much better it was in 1815 or living in the "old world". Yep 100 years ago would be all roses for sure.


----------



## DrDirt

> *Same with "Debt Free" education, paid for by "the government"…...asked to a bunch of kids on cell phones that couldn't tell you who the president is, but can name all the characters from Jersey Shore.*
> 
> We had debt free education before 1980 or before Reagan destroyed it in California.


Um a little revisionist history? The BOARD OF REGENTS Proposed collecting tuition in 1982 (you know after Reagan was president. (true Reagan WANTED to start this…. but he was not successful…. so the above is false!)
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/28/science/california-weighs-end-of-free-college-education.html
The reason was because they were collapsing after the "master plan of the 60's met the reality of declining birth rates in the 70's and the system imploded.



> *To your question on voting against beliefs….if it were really 3/4 of people across all political denominations feel this way…. why hasn't it changed?
> Why were these NSA behaviours RE-approved and expanded?*
> 
> People are ignorant and do not know what is happening. The media being crippled by the end of the Fairness Doctrine is a big problem. How many know Bush the dumber started illegal eavesdropping in Feb 2001 long before 911? His vindictive retribution towards Qwest for resisting caused that company s bankruptcy as reported by TH.


true people are ignorant, but if this is true that 75% of all parties… that should include 75% of politicians who are the insiders…., lest the poll is all non-representative BS… but I was accepting the results in general.
It is concerting that things that basically "Everyone agrees should be stopped" is continued. why cant "non-controversial" items as the poll shows get done?



> *That the Post office should become a community bank to 'Compete" with Citibank and other banks….(likely with the same success that the Post office competes with Fedex on package delivery)*
> 
> If the Rs removed the poison pill requiring the USPS to fund a $75 billion trust fund for retirement of employees that have not been born yet, they would be in good shape. The unnecessary $5 billion/year expense is a significant burden designed to end the PO as we have known it. Lets see Fed Ex or UPS take a letter from New Orleans to Nome for $.50. I will never happen ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


hmmm facts don't quite agree that the post office is in good shape. Indeed the 5 billion/year is a hit. But according to the USPS themselves
http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual-reports/fy2010/ar2010_4_002.htm










from the USPS themselves, you see them LOSING 3 billion a year even if there was no pension finance requirement. I also see that in 2009, they only paid in 1.4 B and still lost 2.4Billion on top of that
The post office is always in competition with the DMV for crappiest customer service, and Proletariet style lines for service.

Sorry but a can only imagine trying to be issued a replacement ATM card at the post office or applying for a second mortgage. The fed is already bad, the post office as local bank would be a disaster.

The post office is losing money because they are irrelevant. AUTOMATION…. On-line bill pay. Nobody mails checks. Banner ads are cheaper than junk mail. USPS is a dinosaur faced with huge numbers of employees and lower and lower volumes of mail.

Europe is ahead of us as in the EU 2013 was the closure of the last government postal service.

Paper 'snail mail' is dead… only the post office doesn't see it. Just as Cell phones have replaced land lines.
It is the 21st centrury. let snail mail die - like buggy whip makers.


----------



## Mahdeew

Good blog post. Parental discretion is advised (L)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Kids came out of college without a crippling debt to a reasonably good job. Unfortunately, those days are long gone. This says the process started in 1969

It is too bad most voters get their political information from late night comics ;-( There is little doubt cream only rises to the top on fresh milk, it sure doesn't work for getting any elected officials at most levels. There is little doubt the majority of Congress belong in prison.

The Post Office has the infrastructure to expand and be profitable. Congress will not allow that. The real issue is breaking the largest remaining public employee union. Ending a vital service that has served America well since Franklin started it the year before the American Revolution began is not in the best interests of us, U.S. even is we need to spend a few tax dollars to subsidize the service. You really need to understand gov't services are to serve the needs of all people not to operate like a business serving specific needs of a few people.



> Good blog post. Parental discretion is advised (L)
> 
> - mrjinx007


That post indicates you are coming around to my way of thinking ;-)

Anyway, I'm not voting to end SS, Medicare or privatize fire departments, police forces or the PO. Unfortunately, there are a lot of suckers who are ;-(


----------



## Mahdeew

Topa, I rally don't have any political affiliations. I just see the road our country is travelling on is like one of those bridges to nowhere. Just like too see us choosing a better path than we are currently on and I believe the only way that is going to happen is without neither one of the existing country club parties.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I definitely agree with that!


----------



## Mahdeew

Asinine


----------



## RobS888

Dr dirt.

Sweden and Denmark merged their postal services, but the resulting company is owned by the 2 governments, so your statement about all EU countries ending government postal service would appear to be incorrect.


----------



## Mahdeew

Corporate America in charge.

Beware of BBQ police. Soon you have to buy a permit to BBQ?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Corporate America in charge.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Exactly why I wonder why those working stiffs who hate unions are suckered in to vote against their own interests. The 1% certainly has its union and it works very well for them and against us, U.S.


----------



## DrDirt

Money invested into campaigns

Who runs the political landscape

For the top 10 only #10 is red….


----------



## RobS888

14 Koch Industries $10,785,085 $3,630,985 $7,154,100 $49,500 $10,816,585

LMAO!

Because 501© organizations do not disclose their donors, contributions to those groups are not included here, except in cases where the group discloses voluntarily.

Too funny!

The Washington Post

Says the Kochs spent about $400 million in 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html

it takes the first 20 in that list to equal them.


----------



## DanYo

> vote oil
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Moron


Well said.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Money invested into campaigns
> 
> Who runs the political landscape
> 
> For the top 10 only #10 is red….
> 
> - DrDirt


Definitely misleading propaganda site. BTW, Congressional elections are state elections. The presidential election is the only national election.

Even foreign governments can give unlimited contributions to influence our elections now. No disclosure required. I think politicians should be required to wear sponsor identifications the was NASCAR displays them ;-)

I only heard a few minutes of it, but today Thom Hartmann was talking about the gems of corruption contained in Jeb Bush's email. He blatantly changed legislation to suit donors. It is doubtful if the corporate media will allow this on the airwaves.


----------



## Mahdeew

This is a good informative and educational post.


----------



## DrDirt

> 14 Koch Industries $10,785,085 $3,630,985 $7,154,100 $49,500 $10,816,585
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Because 501© organizations do not disclose their donors, contributions to those groups are not included here, except in cases where the group discloses voluntarily.


Of course the groups Ranked #1-13 of course have 'full disclosure' and there are NO additional dollars from ventures they are involved with …...right?
The list from open secrets represents the organizations direct and declared spending, so what did KOCH Industries spend. Your 400million dollar reference is money OTHERS donated to crossroads or whatever other group Koch is involved with.

... Bloomberg spent 650 million personally to be the Mayor of New York
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/nyregion/cost-of-being-mayor-650-million-if-hes-rich.html

Topa - - 
I think historically congressional elections were state…. however when you talk money… it has a broader influence. How much money in "tight" races comes from out of state to flip the Senate? 
Or to 'HELP" at embattled in their congressional and Senate races? You are right that technically they are state races… it really is ALL run at the national level now.. DNC and RNC pick and support candidates in the primaries.

When it comes to foreign money - that half Billion donated to the Clinton Global Initiative that Hillary got while Secretary of State from the Arabs is no concern?

Or the *US Tax money* that Obama spent to try to Unseat Netanyahu in the Israel Elections - I find that more disconcerting than whether an individual foreigner donated to Organizing for America or True the Vote


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*it really is ALL run at the national level now.. DNC and RNC pick and support candidates*

The Koch Bros say they will spend a billion in the next election, more than both parties in the last ;-( Since they threaten the free state and democracy, it must be time to tax them.

Clinton Global Initiative should not be political, but since politicians are liars by definition and Clinbtons are Clintons, who knows?


----------



## DrDirt

> The Koch Bros say they will spend a billion in the next election, *more than both parties in the last* ;-( Since they threaten the free state and democracy, it must be time to tax them.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


you mean the mid-terms…. even in 2012, the Obama re-election was a billion dollar campaign!

New York Times:
From the beginning of 2011 through Oct. 17, Mr. Obama and the Democrats raised about $1.06 billion, and Mr. Romney and the Republicans collected $954 million, including some money for the party's Congressional efforts, setting up 2012 to be the most expensive presidential campaign in history.

The Kochs aren't putting up a billion of their money… they are RAISING that much from suckers that send them checks.

Not unlike the Clinton Initiateive… they are spending OTHER PEOPLES Money.

Same with Soros, and Media Matters+ Organizing for America, and other organizations.

When we propose taxes, it needs to be on individuals based on THEIR earnings, not that they are running a fundraising group that collects other peoples "After Tax money"

By your logic we need to look at the 4 Billion dollars Every year the United way brings in since 2007 and tax their CEO based on that number INSTEAD of his Salary?

Or perhaps you suggest that Obama should be taxes on the 4 Trillion dollar Budget he is directing to be spent??

*I think people should be taxed on what they earn*.... not the total assets of businesses/foundations they direct


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The 2 parties spent just under a billion in the 2012 presidential election, That was not the total spent by and for the 2 top candidates.

There is little doubt the Kochs will put up what they say, Spending a billion should easily return 100 billion for them in favors.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in your statement about my logic and United Way ? ;-))


----------



## DrDirt

Topa the issue is one where Kochs and the others are not spending THEIR MONEY…..

WHen folks say they will spend a billion…. it is more accurate to say they will direct 1 billion in contributions (e.g. Americans for Prosperity Foundation money) in the next race.



> The Koch Bros say they will spend a billion in the next election, *more than both parties in the last* ;-( Since they threaten the free state and democracy, it must be time to tax them.


You made the statement that since THEY will spend a billion,* it is time to tax them more.*

Also each party spent a billion in the last election, so how do you get that this will be "More than both parties"

The Billion is not theirs… why would that be taxed as if it were their income?

The story you seem to refer to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/koch-brothers-2016_n_6550374.html

*Koch-Backed Network Aims To Spend Nearly $1 Billion On 2016 Elections*
WASHINGTON, Jan 26 (Reuters) - Conservative political advocacy groups supported by the billionaire Koch brothers plan to spend $889 million in the 2016 U.S. elections, more than double what they raised in 2012, the Washington Post reported on Monday.

Your experience with the party politics, and knowledge… you should know as well as I do, that the Rich do not spend* their own money* on this stuff. They get Tea Partiers and others to pony up donations to give to thier buddies.

No way in hell their personal bank accounts will go down by a billion dollars during the 2016 election.


----------



## RobS888

> 14 Koch Industries $10,785,085 $3,630,985 $7,154,100 $49,500 $10,816,585
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Because 501© organizations do not disclose their donors, contributions to those groups are not included here, except in cases where the group discloses voluntarily.
> 
> Of course the groups Ranked #1-13 of course have full disclosure and there are NO additional dollars from ventures they are involved with …...right?
> The list from open secrets represents the organizations direct and declared spending, so what did KOCH Industries spend. Your 400million dollar reference is money OTHERS donated to crossroads or whatever other group Koch is involved with.
> 
> - DrDirt


I thought your post was to show how democrats donated more, now you are saying that how the Kochs donated to obfuscate their involvement… does what again?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It matters little if the Kochs can raise the billion or write the check. Their political activities are paying off very well.

Thom Hartmann mentioned Americans for Prosperity could easily become the closest thing to a successful third party we have seen since the Republicans replaced the Whigs in 1856. Time will tell. Certainly the Tea Baggers take over of the R have left those with any sense of civility out in the cold. Those hopeless Rs will either take back their party leaving Americans for Prosperity /Tea Baggers on the far right or many Rs will eventually form a coalition with the Democrats. Either way, the only real hope Americans for Prosperity /Tea Baggers or the Rs who embrace this ideology have is to continue excluding people from the polls and buying suckers who vote single issues. Of course their dumbing down of education excluding labor history, preventing development of critical thinking and promoting authoritarian allegiance could prolong the process.

I think by the time they get these child labor laws repealed: 1842 States begin limiting children's work days
to 10 hours, America will wake up, wipe the board clean and restart the game. The question is will it be a Huey Long or an FDR that prevails in the reset process? Their unsatisfiable greed could easily leave them with nothing ;-))


----------



## DrDirt

> It matters little if the Kochs can raise the billion or write the check. Their political activities are paying off very well.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


So everyone that is a politically active bundler… like the 20K/plate Hollywood crowd needs a tax hike too right? Or do you have selective outrage on money in politics?
Tom Steyer, invests in solar, and then courts the government and pays off politicians to provide bans on brown energy and subsidies for HIS PERSONAL projects.
Doesn't sound so different than the Kochs.



> I thought your post was to show how democrats donated more, now you are saying that how the Kochs donated to obfuscate their involvement… does what again?
> 
> - RobS888


The democrats do donate more - and the list with the Kochs at #14… in donating their own personal money.
Just as the Kochs do bundling and fund 501c organizations… so do democrats. Sorry to have to break that little nugget that everyone else in the free world already knew.


----------



## RobS888

Dr dirt,

They officially donate more.

Everyone in the "free world" knows the Kochs are buying the presidency. Just like Romans bought Caesar or to become Caesar in the later years of the empire.

Hey I wonder if we can find any other parallels betwixt the US where the rich voice counts more than the vulgar voice and the decadent end of the Roman Empire?

Funny that your condemnation is that democrats are no worse than republicans.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr dirt,
> 
> They officially donate more.
> 
> Everyone in the "free world" knows the Kochs are buying the presidency. Just like Romans bought Caesar or to become Caesar in the later years of the empire.
> 
> Hey I wonder if we can find any other parallels betwixt the US where the rich voice counts more than the vulgar voice and the decadent end of the Roman Empire?
> 
> Funny that your condemnation is that democrats are no worse than republicans.
> 
> - RobS888


If you mean Republicans donate more to charity… they you are right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?source=science20.com&_r=0

For donating to policians.. Democrats raise more money
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/committees-fundraising-2013_n_4706418.html

I think democrats are worse, but only folks that are ideologs think that only one side raises 'dark money'


----------



## RobS888

Again through official channels.

Swift boated much?

Edit:

Op-ed stands for what? Opinion. Really? I had no idea people could just right up their opinion like that, how interesting. Like people on here throwing dictator around.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> It matters little if the Kochs can raise the billion or write the check. Their political activities are paying off very well.
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> So everyone that is a politically active bundler… like the 20K/plate Hollywood crowd needs a tax hike too right? Or do you have selective outrage on money in politics?


This is rather pointless if you are not able to understand the basic economic concepts stated.



> The democrats do donate more - and the list with the Kochs at #14… in donating their own personal money.
> Just as the Kochs do bundling and fund 501c organizations… so do democrats. Sorry to have to break that little nugget that everyone else in the free world already knew.
> 
> - DrDirt


Did you ever hear of the Citizens United court ruling? Those donor lists mean nothing. Everyone including foreign governments have lobbyists in DC (about 30,000 of them) and buy whom ever they choose. The Kochs are among the richest 5 people in the world. Their daddy, Fred Koch, started this long game plan when William F Buckley kicked him out of the Republican party. The boys have continued it. The Rs won the economic war against the middle class. The Ds won the social war against bigots, racists, ect. Thom Hartmann will give you the play by play history of the whole game if you are interested.

Matter of fact, Hartmann mentioned the economic boom in DC. Someone ask if he noticed the transformation of the poor slums around the capitol and wondered what caused it? In 1980, there were a few hundred lobbyists in DC. Today, at least 30,000 of them with 6 figure+ incomes have taken over the city! That volume of cash would rehab any inner city area.

As this country collapses economically and 1/2 the population now qualifies for gov't assistance in some form, why are you and others who are not in the 1% so adamantly defending and promoting their cause?

I can see a few single issue voters rallying around their pet peeve, be it abortion, gun control, gay rights, defense of marriage, ect, but how can there be enough ignorant voters joining them to support their own economic suicide and promoting the oligarchy?


----------



## DrDirt

> Did you ever hear of the Citizens United court ruling? Those donor lists mean nothing. Everyone including foreign governments have lobbyists in DC (about 30,000 of them) and buy whom ever they choose. The Kochs are among the richest 5 people in the world. Their daddy, Fred Koch, started this long game plan when William F Buckley kicked him out of the Republican party. The boys have continued it. The Rs won the economic war against the middle class.


You start correct enough on all of the lobbying… but then go off the rails on R's and Koch. I get it you are a partisan. I find George Soros more evil, as he purposely crashes economies through currency manipulation and is a true Nazi Collaborator.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/feared-figures.asp

Someone that buys air time during campaigns seems a lot less transformatively evil and dangerous.
Koch Brothers are the John Rockefeller's of the 2000's - - big shock the rich throw their weight around… but the dems need a boogie man while they hide behind big dems Soros, Buffett, Steyer, and Gates while pointing at Wichita Kansas and yelling 'boo!' it's the Kochs!


> The Ds won the social war against bigots, racists, ect. Thom Hartmann will give you the play by play history of the whole game if you are interested.


Not a Hartmann fan… however if you think the D's were the "anti-racists" then you are going down the road of Revisionist history. I spent some time in the Eisenhower presidential library (22 miles from my house) and you should look at the Civil Rights act of 57.
You would find that ACTUALLY - - the 'Harry Reid' of that time was LBJ and he opposed every civil rights action for his 20 years in office.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/apr/14/barack-obama/lyndon-johnson-opposed-every-civil-rights-proposal/
Tell me again which party ran the fire hoses in birmingham?
Didn't George Wallace have a "D" next to his name.

Wasn't the longest fillibuster in history… against the civil rights act by DEMOCRATS.
And if you look at the 65 civil rights act, you will find the Dems opposed it.

But those are just pesky facts.
Add in Senator Byrd 'D' West Virgina and his time under the sheets with a torch, and you get the right picture.
(p.S. the whole those 'dixiecrats' are the new teaparty stuff is just tripe)


> As this country collapses economically and 1/2 the population now qualifies for gov t assistance in some form, why are you and others who are not in the 1% so adamantly defending and promoting their cause?


I see the collapse, and see it led by the democrat 'globalists' with trade agreemenst that open our borders and simply take the productive workers and 'spread their collective cheeks' for the rest of the world to sodomize at will.

Please enlighten me about "shovel ready jobs" from the Democrats.
How many of the crooked bankers have been prosecuted by Eric Holder?

How do you propose that the massive influx of unaccompanied immigrants flooding in on the trains from Guatemala, are 'Increasing the US Standard of Living'.

The Open Borders are more of a contributor to economic stagnation, as you hav a constant influx of people at the 'bottom of the economic ladder' willing to work in deplorable conditions for little pay…. then wonder why family incomes have gone DOWN for the last 6 years.

I don't pretend to have the answers, but find it obvious that the Progressive Democrats, Obama,Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, bernie Sanders, Robert Menendez, Babs Mikulski… and some others do NOT have any answers and have us on an accelerated downward spiral.

I don't think that Herman Munster, our secretary of State, should have been President. Which is at the heart of why I am not bothered by the Swiftboat campaign.
When I look at Kerry's actions as senator in the 80's in Nicaragua, compared to Senator Cotton posting on his website that there are 3 branches of government, for Iran to read…. I don't see a democratic leader of the free world.

But I suppose if I wanted to be a progressive Democrat, and think that having James Taylor sing 'You've Got a Friend' to the mayor of Paris (after the terrorist attack and march that we skipped/couldn't be bothered with)... as good foreign policy. the sure, I could get a frontal lobotomy.


----------



## DrDirt

Why I believe Government is about money and control and not here to save/help.
On par with civil Forfeiture…..how the fines, and private collection agencies put people on the hamsterwheel of hell - where they can NEVER pay the fine, on the the maintenence fees to the management organization.

John Oliver on HBO his show "Last Week Tonight" 





*Click-it or Ticket… is really:*


----------



## RobS888

Dr dirt,

Your hatred and lack of discernment is showing through again:

Wasn't the longest fillibuster in history… against the civil rights act by DEMOCRATS.
And if you look at the 65 civil rights act, you will find the Dems opposed it.

But those are just pesky facts.
Add in Senator Byrd 'D' West Virgina and his time under the sheets with a torch, and you get the right picture.
(p.S. the whole those 'dixiecrats' are the new teaparty stuff is just tripe)

I find it funny that the Dixiecrats tried to form their own party to oppose civil rights, so yes they were democrats. Only because Southerners hated the republicans. (Seems there was this war they lost…badly) They would never vote for a republican until that pesky racial/civil rights thing got in the way. Then they started to switch. You don't find it funny the South is now solidly Republican? Ain't cause of your winning ways, but because of our reach for equality.

You remind me of Glenn Beck, he had a particular way of twisting facts that is eerily similar to your way. Like with him, it only takes a little knowledge to smell the dung being dispensed.

It was RayGun's policies that led us to the last crash, not Democrats….Torture as many "facts" as you would like. Many of us understand what has happened and the good news is your guys will screw it up like you always do.


----------



## RobS888

> Why I believe Government is about money and control and not here to save/help.
> On par with civil Forfeiture…..how the fines, and private collection agencies put people on the hamsterwheel of hell - where they can NEVER pay the fine, on the the maintenence fees to the management organization.
> 
> John Oliver on HBO his show "Last Week Tonight"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Click-it or Ticket… is really:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt


Weird, all in the South. Isn't the South a Republican utopia?


----------



## DrDirt

> Weird, all in the South. Isn t the South a Republican utopia?
> 
> - RobS888


When Mr. Great Society, decided to sign the legislation he OPPOSED when a Republican was in the whitehouse… he famously stated "I'll have those Ni%%ers voting democrat for the next 200 years" Sure… it is just 'dixiecrats' sorry that dog won't hunt. It is a convenient red herring, and smells the same.
But LBJ didn't just EVOLVE from opposing civil rights as the head of the senate in 57 to being its Champion after having kennedy shot.

The John Oliver segment was not All Southern States poindexter.
Weird… education in Maryland is a failure - if you think that Suburban St. Louis Missouri (Fergusson) is in the south?? Really…. given east St. Louis is in Illinois….I never really had that as "the south" on my map. Missouri is a Midwest State…. aka Flyover country.
Buy a map!

or when John discusses *New Jersey*:
"Most Americans drive to work, and if you can't do that, you've got a problem," he said. "In New Jersey, a survey of low-income drivers who had their license suspended found that 64 percent had lost their jobs as a result, which doesn't help anyone. You need them to pay their fine, but you're taking away their means of paying it."

But New Jersey as a "Southern State" goes with your typical revisionist history lesson.

Of course the "Reagan caused the housing crash in 2007/8" is a new one, and not worth the 1's and 0's to dismantle.

But you and the facts have a sketchy relationship anyway.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I only appear partisan to an extremist. I gave up the Rs due to their stabbing me in the back constantly, but did not join the Ds. That leaves an independent in the middle. Actually, it was the Rs that left me in the middle. In the days of Eisenhower, they were quite reasonable. They built the interstate highway system and supported all kinds of evil programs currently slated for destruction.

I really fail to see how George Soros being accused of breaking one bank speculating in currency adds up to evil greater than destroying the middle class and the American Dream along with the greatest, most resilient economic engine the world has ever known. If George Soros is successful in his support for his political causes, his taxes will go up and his fortune will be reduced. How is that more evil than those who support the oligarchy, fascism, slavery and taking more for the sake of having more even if criminal means are necessary?

*Why I believe Government is about money and control and not here to save/help.*

If they had jobs that paid a reasonable wage, they could pay for their violations. Of course, they could quite speeding and illegal activities. Shall we let anarchy prevail?

Right wing authoritarian propagandists constantly preach any gov't action is evil. You would rather have some billionaire CEO in control than an elected gov't? The government when not being manipulated by the forces of evil it is supposed to maintain law and order, build and maintain infrastructure to support the well being of the citizens so they can go about their business, and maintain a degree of stability in the economy and labor markets for the good of the whole. I realize these goals are contrary for everything the 1% and the Rs have been promoting for the last 30 years. I guess my next question is why should they not be charged with treason? After all, this is time of war, the War On Terror.

Speaking of questions, why does everyone divert away from the question I ask and bring up totally relevant ancient history?

Again, why are you and others who are not in the 1% so adamantly defending and promoting the billionaire cause?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

BTW, John Oliver is reporting on what you support. Private probation companies committing those atrocities are the result to the R privatization of all gov't services drive ;-))


----------



## DrDirt

> I only appear partisan to an extremist.


You appear partisan because EVERY evil in the world in your narrative is Reagans fault…. EVERYTHING was perfect until January of 1981….and the only support is Thom Hartmann who is easily as partisan as Rush Limbaugh. So I pick on the Single source (TH) + Single cause (RR) and see that as partisan. 


> I really fail to see how George Soros being accused of breaking one bank speculating in currency adds up to evil greater than destroying the middle class and the American Dream along with the greatest, most resilient economic engine the world has ever known. If George Soros is successful in his support for his political causes, his taxes will go up and his fortune will be reduced. How is that more evil than those who support the oligarchy, fascism, slavery and taking more for the sake of having more even if criminal means are necessary?


But why is it not the same then for the other billionaires. their wealth is from businesses they/parents started, making plywood, toilet paper and oil. There is no evidence they don't pay taxes, just as Soros is not a known tax cheat either…..

I suppose I saw the concern more to do with how they threw their money around, and buying political influence.

If that is really a honest concern, then the others doing the same/worse should be similarly distasteful, but apparently it is not.
However I encourage you to dig a little deeper on how Soros got his start, by going around with the Nazi's pointing out property owned by the jewish families he knew so it could be confiscated. Even though the teen-age Soros is jewish himself.. he describes that time as the best of his life.




 (in his words)
He and his groups drove the arab spring, and Egypt Uprising
Broke the bank of England
Also was responsible for the Asian economic crisis in 1997

Don't see Kochs doing that kind of stuff.


> *Why I believe Government is about money and control and not here to save/help.*
> 
> If they had jobs that paid a reasonable wage, they could pay for their violations. Of course, they could quite speeding and illegal activities. Shall we let anarchy prevail?
> 
> Right wing authoritarian propagandists constantly preach any gov t actin is evil. You would rather have some billionaire CEO in control than an elected gov t?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


First, the billionaire Tom Steyer and Soros bought the presidency for Obama… so that is what we have for decades… Same under Bush and CLinton and Bush the elder. 80s are harder to track pre internet… but the presidency has always been driven by money… sorry to break the news.

Anarchy - - no. But debtors prison isn't the answer. If you have to pay off the private companies service fees, before your money applies to your fine, that is messed up.
Perhaps the payments should work like a mortgage where SOme is 'fees" but you actually attack the principal balance.
2 dollar shoplifting shouldn't be a 'contained offense' not that you get 90 days for falling behind to the fine collection agency.

Nobody that actually WATCHED THE VIDEO…. thinks the message was one of ignoring crime and having anarchy.


----------



## DrDirt

> BTW, John Oliver is reporting on what you support. Private probation companies committing those atrocities are the result to the R privatization of all gov t services drive ;-))
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I am for privatizing mail… for the few years it has left, as everything goes electronic.
I have never advocated for private police and courts


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I wasn't sure why you used John Oliver? All those people were being chastised for being naughty so are we supposed to just let it go or because they were too poor to pay their fines? Obviously you missed his primary point that it is abuse of privatized probation companies that were charging outrageous processing fees and enslaving the perpetrators of trivial offenses for life. Isn't that the tea party agenda, privatize everything so some [email protected][email protected] CEO can commit outrageous fraud against the most vulnerable of us, U.S?

The Gov't would love to have every financial transaction be electronic to eliminate the underground economy and tax cheats. Everything will not go electronic. Less than 50% of Americans even have a bank account. Fewer and fewer will be able to afford electronic access at the current rates of degradation ;-( Even if everyone could go electronic, hackers will destroy the confidence of the system one of these days when Chase, Citi or BAC loose all their accounts. All the major retailers lose CC and customer ID data daily. It will happen, question is when?

What I believe or what Thom Hartmann believes or broadcasts is irrelevant. The facts are the facts; middle class has stagnated and is loosing. The biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the world has occurred in the last 20 or so years from U.S. to the 1%. My fault, your fault, Reagan's fault, Clinton's fault, or maybe nobody's fault. Again, why are you and others who are not in the 1% so adamantly defending and promoting the billionaire cause? I hardly believe you are a 1%er if you even read this forum ;-))


----------



## RobS888

Where was LBJ from again?

Weird, all in the South. Isn t the South a Republican utopia?

- RobS888

When Mr. Great Society, decided to sign the legislation he OPPOSED when a Republican was in the whitehouse… he famously stated "I ll have those Ni%%ers voting democrat for the next 200 years" Sure… it is just dixiecrats sorry that dog won t hunt. It is a convenient red herring, and smells the same.
But LBJ didn t just EVOLVE from opposing civil rights as the head of the senate in 57 to being its Champion after having kennedy shot.

The John Oliver segment was not All Southern States poindexter.
Weird… education in Maryland is a failure - if you think that Suburban St. Louis Missouri (Fergusson) is in the south?? Really…. given east St. Louis is in Illinois….I never really had that as "the south" on my map. Missouri is a Midwest State…. aka Flyover country.
Buy a map!

or when John discusses *New Jersey*:
"Most Americans drive to work, and if you can t do that, you ve got a problem," he said. "In New Jersey, a survey of low-income drivers who had their license suspended found that 64 percent had lost their jobs as a result, which doesn t help anyone. You need them to pay their fine, but you re taking away their means of paying it."

But New Jersey as a "Southern State" goes with your typical revisionist history lesson.

Of course the "Reagan caused the housing crash in 2007/8" is a new one, and not worth the 1 s and 0 s to dismantle.

But you and the facts have a sketchy relationship anyway.

- DrDirt
[/QUOTE]
*I watched the first 3 and they sure were Southern, didn't see the point after that. Was there more after the Sentinel stuff?*

*LBJ had JFK shot? Don't you mean Obama did it?

I've been to missory and it seemed Southern to me.*


----------



## RobS888

> I only appear partisan to an extremist. I gave up the Rs due to their stabbing me in the back constantly, but did not join the Ds. That leaves an independent in the middle. Actually, it was the Rs that left me in the middle. In the days of Eisenhower, they were quite reasonable. They built the interstate highway system and supported all kinds of evil programs currently slated for destruction.
> 
> I really fail to see how George Soros being accused of breaking one bank speculating in currency adds up to evil greater than destroying the middle class and the American Dream along with the greatest, most resilient economic engine the world has ever known. If George Soros is successful in his support for his political causes, his taxes will go up and his fortune will be reduced. How is that more evil than those who support the oligarchy, fascism, slavery and taking more for the sake of having more even if criminal means are necessary?
> 
> *Why I believe Government is about money and control and not here to save/help.*
> 
> If they had jobs that paid a reasonable wage, they could pay for their violations. Of course, they could quite speeding and illegal activities. Shall we let anarchy prevail?
> 
> Right wing authoritarian propagandists constantly preach any gov t action is evil. You would rather have some billionaire CEO in control than an elected gov t? The government when not being manipulated by the forces of evil it is supposed to maintain law and order, build and maintain infrastructure to support the well being of the citizens so they can go about their business, and maintain a degree of stability in the economy and labor markets for the good of the whole. I realize these goals are contrary for everything the 1% and the Rs have been promoting for the last 30 years. I guess my next question is why should they not be charged with treason? After all, this is time of war, the War On Terror.
> 
> Speaking of questions, why does everyone divert away from the question I ask and bring up totally relevant ancient history?
> 
> Again, why are you and others who are not in the 1% so adamantly defending and promoting the billionaire cause?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Dr dirt like Glen Beck, takes one item and warps it out of context.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt, the term Southern is used to to describe the confederate states, seems they were bent out of shape after an election… sound familiar?

Misory was claimed by the CSA:

Each had declared its secession from the United States following the November 1860 election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln to the U.S. presidency on a platform which opposed the expansion of slavery. A new Confederate government was proclaimed in February 1861 before Lincoln took office in March, but was considered illegal by the government of the United States. After war began in April, four states of the Upper South also declared their secession and joined the Confederacy. The Confederacy later accepted *Missouri and Kentucky* as members, although neither officially declared secession nor were they ever controlled by Confederate forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

Perhaps you should read a little history.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

I notice you ignored the Dixiecrat party. Was that purposeful? Or just an inconvenient truth about Dixiecrats changing party affiliation because of civil rights.


----------



## DrDirt

> I wasn t sure why you used John Oliver? All those people were being chastised for being naughty so are we supposed to just let it go or because they were too poor to pay their fines? Obviously you missed his primary point that it is abuse of privatized probation companies that were charging outrageous processing fees and enslaving the perpetrators of trivial offenses for life. Isn t that the tea party agenda, privatize everything so some [email protected][email protected] CEO can commit outrageous fraud against the most vulnerable of us, U.S?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


hmmm - - interesting how two people can watch something and take different issues away.

What stood out for me was 2 points…
1- the governments that "outsourced" didn't get any smaller, even though they had less work.
2- You had municipalities that ranged in Missouri from *20-66% of the entire operating budget* came from fines… not property taxes, sales tax,.... the budget is balanced on the backs of the POOREST, through petty fines….. and the fees that become the so called '********************barrel' are SANCTIONED by the government.

but I suppose as long as the mayor got paid and can renovate the mansion for his trophy wife… F-ck everyone!!! is the mantra of government.

I see that as a failure of government to function and have a budget that they can survive with. The government is NEVER benevolent, it takes by the barrel of a gun, and has you jailed if you cannot pay their contractor fees.

On the federal level, if you have a legal business that the 'government planners' don't like…. e.g. selling guns or tobacco… they pressure the banks to close your accounts.
"Operation Chokepoint"
Great example of FORCED Social planning by the government that democrats feel needs to be bigger and even more controlling.

Why do people support the rich…
I guess the flipside of why liberal democrats say "I want Nancy Pelosi to make all my decisions for me, from what to eat, what to drive, who to marry, where to live…. while she keeps her group of enslaved mexicans to run her vinyard, and maintain the grounds" 
Or give Diane Feinsteins husband a billion dollars to lease government buildings?

What seperation from the Moneytrees do you really propose? because the concept that R- is for the billionaires, but the democrats are benevolant caretakers that piss unicorn tears, is beyond me.

I find the R's to be the lesser of two evils… because a third party is not on the horizon any time soon.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> I notice you ignored the Dixiecrat party. Was that purposeful? Or just an inconvenient truth about Dixiecrats changing party affiliation because of civil rights.
> 
> - RobS888


Yawn… for the same reason I don't talk about the Bull Moose party either.

A little Wiki….
Members were called Dixiecrats. (The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat.)

The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.

So much like the tea party…. a faction of the democrats rebelled against the 'establishment' for one presidential cycle…. were UNSUCCESSFUL, (as Truman still defeated Dewey) then they went back to being DEMOCRATS.

So they are irrelevant since 1948…and were non-existant before the DNC meeting in 1948…. so they are a rat fart in the ~240 year history of the nation.

Happier now?
Regardless of the movement… in the 1963-67 George Wallace was a Democrat fignthing against civil rights, just like LBJ did for his congressional career.


----------



## RobS888

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> I notice you ignored the Dixiecrat party. Was that purposeful? Or just an inconvenient truth about Dixiecrats changing party affiliation because of civil rights.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Yawn… for the same reason I don t talk about the Bull Moose party either.
> 
> A little Wiki….
> Members were called Dixiecrats. (The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat.)
> 
> The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.
> 
> So much like the tea party…. a faction of the democrats rebelled against the establishment for one presidential cycle…. were UNSUCCESSFUL, (as Truman still defeated Dewey) then they went back to being DEMOCRATS.
> 
> So they are irrelevant since 1948…and were non-existant before the DNC meeting in 1948…. so they are a rat fart in the ~240 year history of the nation.
> 
> Happier now?
> Regardless of the movement… in the 1963-67 George Wallace was a Democrat fignthing against civil rights, just like LBJ did for his congressional career.
> 
> - DrDirt


Yes, it proves that a portion of the Democrats were so incensed over civil rights, that they tried to separate.

This Republican party has absorbed some of the worst from the Democratic party. Strange the move raised the IQ of both parties.

How did the parties flip if it wasn't the conservatives leaving the democratic party to the Republican party. I mean the voters, not the politicians. The people wouldn't vote Republican, until the Democrats became too liberal for them with their fancy civil rights talks.

LoL the racists (Dixeicrats) in the Democratic party couldn't slow down progress anymore.


----------



## DrDirt

> Yes, it proves that a portion of the Democrats were so incensed over civil rights, that they tried to separate.
> 
> This Republican party has absorbed some of the worst from the Democratic party. Strange the move raised the IQ of both parties.
> 
> How did the parties flip if it wasn t the conservatives leaving the democratic party to the Republican party. I mean the voters, not the politicians. The people wouldn t vote Republican, until the Democrats became too liberal for them with their fancy civil rights talks.
> 
> LoL the racists (Dixeicrats) in the Democratic party couldn t slow down progress anymore.
> 
> - RobS888


Maybe the dixiecrats… like strom Thurmond and George Wallace are all dead??

Robert Byrd - Democrat and the only known Klansman in the Senate was there to vote Yes on Obamacare

Show me the Klan serving in the senate/house on the R-side.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> hmmm - - interesting how two people can watch something and take different issues away.
> 
> What stood out for me was 2 points…
> 1- the governments that "outsourced" didn t get any smaller, even though they had less work.
> 2- You had municipalities that ranged in Missouri from *20-66% of the entire operating budget* came from fines… not property taxes, sales tax,.... the budget is balanced on the backs of the POOREST, through petty fines….. and the fees that become the so called ********************barrel are SANCTIONED by the government.


That seems to me to make a good case for ending the R position of outsourcing and privatization. It is not accomplishing its goals, just adding another layer of corruption and profiteering on the backs of the least able to pay.



> I see that as a failure of government to function and have a budget that they can survive with. The government is NEVER benevolent, it takes by the barrel of a gun, and has you jailed if you cannot pay their contractor fees.


WE built the interstate highway system under the reasonable Rs. Under the Reaganomics Rs, we can't even maintain it. That is a revenue issue not budgeting issue.



> On the federal level, if you have a legal business that the government planners don t like…. e.g. selling guns or tobacco… they pressure the banks to close your accounts.
> "Operation Chokepoint"
> Great example of FORCED Social planning by the government that democrats feel needs to be bigger and even more controlling.


If the Supreme Court would act like a court instead of a monarchy, that would not happen.



> Why do people support the rich…
> I guess the flipside of why liberal democrats say "I want Nancy Pelosi to make all my decisions for me, from what to eat, what to drive, who to marry, where to live…. while she keeps her group of enslaved mexicans to run her vinyard, and maintain the grounds"
> Or give Diane Feinsteins husband a billion dollars to lease government buildings?


That is interesting. Commit suicide because of the Ds ;-)



> What seperation from the Moneytrees do you really propose? because the concept that R- is for the billionaires, but the democrats are benevolant caretakers that piss unicorn tears, is beyond me.
> 
> I find the R s to be the lesser of two evils… because a third party is not on the horizon any time soon.


I have never supported the Ds as benevolent caretakers of the universe. Simply returning the Rs to a reasonable state of mind would be sufficient to resolve most o the the issues confronting us, U.S. John Dean, White House Counsel for President Richard Nixon, and Bob Altemeyer, retired Professor of Psychology at the University of Manitoba, have it pretty well figured out.

I doubt there will be any resolution prior to revolution. There are really only 3 questions in my mind. 
Will child labor laws prohibiting 12 hour 7 day work weeks be repealed before the revolution? Will the revolution be nonviolent reformation? How much longer will it take?


----------



## RobS888

> Yes, it proves that a portion of the Democrats were so incensed over civil rights, that they tried to separate.
> 
> This Republican party has absorbed some of the worst from the Democratic party. Strange the move raised the IQ of both parties.
> 
> How did the parties flip if it wasn t the conservatives leaving the democratic party to the Republican party. I mean the voters, not the politicians. The people wouldn t vote Republican, until the Democrats became too liberal for them with their fancy civil rights talks.
> 
> LoL the racists (Dixeicrats) in the Democratic party couldn t slow down progress anymore.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Maybe the dixiecrats… like strom Thurmond and George Wallace are all dead??
> 
> Robert Byrd - Democrat and the only known Klansman in the Senate was there to vote Yes on Obamacare
> 
> Show me the Klan serving in the senate/house on the R-side.
> 
> - DrDirt


So they didn't flip?


----------



## RobS888

> I doubt there will be any resolution prior to revolution. There are really only 3 questions in my mind.
> Will child labor laws prohibiting 12 hour 7 day work weeks be repealed before the revolution? Will the revolution be nonviolent reformation? How much longer will it take?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Maybe right after Rafael Cruz wins, he will change the laws.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I doubt there will be any resolution prior to revolution. There are really only 3 questions in my mind.
> Will child labor laws prohibiting 12 hour 7 day work weeks be repealed before the revolution? Will the revolution be nonviolent reformation? How much longer will it take?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Maybe right after Rafael Cruz wins, he will change the laws.
> 
> - RobS888


He could easily deliver Bush/ Cheney Iraq style libertarianism to us, U.S. ;-(( Altemeyer's psychological testing showing the inability to think critically means there will be no reasoning with these people ;-(( We shall live with the consequences of their actions if we survive. Of course the 1% believe their billions will buy them a free ride above the chaos. In all the previous revolutions, they have been the targets as evidenced by the treatment of Mussolini's body.


----------



## RobS888

> I doubt there will be any resolution prior to revolution. There are really only 3 questions in my mind.
> Will child labor laws prohibiting 12 hour 7 day work weeks be repealed before the revolution? Will the revolution be nonviolent reformation? How much longer will it take?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Maybe right after Rafael Cruz wins, he will change the laws.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> He could easily deliver Bush/ Cheney Iraq style libertarianism to us, U.S. ;-(( Altemeyer s psychological testing showing the inability to think critically means there will be no reasoning with these people ;-(( We shall live with the consequences of their actions if we survive. Of course the 1% believe their billions will buy them a free ride above the chaos. In all the previous revolutions, they have been the targets as evidenced by the treatment of Mussolini s body.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I thought Dr Dirt was genuine, crazy but genuine. However that LBJ killed JFK was pretty far out there even for him. I suspect he is trolling now.


----------



## DrDirt

> Maybe the dixiecrats… like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace are all dead??
> 
> Robert Byrd - Democrat and the only known Klansman in the Senate was there to vote Yes on Obamacare
> 
> Show me the Klan serving in the senate/house on the R-side.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> So they didn t flip?
> 
> - RobS888


No… they went Anti establisment and supported Thurmond…. essentially a third party candidate, then went back to voting democrat.
All the Dixiecrats are dead.

Sure today the south is red… but if you look at the presidential elections after 1948 …. the south was still blue
How wouldl that be if they all went to the republican side?

1952








1956








1960









This isn't Dixiecrats….it is a demographic shift… the dixiecrats were the "tea party" of the late 40's


----------



## DrDirt

As for the LBJ theory - - of course a good read is 
Blood, Money, & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK

but the gist is here- including the recordings of Jackie Kennedy and the interview of Jack Ruby.
http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/jacqueline-kennedys-jfk-assassination-theory-28064/

Follow the Money…. who had the most to gain? Lee Harvey? unlikely…...

For Rob… Trolling would be the idea that there is a move to repeal child labor laws. talk about red herring argument. All the child labor is in Africa, China and SE Asia… where the democrats run businesses like NIKE and Apple where they all just *happily *work people to death to sell you an Iphone 6 and a pair of 200 dollar sneakers that cost 3 dollars to make.


----------



## RobS888

> Maybe the dixiecrats… like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace are all dead??
> 
> Robert Byrd - Democrat and the only known Klansman in the Senate was there to vote Yes on Obamacare
> 
> Show me the Klan serving in the senate/house on the R-side.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> So they didn t flip?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> No… they went Anti establisment and supported Thurmond…. essentially a third party candidate, then went back to voting democrat.
> All the Dixiecrats are dead.
> 
> Sure today the south is red… but if you look at the presidential elections after 1948 …. the south was still blue
> How wouldl that be if they all went to the republican side?
> 
> 1952
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1956
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This isn t Dixiecrats….it is a demographic shift… the dixiecrats were the "tea party" of the late 40 s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt


Not sure the electoral vote conveys anything in this conversation. ( horrible affront to democracy)

The point is the racists that lost their mind in '47, eventually went to the Republican Party.


----------



## RobS888

> As for the LBJ theory - - of course a good read is
> Blood, Money, & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK
> 
> but the gist is here- including the recordings of Jackie Kennedy and the interview of Jack Ruby.
> http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/jacqueline-kennedys-jfk-assassination-theory-28064/
> 
> Follow the Money…. who had the most to gain? Lee Harvey? unlikely…...
> 
> For Rob… Trolling would be the idea that there is a move to repeal child labor laws. talk about red herring argument. All the child labor is in Africa, China and SE Asia… where the democrats run businesses like NIKE and Apple where they all just *happily *work people to death to sell you an Iphone 6 and a pair of 200 dollar sneakers that cost 3 dollars to make.
> 
> - DrDirt


I don't have an iPhone or a pair of sneakers worth more than $50, so I guess I'm not a troll.


----------



## DrDirt

> Not sure the electoral vote conveys anything in this conversation. ( horrible affront to democracy)
> 
> The point is the racists that lost their mind in 47, eventually went to the Republican Party.
> 
> - RobS888


"Eventually went" ... maybe according to Rob or Moveon.org. more credible sources referenced under Wiki says they went BACK to being democrats… and the maps for the next 16 years confirms that.

Are you saying that Mr. "Great Society" LBJ is a republican?

As to the electoral votes…. are you likeing the world pre-12th ammendment method, where we had the senate choose, and First place was president and second place was vice president?


> I don't have an iPhone or a pair of sneakers worth more than $50, so I guess I'm not a troll.


Don't sell yourself short… I am sure there is a 'swoosh' in your future.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## RobS888

> Not sure the electoral vote conveys anything in this conversation. ( horrible affront to democracy)
> 
> The point is the racists that lost their mind in 47, eventually went to the Republican Party.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> "Eventually went" ... maybe according to Rob or Moveon.org. more credible sources referenced under Wiki says they went BACK to being democrats… and the maps for the next 16 years confirms that.
> 
> Are you saying that Mr. "Great Society" LBJ is a republican?
> 
> As to the electoral votes…. are you likeing the world pre-12th ammendment method, where we had the senate choose, and First place was president and second place was vice president?
> 
> I don't have an iPhone or a pair of sneakers worth more than $50, so I guess I'm not a troll.
> 
> Don t sell yourself short… I am sure there is a swoosh in your future.
> 
> - DrDirt


When you eventually return to sanity, let's look at how the states voted, not the electoral college. Who knows what vivid idea you thought that conveyed?

All seriousness aside… Where do you think the racists are now? Give me an R, give me an E, give me a P…

I see that Dan'um Style is nudging us back to the topic, so let's discuss how Raygun ruined the US with Voodoo economics.


----------



## DrDirt

> I see that Dan um Style is nudging us back to the topic, so let s discuss how Raygun ruined the US with Voodoo economics.
> 
> - RobS888


Or how obozo ruins us by open borders, which keeps wages low while lining the pockets of the land barons?.

When I lived in Phoenix you got to watch the "reverse auction" for labor at the Borg.

A contractor would show up to the group of migrant workers, and say I need 3 guys for the next two days to rebuild a rock garden/water feature in Scottsdale.

"Who wants the position for 10 bucks and hour"..... 20 people raise their hands
How bout 7 bucks….. 12 raise their hands….

5 bucks and hour 5 raise their hands.
4 dollars.. ..3 raise their hands, he says "your hired" and those three get in the truck.

If the economy will run that way….( who the heck do the illegals complain to… Serriff Arpaijo?) you suppress wages artificially.
Companies that pay a living wage are consistently underbid.

the result is depression/stagnation of wages.

The big challenge will be that first the government will crack down on "Pay" because that is EASIER than limiting immigration…. but then business owners install automation.

Just as the slavery discussion was about production costs…. and how the cotton plantations couldn't survive…. once having people pick and process cotton…ol Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin.
Tractors became affordable, a
nd ultimately *machinery that did the harvesting.
*
Result… there are no jobs for pickers.

Same will happen with the illegals brought in out of that same "Necessity" to pick avocados, or lettuce, or strawberries.

That work is done by hand by illegals because that is the CHEAPEST WAY for the farmer/owner.

when wages go up… then he will INVEST in automation.
So all the folks we brought into the country with ZERO marketable skills, and little education, will not be able to find work. Their jobs will have been replaced by machines, so they will just be on welfare.

We need an immigration system more like Canada or Europe - where to get work permits and be able to open bank accounts etc. You had to have skills that the COUNTRY NEEDS.
Canada is importing doctors and scientists.
We import Strawberry pickers.

Which economic model is really looking to the future? Just as we have touch screen ordering at fast food, direct deposit and ATM banking, driverless cars being tested….our PLANNERS>.... should expect that the days of working 12 hours picking fruit and veggies in the sun, is not a long term plan. It will be automated, as well as more agriculture moving indoors and using LED Grow lights, and Hydroponics to grow organic veggies.

Hauling bushels of fruit will be a thing of the past.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

I reckon the 7 need to have a talk with the 3 that accepted at $4.00. Why wouldn't he ask who could/has done it first?

What I get from your comment is that farmers are cheap and undocumented workers don't hurt at this point, but will at some point in the future?

I'm conflicted on the whole undocumented issue. I thought Raygun giving amnesty was Ok, but the border should have been beefed up to stem any more.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I couldn't help but think of this thread last night watching Nova as the archaeologists worked at Tel Hazor, Israel. They discovered the city faltered about 1200 BC as the peasants got fed up and rebelled against the elite of the upper city. Archaeological evidence suggests that ******************** sapiens killed off the neanderthals who had a larger cranial cavity and worked together for the good of their society. ******************** sapiens' greed and capacity for unnecessary violence seems to have carried the day. It would seem to be apparent the personality traits of the elite are nothing new and have been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> I reckon the 7 need to have a talk with the 3 that accepted at $4.00. Why wouldn t he ask who could/has done it first?
> 
> What I get from your comment is that farmers are cheap and undocumented workers don t hurt at this point, but will at some point in the future?
> 
> I m conflicted on the whole undocumented issue. I thought Raygun giving amnesty was Ok, but the border should have been beefed up to stem any more.
> 
> - RobS888


Wow… nothing I disagree with. I think that at this point teh cheap undocumented workers, are hurting american wages… 
Why pay teenagers minimum wage when you can just pay "by the bushel' and hide that you are only paying people 3 dollars an hour for backbreaking work?

The argument used is that "They only do the jobs americans don't want".... the WHOLE story in the free market would show that these UNDESIRABLE jobs, would increase in pay, to attract the workers.

So really *"They do the jobs Americans don't want to do for 3 dollars an hour - taxes "*
If that job then went to 12 or 13 dollars for pulling tassels on the corn crop… you would find groups of frat boys taking on these week long jobs to earn beer money back at the Big 10 midwest school, like Nebraska.

But when they are all out of work in the future.. what will they do?

Reagans amnesty was to do exactly what you say, that it would be a one time deal, but border security was part of it… but that part just never got funded by Tip O'neill.. and nobody has had the political will since.

Today anyone that looks at border security needing to be beefed up is designated a "racist" to ensure that nothing EVER will get done.


----------



## RobS888

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> I reckon the 7 need to have a talk with the 3 that accepted at $4.00. Why wouldn t he ask who could/has done it first?
> 
> What I get from your comment is that farmers are cheap and undocumented workers don t hurt at this point, but will at some point in the future?
> 
> I m conflicted on the whole undocumented issue. I thought Raygun giving amnesty was Ok, but the border should have been beefed up to stem any more.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Wow… nothing I disagree with. I think that at this point teh cheap undocumented workers, are hurting american wages…
> Why pay teenagers minimum wage when you can just pay "by the bushel and hide that you are only paying people 3 dollars an hour for backbreaking work?
> 
> The argument used is that "They only do the jobs americans don t want".... the WHOLE story in the free market would show that these UNDESIRABLE jobs, would increase in pay, to attract the workers.
> 
> So really *"They do the jobs Americans don t want to do for 3 dollars an hour - taxes "*
> If that job then went to 12 or 13 dollars for pulling tassels on the corn crop… you would find groups of frat boys taking on these week long jobs to earn beer money back at the Big 10 midwest school, like Nebraska.
> 
> But when they are all out of work in the future.. what will they do?
> 
> Reagans amnesty was to do exactly what you say, that it would be a one time deal, but border security was part of it… but that part just never got funded by Tip O neill.. and nobody has had the political will since.
> 
> Today anyone that looks at border security needing to be beefed up is designated a "racist" to ensure that nothing EVER will get done.
> 
> - DrDirt


I don't think you know many college students. If it paid $25/hour they would be there for 1 hour before calling their parents about the horrible conditions. If paid by the bushel they would get 1 bushel an hour.

What happened in GA when they went after undocumented workers a few years back? The crops withered on the vine. $140 million in loses. Nobody stepped up to fill in.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/


----------



## DanYo

off topic but fun anyway


----------



## DrDirt

> I don t think you know many college students. If it paid $25/hour they would be there for 1 hour before calling their parents about the horrible conditions. If paid by the bushel they would get 1 bushel an hour.
> 
> What happened in GA when they went after undocumented workers a few years back? The crops withered on the vine. $140 million in loses. Nobody stepped up to fill in.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/
> 
> - RobS888


I don't think you know many college students in Minnesota/nebraska/Kansas/Oklahoma…
So I agree a bunch of Johns Hopkins Students, would not jump into their BMW's to go do any manual labor job ever. I was referring to FARM country.

I see a few things in the forbes article

Workers are paid by volume, with skilled workers typically earning $15 to $20 an hour. Unskilled workers earn much less, which is why most locals don't want the jobs.

So the "Locals were offered the usual 3-4 dollars an hour" because they would be novices totally new at the position.
Georgia and Florida were both around 9.5-10% unemployed.
but there is a work/welfare tradeoff
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/work-or-welfare-what-pays-more/

your example shows that you cannot have the politicians in Athens Georgia snap their fingers and solve an issue. Not really a big surprise, the market didn't respond that fast. Legal workers didn't relocate immediately.

All they did was crackdown on immigration enforcement. and not surprising in season one… people wouldn't go in for 3 dollars an hour, esecially when they would lose their medicaid and EBT cards for taking on a job.

So jobs have to pay more than government will pay them to stay home.
Also - unemployment in downtown Atlanta, doesn't translate to "Available workers" for the peach groves south of Augusta.

However I think as a state, if you are sitting at 10% unemployment…. you don't NEED immigrants, you need a better pay/benefit structure.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

I know this is going back a few posts… But since you linked to this site it should be acceptable to you.

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_summ.php?cycle=All&type=viewpt

They are showing how much went into 501Cs. Conservatives really spent a lot for the 2012 election to defeat the president. They spent far less in 2008 or 2014.

The thing I found the most interesting was that conservatives are far more secretive about what they are doing. So if you combine the 2 reports, ( the declared amounts you linked and the link above) you will see what most people willingly admit, conservatives are buying elections. Just not openly.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Jacob Coxey's supporters descended on the Washington, D.C. to demand investment in public works and denounce Wall Street speculators and the robber barons.


----------



## DrDirt

Rob - 
indeed - 
I think for the NYT - gives the best total picture..
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

in the section "Outside Spending" identifies the 501c in the same magnitude.

However there is a power of the bully pulpit…So when you compare 2008 (2 new canditates) spending is similar, but that the outside spending to win the whitehouse or the 2010 push to flip the house… and last years push to flip the senate, it makes sense.

Not a good thing, but understandable. Just as in wartime. It is harder to capture new ground than it is to defend the hilltop.

Some things are harder to capture…. e.g. what is the dollar value of Google being in your corner?
How little do they have to really spend, when they control the flow of information?
http://nypost.com/2015/03/28/google-controls-what-we-buy-the-news-we-read-and-obamas-policies/

A former Google officer is the president's chief technology adviser. Google employees contributed more to President Obama's re-election than did employees of any other company except Microsoft. Google lobbyists met with Obama White House officials 230 times. By comparison, lobbyists from rival Comcast have been admitted to the inner sanctum a mere 20 or so times in the same period.

Oh, and on Election Night 2012, guess where Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt was? Working for the president. In the president's campaign office. On a voter-turnout system designed to help the president get re-elected.

---------------
Hmmm Google execs working on the turn-out system to get the president elected?
Google+Microsoft for campaign dollars, and teh technology to back it up… to make sure that scandals don't appear in the first few pages of search results….

I find that more disconcerting that how much the Koch brothers spend on advertising and robocalls.

I would choose crummy swiftboat commercials, to an official Ministry of Information.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

So you acknowledge that the Conservatives out spent the Liberals, significantly outspent them and yet wipe that aside as natural?

*Would it kill you to say you were wrong? *

Liberals don't outspend Conservatives except in openly declared sources. Conservatives for some reason want to hide their donations or sneak money into the election?

Strangely they do want to be able to take a deduction for the money they donate, even though it is against the rules for "charitable" organizations to advocate politically except for social topics. If you name a charity "Get Rid of Obama" then expect to get tax free status you are just crazy.

*Anyway, with the Kochs and others operating as they do, we will become a Plutocracy for sure.*

Google tailors searches to your previous searches/clicks, So if you tend to click on sites that have a conservative slant then you are fed that more and more.

Personalized search was officially introduced in 2005 to users with Google accounts. In 2009 Google launched the feature to everyone who used their search engine, including those not signed in with Google accounts.

According to Google, personalized search gives them the ability to customize search results based on a user's previous 180 days of search history, which is linked to an anonymous cookie in your browser. This is how Google personalizes results when you're not signed in under a Google account. When you're signed in, Google stores your Google web history and search is personalized even more.

I don't see how you could not notice, if all of a sudden you started seeing sites that had positive comments about the President. Google doesn't have much tunable influence on the zealots.

I found the president of Diebold predicting Bush would win Ohio far scarier. That made me question the results for the first time in my life. By the way Diebold is no longer in the Voting machine bidness.

*Also, you seem to be stereotyping quite a bit about Hopkins students. *

You proved my point that most students wouldn't be able to pick crops if only farm kids could stand it.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

Not sure if this is what you meant by outside spending, but this tab from the article you linked makes it look quite bad for Conservative spending. Click on the totals and you see the first 2 entries are conservative and are for 142 and 91 million against the president and the 3rd is Liberal with 66 million against Mittens. Then it is pretty much conservative to about 13th place. There is no way you could still pretend Conservatives aren't trying to buy the election. And to think they didn't come close to Mittens winning. A side note: I will never forget Carl Rove's begging for FOX not to call Ohio for Obama. Made my night!

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance/independent-expenditures/totals


----------



## DrDirt

Wow - - only in a liberal mind could someone look at this:

And say "ADMIT THAT THE CONSERVATIVES DRAMATICALLY OUTSPENT THE DEMOCRATS!!!!...."










Math at my school says that 1072 is greater than 992…. (versus your 2+2=5 society)

You aren't ACTUALLY going to say that the 726Million listed as coming from Obama is "personal wealth" are you?

that is money the candidate raised from donations.

So OK - - the Conservative PACs raised more money that Dems.

But the Candidate raised 300 million more than Romney….. (FROM WHERE? Easter Bunny?)

The idea that a direct anonymous donation to the candidate, is pure and a donation to a Pac is evil is a unique view of the world. Since they are both 'money in politics'
I suspect in the link you showed… the PAC at #45 was all the way down to ~7500 bucks.
I think that the 10K/plate dinners with Holywood was a bigger bundle than that.

*So it is all about what "bucket" you include money in, to spin a story. however at the end of the day - - Dems raised more money*

He then had "FREE" support from Google to bury bad news from its search engine.

So sure he got a FREE service from Google, that the PAC's spend advertising dollars trying to break through.

WHy was the CEO of Google at Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters?
Gee now we got the Google Approved Net Neutrality.

and the FCC dropped the charges about antitrust, that were proposed….. little payback?

Sure Google can taylor searches… they can also be set up to bury stories about e.g. Benghazi, or ISIS too.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

I think if one reads the subheads one will see those totals include only 3 "organizations". The candidates, the party, and 1 superPAC. One needs to include the "independent expenditures as well".

Here is the page header you omitted>

_Below is a tally of the money raised and spent through September by the *presidential candidates, the national party committees and the primary "super PACs"* whose sole purpose is to support a candidate. Contribution and spending totals *do not include* money raised or held by each candidate's "victory fund," a joint fund-raising committee that will distribute funds to the campaigns and party committees. In addition to these committees, nonprofit groups that do not have to file with the Federal Election Commission and other super PACs have spent at least $65 million more on television advertising, almost all of it against President Obama or in support of Mitt Romney. _

So you need to add the declared money and the totals donated anonymously on the tab I provided.

There are 2 buckets: a glass one and an opaque one. The glass one is 50/50 Conservative/Liberal. The opaque one is 85/15 Conservative/Liberal.

Will it ruin your day to admit Conservatives are trying to buy the election? Like I said before, the *whole* world knows Conservatives are buying the elections. How else could they win?


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

Is this the kind of report that you claim is being buried?

_http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-stand-down-order-or-military-missteps-in-benghazi-attack-gop-controlled/_

Even FOX reported that a Republican controlled investigation found *NOTHING*!


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> Is this the kind of report that you claim is being buried?
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-stand-down-order-or-military-missteps-in-benghazi-attack-gop-controlled/
> 
> Even FOX reported that a Republican controlled investigation found *NOTHING*!
> 
> - RobS888


NO I refer to the actions "GOOGLE CEO stated himself, where they will now be the arbiter of "Truth", and will build into thier software a way to filter your news for you.

How very Soviet of them…...THEY will decide what makes it onto the internet searches, as they will "Pre scrub" your news for you.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530102.600-google-wants-to-rank-websites-based-on-facts-not-links.html#.VPs1xy6yRmE
As to the NYT report… sure the list the times put together is lopsided at 436 to Romney and 87MM to Obama.

However there are some issues…..
1 - Why is the 42 Million from the RNC a private donor at #4? yet above RNC is identified by line item as Party Comittee - at 371MM?

the whole attibution to candidates is a bit "Selective" 
a run down…
#8 - 17MM donated to NEWT GINGRICH for president.
#12 7.5MM to RICK SANTORUM for president.
#16 4 million to Rick Perry for president.
#17 3.4MM to Ron Paul for president.
#20 2.8MM to Jon Huntsman for president.
#24 1.6MM to Rick Santorun
#34 Herman Cain
#38 Newt
#39 Newt
#40 Cain
#42 Cain
#44 Santorum

But all tallied up as Romney money?
I understand this would be bigger (mentioned before) there was no Democratic primary in 2012

I look at the SEIU was identified as donating 5MM bucks.
But no other unions supported Obama? Other sites mention that AFL-CIO donated, the AFT and NEA teachers unions donated…. I suspect more than the 7900 dollars the #45 donors contributed.

Somhow I think their list is "selective"... I would bet that Unions should have made the top 45 list ahead of the $7925 from the freedom defense fund. They just put it in the "Obama personal support bucket" of that 700 million he raised.

It is all parsing the stats…. they both spent a billion dollars. (EACH)


----------



## RobS888

Open Secrets puts the tally at 1.239 Billion for Romney and 1.107 Billion for Obama.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/#out

That is 11% more. Weird, didn't RMoney lose by 11% as well?

Personally I have no idea where the money from a 10K/plate dinner goes. I would suspect whomever organised the event gives it to whomever they want.

EDIT:

I'm not sure if you have noticed, but none of your citations show Obama outspending RMoney, the opposite is true in each case. The question is by how much 7 million or 200 million.


----------



## DrDirt

> EDIT:
> 
> I m not sure if you have noticed, but none of your citations show Obama outspending RMoney, the opposite is true in each case. The question is by how much 7 million or 200 million.
> 
> - RobS888


Clever pivot from Raised - - which shows the Democrats raised more…. 1072 to 992…. to now saying "Who Spent more".

So what did Obama do with that 85Million dollars?


----------



## RobS888

> EDIT:
> 
> I m not sure if you have noticed, but none of your citations show Obama outspending RMoney, the opposite is true in each case. The question is by how much 7 million or 200 million.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Clever pivot from Raised - - which shows the Democrats raised more…. 1072 to 992…. to now saying "Who Spent more".
> 
> So what did Obama do with that 85Million dollars?
> 
> - DrDirt


No pivot needed, I've been saying spending because that is what counts. Perhaps if you read my posts….

I've also been saying Conservative and Liberal because the Dark money spending is defined that way.

So we do agree that Conservatives spent more in 2012 and got 3 times more dark money than Liberals?

I don't care what you think Obama did with the 85 million. Not part of the discussion, you're trying to deflect from your error.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DrDirt




----------



## DrDirt

Thought only Republicans sheltered money overseas to avoid BILLIONS in taxes!!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Thought only Republicans sheltered money overseas to avoid BILLIONS in taxes!!
> 
> - DrDirt


I don't think Rs have a monopoly on corruption and cheating. Billionaires are just more likely to buy Rs for Congress because Ds are *slightly less likely* to legalize their illegal activities.


----------



## dbray45

I have not monitored this thread for a while - for a number of reasons.

This may put things into perspective:

The idea that working at McDonalds and earning a liveable wage - unless you are management is nuts. Now they are almost bankrupt.

When you watch the news and they talk about growth - ALL they mention is housing starts - our enconomy is based upon the building of houses.

Nothing is repaired anymore, it is replaced.

I tried to start a furniture and cabinet making class in my school system this year - the response was this, "The state board of education does not consider cabinetmaking and woodworking as a career path so the schools cannot give credit for the classes!"

As a result of the taxes to operate, the EPA regulations on everything, and no viable young employees - most of the fabrication, woodworking, and metal shops in my area have closed or moved out.

You can call attention to the 20 or 30 or 100 billionaires and say what you want. Equal pay for everybody eliminates the desire to move forward. I have been at the low end, the business owner, and a public employee, without incentive - we do not grow. Capitalism works - until you want fair. It is not designed to be fair, it is designed to promote growth. Without growth, you have nothing.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Capitalism works until you get monopoly control which is what is wrong now.


----------



## RobS888

> - DrDirt


Why do they need to make grants if they do the work directly. Do you not know what they do? Of course you must, you would never critisize something you didn't know the facts about would you?


----------



## RobS888

> You can call attention to the 20 or 30 or 100 billionaires and say what you want. Equal pay for everybody eliminates the desire to move forward. I have been at the low end, the business owner, and a public employee, without incentive - we do not grow. *Capitalism works - until you want fair. It is not designed to be fair*, it is designed to promote growth. Without growth, you have nothing.
> 
> - dbray45


Capitalism was designed?

Now that is funny, who designed it? The FF?


----------



## DrDirt

> Why do they need to make grants if they do the work directly. Do you not know what they do? Of course you must, you would never critisize something you didn t know the facts about would you?
> 
> - RobS888


What you have is a money laundering operation. It is a way for wealthy donors to buy favors by making a "tax deductible donation" to grease the wheels of power.

the graph shows that only about 20% of the money taken in - actually went to the project as grants. 80% is "Overhead" and salaries in NYC. Sure some work is officially done in house. MOST charities, are on the order of 35% overhead and management.

HOWEVER>>>
Almost 60 percent of the organization's disclosed revenue - or $290 million - was listed under the category of "other expenses."

Come on!!! 60% as "OTHER"

You or I would be sitting next to Bernie Madoff in Prison for that~

Trying to sell this foundation as *clean*, is such a sham (not shame)


----------



## dbray45

There have always been monopolies and always will. What is going on right now is an active reorganization of money and services to change the voter population. Laws that are already on the books are actively ignored and violated - without any repercussions and accountability.

Let's face it, Hillary admitted after Benghazi that she takes responsibility - and later she makes the statement, "At this point, what does it matter?" Well, it matters a lot. It matters that she was responsible - by her position, it matters that the people asked for help and they were actively refused, it matters that these people were held out as lambs to be slaughtered - and for what? Hillary's and Obama's politics?

Obama should be impeached and Hillary tried for murder - because what she did actively caused 4 deaths - by her position - whether directly or indirectly.

The idea that these people make their decisions based entirely to achieve their goals of power, can break the laws as they see fit (Oh, I am sorry, ignore the laws as they see fit), execute executive laws that violate the laws from Constitutional, federal, state to local laws - because they do not meet THEIR wants, wishes, and desires - is ludicrous, illegal, and wrong on every level.

To better illustrate this, look at what happened in Baltimore - which should be investigated thoroughly by an impartial investigation team - not a witch hunt (the Department of Justice is not impartial in any way shape or form when their boss (Obama) automatically states that it is always the police's fault) - the news interviewed this guy that was taking part of the looting (he was there). His response, "Well, its because this guy was killed by police!" He didn't even know the guy's name AND this gives them a reason to burn, pillage, and steal? And it is OK? It is all the police's fault? NO! The police may be very much in the wrong - but that doesn't give anybody the right to steal, burn down buildings, rob people because a few police officers were more than stupid (or not, we don't know what happened yet). We don't know how his back was injured, we can only surmise at this point. I would wager that of the 6 officers that are being investigated, the 3 white ones will be prosecuted - because they HAVE to be the prejudiced ones.

Does this sound prejudiced? Everything coming from this administration has been prejudiced, biased, and slanted. Personally, I don't care what race, religion, or anything else you are - right up until you say that I must be killed because I do not believe what you do - then we have a real problem.

We need to bring back businesses and agriculture, we need to bring back manufacturing, we need to get people working - in real jobs. We need to move forward and put the past behind us - and stop living in it. The sob stories have gotten old - get over it. Everybody has hard times in their lives - it is a part of living. Everybody experiences prejudice - or they live in a bubble. Yep, it hurts, yep, it is wrong, get over it.


----------



## CharlesA

> Let s face it, Hillary admitted after Benghazi that she takes responsibility - and later she makes the statement, "At this point, what does it matter?" Well, it matters a lot. It matters that she was responsible - by her position, it matters that the people asked for help and they were actively refused, it matters that these people were held out as lambs to be slaughtered - and for what? Hillary s and Obama s politics?
> 
> Obama should be impeached and Hillary tried for murder - because what she did actively caused 4 deaths - by her position - whether directly or indirectly.
> 
> - dbray45


David,

I'm curious how much research you've done on people killed in U.S. embassies in the past and whose responsibility it was.

I'm also curious if you believe that Bush/Cheney should be tried for war crimes since they fabricated evidence to go to war (they, of course, were convinced, as many were, that their fabricated evidence would be shown to be legitimate at some point-turned out they were wrong) where 4500 U.S. soldiers died along with perhaps 24,000 Iraqi troops and 75,000 Iraqi civilians.


----------



## Bonka

There were many leftist agreeing with the administration….

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." - John Kerry, October 9, 2002


----------



## CharlesA

I noted that many agreed with them, but those agreeing with them were not faking evidence. The Bush administration knowingly faked evidence, believing that they would be vindicated in the end. 100,000 people died.


----------



## DrDirt

> I noted that many agreed with them, but those agreeing with them were not faking evidence. The Bush administration knowingly faked evidence, believing that they would be vindicated in the end. 100,000 people died.
> 
> - CharlesA


Pssst Bush's crappy decision 13 years ago has little bearing on the 2016 election.

However, A question.. *If they had found massive stocks of Sarin and/or Mustard Gas…. would you now be a Bush Cheney Cheerleader? Would you say it was all worth it?*

IS the WMD question really the SOLE sticking point in this mess?

Saddam had WMD… we stood and WATCHED him use them in the past on the Kurds.

Having said that….
*Owning chemical weapons is not a justification for invasion.*

North Korea has Proven Nuclear capability…. but we don't invade there.
Pakistan also has the "Islam Bomb" but we don't go there either.

*The Iraq war and ousting Saddam is purely a Bush the dumber/Cheney Bad Idea. *

Bush Senior knew better back in 90.

The whole "bush lied" is such a pussilanimous diversion - the idea that OWNING nerve gas tipped weapons is a justification to invade and overthrow a 'relatively' stable government, stinks on ice.

Even Afghanistan is unnecessary. 
We got the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan without sending in the Marines under Reagan.

Bush Sucked…. Jeb is just as bad.

I detest the idea of a Bush vs. Clinton election… they are all such lying 'Do as I say not as I do' Douches!


----------



## Bonka

So Dr. Dirt what would you have done after 9/11? No 20/20 hind sight allowed.


----------



## RobS888

> What you have is a money laundering operation. It is a way for wealthy donors to buy favors by making a "tax deductible donation" to grease the wheels of power.
> 
> the graph shows that only about 20% of the money taken in - actually went to the project as grants. 80% is "Overhead" and salaries in NYC. Sure some work is officially done in house. MOST charities, are on the order of 35% overhead and management.
> 
> HOWEVER>>>
> Almost 60 percent of the organization's disclosed revenue - or $290 million - was listed under the category of "other expenses."
> 
> Come on!!! 60% as "OTHER"
> 
> You or I would be sitting next to Bernie Madoff in Prison for that~
> 
> Trying to sell this foundation as *clean*, is such a sham (not shame)
> 
> - DrDirt


Do you have proof or is this your opinion?


----------



## RobS888

> *Obama should be impeached and Hillary tried for murder - because what she did actively caused 4 deaths - by her position - whether directly or indirectly.*
> - dbray45


Glad we aren't getting hysterical here.


----------



## RobS888

> There were many leftist agreeing with the administration….
> 
> "I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
> 
> "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." - John Kerry, October 9, 2002
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


So a lie is judged by who you get to believe it? Good to know.


----------



## RobS888

> *the idea that OWNING nerve gas tipped weapons is a justification to invade and overthrow a 'relatively' stable government, stinks on ice.*
> - DrDirt


I don't agree with most of the post, but this was perfect!


----------



## Bonka

President Clinton opined that WMD's were in Iraq. Isn't that proof there were WMD's there. He would not lead a soon to be new administration wrong would he?


----------



## RobS888

> President Clinton opined that WMD s were in Iraq. Isn t that proof there were WMD s there. He would not lead a soon to be new administration wrong would he?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


To opine is to state one's opinion, does that seems the same as lying about evidence and directly causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people?

Face it, Bush lied, people died.


----------



## RobS888

> So Dr. Dirt what would you have done after 9/11? No 20/20 hind sight allowed.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Could I opine on this?


----------



## Bonka

Rob, what would you have done?


----------



## RobS888

> Rob, what would you have done?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


I would have gone after Saudi Arabia, you know where 19 of the hijackers were from. I wouldn't have let all the Saudi royals fly home during a complete shutdown of US air space the next day. 9/11 was planned by a Saudi, Bin laden and carried out by Saudis. Let's invade a different country, madness.

Iraq and Afghanistan were a waste of time and money.


----------



## DanYo

Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) looked at more than 20 years worth of data to answer a simple question: Does the government represent the people?

Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans has essentially no impact at all.

Princeton University study: Public opinion has "near-zero" impact on U.S. law.

Gilens & Page found that the number of Americans for or against any idea has no impact on the likelihood that Congress will make it law.

"The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a "statistically non-significant impact," Economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence.

Nearly every issue we face as a nation is caught in the grip of corruption.

From taxation to national debt, education to the economy, America is struggling to address our most serious issues. Moneyed interests get what they want, and the rest of us pay the price.

They spend billions influencing America's government. We give them trillions in return.

In the last 5 years alone, the 200 most politically active companies in the US spent $5.8 billion influencing our government with lobbying and campaign contributions.

Those same companies got $4.4 trillion in taxpayer support - earning a return of 750 times their investment.

It's a vicious cycle of legalized corruption.

As the cost of winning elections explodes, politicians of both political parties become ever more dependent on the tiny slice of the population who can bankroll their campaigns.

To win a Senate seat in 2014, candidates had to raise $14,351 every single day. Just .05% of Americans donate more than $10,000 in any election, so it's perfectly clear who candidates will turn to first, and who they're indebted to when they win.

In return for campaign donations, elected officials pass laws that are good for their mega-donors, and bad for the rest of us.

Our elected officials spend 30-70% of their time in office fundraising for the next election. When they're not fundraising, they have no choice but to make sure the laws they pass keep their major donors happy - or they won't be able to run in the next election.

Until it's addressed, Corruption will continue to block progress on every issue.

Represent.Us has a plan to tackle corruption, and it's already winning:

Source https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/


----------



## Bonka

Rob, I agree with most of that. I will add that Donald Rumsfeld was a disaster.

Dan'um, the paying class is not even in the game. I have written one of my Senator's here in Fl. several times and the response is canned and an insult to my intelligence. If I asked him his favorite color he would say it is plaid.


----------



## patcollins

> I noted that many agreed with them, but those agreeing with them were not faking evidence. The Bush administration knowingly faked evidence, believing that they would be vindicated in the end. 100,000 people died.
> 
> - CharlesA


Why did Bill Clinton believe the same exact thing when he was President?


----------



## patcollins

> Thought only Republicans sheltered money overseas to avoid BILLIONS in taxes!!
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I don t think Rs have a monopoly on corruption and cheating. Billionaires are just more likely to buy Rs for Congress because Ds are *slightly less likely* to legalize their illegal activities.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


The problem with a system dominated with two parties is that for people to admit that their side is wrong about something makes them feel that they are saying the other side is right and therefore will almost never criticize their team. People see their politicians much like football teams.


----------



## CharlesA

> I noted that many agreed with them, but those agreeing with them were not faking evidence. The Bush administration knowingly faked evidence, believing that they would be vindicated in the end. 100,000 people died.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Why did Bill Clinton believe the same exact thing when he was President?
> 
> - patcollins


I feel like writing the exact same thing: many, many world leaders thought the same thing, but it was the Bush/Cheney admin that knowingly faked evidence in order to justify war. Clinton may have believed it, but he didn't go to war over it and he didn't lie about what was there in order to go to war. And, yes, to the question further up, being right about the facts matter. Had they found a bomb missile facility with a stash of uranium, I would not be so harsh. But when you start a war that kills 100,000 people, you better have the facts in your side.


----------



## patcollins

> I noted that many agreed with them, but those agreeing with them were not faking evidence. The Bush administration knowingly faked evidence, believing that they would be vindicated in the end. 100,000 people died.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Why did Bill Clinton believe the same exact thing when he was President?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I feel like writing the exact same thing: many, many world leaders thought the same thing, but it was the Bush/Cheney admin that knowingly faked evidence in order to justify war. Clinton may have believed it, but he didn t go to war over it and he didn t lie about what was there in order to go to war. And, yes, to the question further up, being right about the facts matter. Had they found a bomb missile facility with a stash of uranium, I would not be so harsh. But when you start a war that kills 100,000 people, you better have the facts in your side.
> 
> - CharlesA


I don't think that they faked anything, I do think they were looking at things through rose colored glasses though. I am also pretty sure we knew what they had because I think we gave them the knowledge during the Reagan administration, they just couldn't say that.

There are all sorts of accounts of soldiers that were over there exhibiting symptoms of having been exposed to VX and Sarian gas.

I don't necessarily think the mistake was in going but not winning. Militarily the win was just a check in the box, but trying to play nice and make people our friends that had no intention of being our friends ever was never going to work. The only way to fight a war is to make it hell, do a General Sherman if you will by totally destroying the other sides will to fight but in today's world I don't think anyone has the stomach for that.

Robert E Lee was quoted saying "*It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it*." And I think that is what smart weapons have done, taken the terrible out of it to some extent.


----------



## CharlesA

Colin Powell admitted it.


----------



## patcollins

> Colin Powell admitted it.
> 
> - CharlesA


Did you even read that? Powell said what I said that they were looking at things through rose colored glasses and wanted to believe a source so they did. The source wanted Saddam gone so it was in his vested interest to lie.


----------



## CharlesA

I can't believe you're questioning my reading. Comprehension. I'll try to write slowly. Everything in your last post is correct, AND in order to buttress their case, which they believed to be true, they made claims that had no basis in fact. They were so convinced that they would eventually find wmds that they thought the details wood be forgotten-so there weren't any in Kirkouk, but there were many in Basra. In the big picture they'd be recognized as th one who knew and acted. Then it turns out. That they were right n the big picture (they never doubted) and the fabrications would fade away. But then it turned they were wrong across the board, so the exaggerating ahead of time look pretty much like lies.


----------



## patcollins

> I noted that many agreed with them, but those agreeing with them were not faking evidence. *The Bush administration knowingly faked evidence*, believing that they would be vindicated in the end. 100,000 people died.
> 
> - CharlesA


So is this statement an exaggeration by you?


----------



## CharlesA

No


----------



## RobS888

> I don t think that they faked anything, I do think they were looking at things through rose colored glasses though. I am also pretty sure we knew what they had because I think we gave them the knowledge during the Reagan administration, they just couldn t say that.
> 
> There are all sorts of accounts of soldiers that were over there exhibiting symptoms of having been exposed to VX and Sarian gas.
> 
> I don t necessarily think the mistake was in going but not winning. Militarily the win was just a check in the box, but trying to play nice and make people our friends that had no intention of being our friends ever was never going to work. The only way to fight a war is to make it hell, do a General Sherman if you will by totally destroying the other sides will to fight but in today s world I don t think anyone has the stomach for that.
> 
> Robert E Lee was quoted saying "*It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it*." And I think that is what smart weapons have done, taken the terrible out of it to some extent.
> 
> - patcollins


Reminds me of the joke about we know they have WMD, we still have the receipts.

I think invading Iraq was a huge mistake. What did they do to us again?

It was said to get Bush the Dumber to read a report just put Iraq on the cover.


----------



## RobS888

> Colin Powell admitted it.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Did you even read that? Powell said what I said that they were looking at things through rose colored glasses and wanted to believe a source so they did. The source wanted Saddam gone so it was in his vested interest to lie.
> 
> - patcollins


I'm sorry there shouldn't be rose colored glasses when considering war.

Bush lied and people died. We didn't win anything, but perhaps some people felt better. I feel sad for them, that so many had to die to assuage their hurt.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

To really understand the Iraq War declaration, you have to look at the pre-inauguration history of Bush the Dumber. Before he was even elected and two years before 9-1-1, he told his biographer, Mickey Herskowitz he was not going to waste his presidency the way his father had. He was going to invade Iraq, becoming a war hero president that would give him a lot of political capital. He intended to use that political capital to privatize Social Security.

Early in the first year of his presidency, Hartmann reports Bush and Cheney had a meeting in the White House to divide up the oil fields between 4 oil execs. Here is a BBC version You may recall Bush the Dumber said the oil revenue from those oil fields would pay for the war. It did not. To keep this boondoggle under warps, the war was financed off budget with special appropriations to keep the public in the dark about the massive war deficit spending.

Bush the Dumber definitely lied to Congress about the WMD intelligence to get a declaration of war against Iraq. Going in there without any plan to stabilize the country after the fact was just plain stupid. Those tribes will never function in a democracy with the current boundaries. Those boundaries dividing up the Ottoman Empire at Yalta were drawn to punish Arabs for their participation in WWI.

Hartmann reported Bush the Dumber hung up on his dad, Bush 41, when he was pleading with The Dumber, 43, not to invade Iraq. Not only did The Dumber kill half a million people, cause thousands of U.S. soldiers to be permanently disabled, and create 5 million refuges in the middle east, he destroyed the functioning economy of Iraq destabilizing the region even further. Thousands of unemployed are now joining Isis.

Adding insult to injuries suffer by our service members, the Rs in the Senate filibustered 13 VA finance bills in a row! Only after the scandal about the total lack of care and it taking months to get in to see a VA Dr, did the Rs finally let VA funding pass.


----------



## dbray45

> David,
> 
> I m curious how much research you ve done on people killed in U.S. embassies in the past and whose responsibility it was.
> 
> I m also curious if you believe that Bush/Cheney should be tried for war crimes since they fabricated evidence to go to war (they, of course, were convinced, as many were, that their fabricated evidence would be shown to be legitimate at some point-turned out they were wrong) where 4500 U.S. soldiers died along with perhaps 24,000 Iraqi troops and 75,000 Iraqi civilians.
> 
> - CharlesA


According to the press (all of them) at the time - this was the first time in U.S. history, an ambassador was killed in this way - that was refused the support that he requested. Now if they were wrong, that tells you a lot about their fact checking.

Let's talk about you Charles - Why is it that when someone points out the total failure of your chosen ones, your response is to question my research and dismiss it out of hand - then you redirect the conversation to discuss what someone else did???? I was not discussing Bush or anyone else, I was discussing Hillary and Obama. Could it be that you really don't want to realize that your chosen demigods are not what you think that are? First word in my mind is worthless.

Let's talk Hillary - if there is a country after Obama is done destroying it - Why should she be President? She couldn't keep her marriage together! FAIL! What did she do as a congress woman? Nothing to note! She couldn't lead the State Department! FAIL big time! Now you want her to be President? In this case, the old adage that if you couldn't do a job, promote them to their level of incompetence has already been tried at several levels. By her performance alone, the only check she should be getting is unemployment.

My opinion, like it or not. If you think redirecting to a different "shiny" really works, it only is effective to people that do not want to open their eyes. I am not concerned with the past and what other Presidents did, I am looking at the here and now. What Obama has done to destroy our country and way of life is so astounding, it is immeasurable.

One more thing Charles - I don't know if the intel was fabricated, I don't know if there was an agenda, I do know this - if you are going to fight over something you believe in - do it to win. If you don't, far more lives will be changed for the worse if you just want to play the wishy washy game - look at Viet Nam.


----------



## DrDirt

> So Dr. Dirt what would you have done after 9/11? No 20/20 hind sight allowed.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Agree with Rob…. (wow!!)
Because UNLIKE say Pearl Harbor, this is not the action of one nation against another.



> I would have gone after Saudi Arabia, you know where 19 of the hijackers were from. I wouldn't have let all the Saudi royals fly home during a complete shutdown of US air space the next day. 9/11 was planned by a Saudi, Bin laden and carried out by Saudis. Let's invade a different country, madness.
> 
> Iraq and Afghanistan were a waste of time and money.


I think we would hav had better moral grounds to actually pursue those that were directly RESPONSIBLE.

Saddam Hussein…. had JACK SQUAT to do with 9/11
We watched in 1990 from the cockpit cams the mass killing of the Kurds by Saddam. So I was surprised that they didn't find chemical weapons…. since we watched him use them in the past.

Many Countries have Chemical Weapons and Nukes… That is NOT a reason for toppling governments. There was not even a hint of Sabre rattling by Saddam about using WMDs.

Frankly I am more concerned with Civil Forfeiture and No Knock raids in this country than I am about homicidal maniacs in far off places - - whether you talk about Boko Haram in africa, or Kim Jong Il, the now dead Hugo Chavez.
Posession of WMD is still NOT a reason to topple governments, to install puppet regimes.
Similarly we should not have backed the overthrow of Egypt either.

In the aftermath of 9/11 I would have given the Taliban government 24 hours to hand over Bin Laden, not a month. Getting Bin Laden, never required an occupying Army to get him… and yeah Seal Team 6 took him out in Pakistan…. never needed to invade Pakistan with tens of thousands of troops and overthrow the government to do it either.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> In the aftermath of 9/11 I would have given the Taliban government 24 hours to hand over Bin Laden, not a month. Getting Bin Laden, never required an occupying Army to get him… and yeah Seal Team 6 took him out in Pakistan…. never needed to invade Pakistan with tens of thousands of troops and overthrow the government to do it either.
> 
> - DrDirt


The Taliban offered him to Bush the Dumber and the offer was rejected. W had nothing to offer the public as he was destroying most of us, U.S., while advancing the causes of the 1% at our expense; therefore, without a "bogyman" to protect us from, we have no need for W, do we? .


----------



## patcollins

*Kabir said that if the United States gave evidence bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and halted the bombing, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country" - a country, he added, that would never "come under pressure from the United States."*

Not exactly sure I would call that "offered", first what would be the standard of evidence and then a third country that would never come under pressure from the United States. The only place I could think of there would be Iran.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I'm not sure how that would have played out if Bush had accepted the offer.

An East Indian acquaintance told me Indian intelligence was telling the US for years to forget the hills of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was in Pakistan. The US continued to use million dollar bombs under Bush the Dumber to blow up $10 tents. Why do you bomb a country back into the Stone-age that newer got out of it?

Anyone remember where they found Bin Laden after Bush the Dumber left office?


----------



## DrDirt

> The Taliban offered him to Bush the Dumber and the offer was rejected. W had nothing to offer the public as he was destroying most of us, U.S., while advancing the causes of the 1% at our expense; therefore, without a "bogyman" to protect us from, we have no need for W, do we? .
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


They demanded "Proof" before they would hand him over, and a ceasefire to "consider it"

and only to a Third party to be tried in an Islamic Court.

That isn't "handing him over".

From your article…..

Kabir's offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed a "second chance" given by Bush for the Islamic militia to surrender bin Laden to the United States. In a blistering statement, Mullah Mohammed Omar said *there was no move to "hand over anyone" *and accused the United States of killing Afghans.

your premise that in those weeks following the bombing were orchestrated to benefit the 1% is way way WAY into Alex Jones/tinfoil hat territory.
Are we going to hear about how Bush and the CIA Blew up the towers next?


----------



## patcollins

> I m not sure how that would have played out if Bush had accepted the offer.
> 
> An East Indian acquaintance told me Indian intelligence was telling the US for years to forget the hills of Afghanistan, Bin Laden was in Pakistan. The US continued to use million dollar bombs under Bush the Dumber to blow up $10 tents. Why do you bomb a country back into the Stone-age that newer got out of it?
> 
> Anyone remember where they found Bin Laden after Bush the Dumber left office?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


From what I understand we had him cornered at Tora Bora but in the interest of being PC and trying to make friends we relied on the rag tag northern alliance to capture him and he either slipped away or was allowed to escape.


----------



## RobS888

> My opinion, like it or not. If you think redirecting to a different "shiny" really works, it only is effective to people that do not want to open their eyes. I am not concerned with the past and what other Presidents did, I am looking at the here and now. *What Obama has done to destroy our country and way of life is so astounding, it is immeasurable*.
> 
> - dbray45


Just hysteria. How you can actually write that is beyond me.


----------



## CharlesA

> David,
> 
> I m curious how much research you ve done on people killed in U.S. embassies in the past and whose responsibility it was.
> 
> I m also curious if you believe that Bush/Cheney should be tried for war crimes since they fabricated evidence to go to war (they, of course, were convinced, as many were, that their fabricated evidence would be shown to be legitimate at some point-turned out they were wrong) where 4500 U.S. soldiers died along with perhaps 24,000 Iraqi troops and 75,000 Iraqi civilians.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> According to the press (all of them) at the time - this was the first time in U.S. history, an ambassador was killed in this way - that was refused the support that he requested. Now if they were wrong, that tells you a lot about their fact checking.
> 
> Let s talk about you Charles - Why is it that when someone points out the total failure of your chosen ones, your response is to question my research and dismiss it out of hand - then you redirect the conversation to discuss what someone else did???? I was not discussing Bush or anyone else, I was discussing Hillary and Obama. Could it be that you really don t want to realize that your chosen demigods are not what you think that are? First word in my mind is worthless.
> 
> Let s talk Hillary - if there is a country after Obama is done destroying it - Why should she be President? She couldn t keep her marriage together! FAIL! What did she do as a congress woman? Nothing to note! She couldn t lead the State Department! FAIL big time! Now you want her to be President? In this case, the old adage that if you couldn t do a job, promote them to their level of incompetence has already been tried at several levels. By her performance alone, the only check she should be getting is unemployment.
> 
> My opinion, like it or not. If you think redirecting to a different "shiny" really works, it only is effective to people that do not want to open their eyes. I am not concerned with the past and what other Presidents did, I am looking at the here and now. What Obama has done to destroy our country and way of life is so astounding, it is immeasurable.
> 
> One more thing Charles - I don t know if the intel was fabricated, I don t know if there was an agenda, I do know this - if you are going to fight over something you believe in - do it to win. If you don t, far more lives will be changed for the worse if you just want to play the wishy washy game - look at Viet Nam.
> 
> - dbray45


You accused Hillary of murder. 35 embassy staff were killed when GWB was president, and you don't know the circumstances of any of them. it is a complete obsession with one event. I have no real love for her, but the outrage is just way out of proportion.

And I'll remember that when you fight a war under false pretensions, it is important to fight to win.


----------



## CharlesA

There have already been seven investigations, 13 hearings, 50 briefings, and 25,000 pages of documents have been released.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/house-intelligence-committee-investigation-debunks-many-benghazi-theories/


----------



## patcollins

> You accused Hillary of murder. 35 embassy staff were killed when GWB was president, and you don t know the circumstances of any of them. it is a complete obsession with one event. I have no real love for her, but the outrage is just way out of proportion.
> 
> And I ll remember that when you fight a war under false pretensions, it is important to fight to win.
> 
> - CharlesA


Where do you get 35 from?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> your premise that in those weeks following the bombing were orchestrated to benefit the 1% is way way WAY into Alex Jones/tinfoil hat territory.
> Are we going to hear about how Bush and the CIA Blew up the towers next?
> 
> - DrDirt


That is not really what i intended. Bush was more concerned about benefiting them than much of anything else, not that they benefited from the bombing. If he cared about much of anything else, he would be done something about the Wall Street Corruption that was being exposed at that time.

I'm not going to say Bush 43 blew the towers. I was probably still supporting the party in those days. Shortly after, I finally figured out there was not going to be any justice for the 10% of us, U.S., that were getting screwed royally by Wall Street and corporate fraud. Remember Enron, Healthsouth, Tyco, Flextronics, Genuity, World Com, ............. The 1% were benefiting and the other 89% didn't have enough in it to really be noticeably affected short term. They were getting royally screwed too, but they didn't have the knowledge understand what was happening to cause their 401Ks to drop by 50%. Most will never figure it out. If they did, there would not be an R in Congress or the White House for 50 years. Remember what happened after the last Republican Great Depression? That was a term in general use up to the 60s. I think it lost popularity having a sane president like Eisenhower in the 50s.


----------



## RobS888

> You accused Hillary of murder. 35 embassy staff were killed when GWB was president, and you don t know the circumstances of any of them. it is a complete obsession with one event. I have no real love for her, but the outrage is just way out of proportion.
> 
> And I ll remember that when you fight a war under false pretensions, it is important to fight to win.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Where do you get 35 from?
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities
> 
> - patcollins


Here is a list of 20 attacks during Bush the Dumber's years with about 66 people killed. Some are staff, some guards, some just in the wrong place. This list pales in comparison to 9/11, of course.
http://www.politifact.com/embassyattacks/

Begin the prevaricating!


----------



## dbray45

Hmm! So Charles, are you really just trying to say that whatever the liberal democrats do, GWB did it better - Nice! I don't agree but if that's your take, run with it.

There have been many attacks on our embassies over the years. There has never been a case where the Ambassador asked for help, we had the resources nearby, and these resources were refused to the Ambassador - resulting in the Ambassador being hunted down and executed! Hillary WAS part of the decision process that resulted in the Ambassador's death.

As a result of any previous Embassy deaths, when the Ambassador requested the help, all effort should have been made to keep them safe - while the President slept - he didn't want to be disturbed.

You cannot defend their actions in any way shape or form - it was a blatant act that resulted in murder that could have been prevented by a nod - and then they have been trying to cover it up and minimize it since - with the media's help.


----------



## dbray45

Speaking of Hillary, let's talk about her communications - to her private email server that she erases emails while in office at the state department! This intentionally and blatantly violates so many federal laws, it is beyond ridiculous. Why are the laws not being addressed here - is she above our laws??? It is exactly these things that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were made for.

Speaking of this, let's look at Obama for a second and all of his ignoring the laws and just writing his own - He should be impeached and thrown out for violating the Oath of Office - you know the part - where he swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing in there that says do what you want.

We can even take a look at misuse of office. What about Michelle's "field trip" with the girls to India? Her and her "party" used government jets, rented 3 entire hotels and cost the taxpayers a cool 1 Billion dollars. All this from a woman that made the statement just before her husband took office that she was NOT proud to be an American. She spends our money rather freely.

The abuses of power and office are too many to list.

If you want to compare GWB to Obama, lets look at integrity - After the Afghan war started (right or wrong), GWB stopped playing golf (24 times) - he went to his ranch. Why? because he didn't want to be playing golf when he got word of some dying in combat. In an interview with GWB, he stated that he could not ask people to fight in a war while he played golf. Obama - you cannot get him off the golf course - well over 200 by the end of 2014. What is Obama's take - you will never know because the media and press are so up his a$$ and high on his flatulence that they do not ask questions like these.

Yes, GWB went to his ranch a lot, but there are some notable things here - it was GWB's ranch, not a hotel; security was already there, and it cost the taxpayers a lot less than going someplace else. Obama goes wherever he wants and spares no expense doing it - he even has Queen Michelle take a different jet (at taxpayer expense) in case she wants to spend an extra day or two.


----------



## RobS888

> We can even take a look at misuse of office. What about Michelle s "field trip" with the girls to India? Her and her "party" used government jets, rented 3 entire hotels and cost the taxpayers a cool *1 Billion dollars.* All this from a woman that made the statement just before her husband took office that she was NOT proud to be an American. She spends our money rather freely.
> 
> *The abuses of power and office are too many to list.*
> 
> - dbray45


1 billion dollars, is this based on that single Indian newspaper that said the trip cost 200milion/day? I bet it cost 200 million Rupees/day. Any proof it cost $1 billion USD?

Please list some of these abuses of power and office for us? Not just your opinion oh hysterical one, but cases where he has been convicted of said abuse.

Got a question for you. Can Raphael Cruz run for president if he is a Canadian?


----------



## RobS888

> Hmm! So Charles, are you really just trying to say that whatever the liberal democrats do, GWB did it better - Nice! I don t agree but if that s your take, run with it.
> 
> There have been many attacks on our embassies over the years. There has never been a case where the Ambassador asked for help, we had the resources nearby, and these resources were refused to the Ambassador - resulting in the Ambassador being hunted down and executed! Hillary WAS part of the decision process that resulted in the Ambassador s death.
> 
> As a result of any previous Embassy deaths, when the Ambassador requested the help, all effort should have been made to keep them safe - while the President slept - he didn t want to be disturbed.
> 
> You cannot defend their actions in any way shape or form - it was a blatant act that resulted in murder that could have been prevented by a nod - and then they have been trying to cover it up and minimize it since - with the media s help.
> 
> - dbray45


He died of smoke inhalation, not quite murder. I bet you believe his body was dragged through the streets and violated as well.

If there was a cover up, how do you know what happened? Also, Fox noise mentioned Benghazi 2/hour for years. Yet it seems they and many, many Republican investigations can't find that anyone did anything wrong.

This is just your opinion on what has happened.


----------



## dbray45

According to Factcheck "There are reports all over that Obama's India trip will cost $200 million per day. I haven't been able to find a credible rebuttal to this but I can't believe it could be true." They cannot disprove it and the White House and government do NOT offer any "credible" numbers - as they put it.

How many times do we find out what Obama does from outside sources like Reuters - Many more than from our own media.

Ahhh - "convicted of abuses" - King Obama???? Why do you put your head in the sand for this guy? He isn't even questioned about his original citizenship - You are aware that it is a matter of the Constitution that a President MUST be a native born American citizen - aren't you? There is nothing about this person that is viable - except that he has great speech writers.

The whole thing about this guy is that the press and the media (who are supposed to investigate and vet all this stuff) are not doing anything. There has been a deliberate denial of any proof about anything - except that he has trashed our allies, sucks up to their enemies, violates the Constitution, you name it - he has done it. He has even gone so far as use the IRS to go after his political challengers. He has seen something on the news and publicly stated that the police were wrong about something in which he had no facts. He has gotten the DOJ involved in things that were not his place to do - it is not the President's job. Whether the DOJ would be involved is not the question - it is and was not the President's call.

You have blasted GWB about everything that is wrong with the world - What has he been convicted of


> ?


This works both ways. Open your eyes - unless you really want a socialist government and society. But when that happens, it is a double edged sword. My rights will be gone-and so will yours.

Be very careful of what you ask. Personally, I have an issue with the idea that the government will tell me what I will do for a living, what kind of house or apartment that I will live, what food I am eligible to eat, and with whom I can speak with and what I can say. That is the very direction that these people are going. We are further into this than you realize. Our phones are monitored, every Internet email is captured, if you have a "smart" TV and use voice commands - the conversations in your room are being recorded across the Internet. The company says they won't use this data but they can sell it - but wait, isn't the government monitoring and recording traffic across the Internet? Nazi Germany wasn't this invasive. Oh, they won't do that - right up until the phone call is placed. This is all under Obama's call. And you bless this person?

The problem is that it is actually hard work to be free and you are too lazy to do that work. A free person is accountable and responsible for what they do. You want the government to give it to you and you do not want to be responsible for anything - it is all someone else's fault. That may work for now, right up until the government says that you have had enough (their "enough" not yours) and then your life and everyone else's will change - and not for the good.

You cannot even decide what your kid will have for lunch at school - unless it is on their prescribed lunch list. Have we gone too far - we will see, but you better get your head out of the sand - real soon.


----------



## DrDirt

> yThey were getting royally screwed too, but they didn t have the knowledge understand what was happening to cause their 401Ks to drop by 50%. Most will never figure it out. If they did, there would not be an R in Congress or the White House for 50 years.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


So Dem leaders like Hillary and the "Clinton Global Initiative" are not 1% focused? Keeping Chelsea in her 10 million dollar apartment, so she can tell us how "she doesn't really think about money".
That is something ONLY the 0.1% would ever try to claim with a straight face.










Kerry (more Kerry's wife) used to have him on top before he became Secretary of State.
but of course he moors his yacht in Rhode Island to skip out on Massachusetts property taxes.

I am not buying the idea that the Democrats are for the working class since LBJ… Maybe Carter was, but he was a pointless blip in history that did nothing of note, really good nor bad.

The dems are now the party of international influence selling, through a CONVENIENT server in hillary's basement.

I found it interesting that of the 538 congress members (they include Puerto Rico etc) that Net worth of #401-538 is negative.
So fully 25% of congress (house + Senate0 is actually 'underwater' financially. and #538 is a republican from California


----------



## dbray45

You are aware that at his moment, there REALLY is almost no difference between the republicans and the democrats. With that, say what you want, it doesn't matter, as a country without borders (unless you are an ally), it is the same as living in a tent in the middle of a train track, anything of value will be lost as soon as the train comes through - as our rights and freedoms will be lost - and it will be our fault - not GWB, not Obama, not Hillary, not LBJ - we let it happen and chose to not stop it. It IS on US.


----------



## DrDirt

Agree David - - point was Topa feels the R's are for the rich.

I think all of them are for the rich. They just give different speeches…. Agree completley there is Little if any difference, except for a handful in each party.

Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio for the R

Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren for the Dems.

All the rest are just paid advocates for the rich.

There is NOBODY there that gives a rat fart about middle class or poor.


----------



## dbray45

For the rich-no 
This is a power thing. Congress and Senate make a base pay of $150,000 or something. They make money or stipends for each committee they are on. Leadership tells each new member - stir the pot and no committees (which means they will starve). Having two places to live D.C. and their home state will not happen on $150K. Get on several choice committees and you are making 2 - 3 - or 500,000 a year.

Everything in this town is power - and surviving.

The Democrats have made things so appealing to the masses by trashing the "big bad corporations" and giving them 3 or 4 years of unemployment, making them unemployable in any line of work except McDonalds. Then they come back and say - its the Republican's fault! If Republicans try to undo it and go back it is a no-win gambit. Each time the Republicans try to put things right, the Democrats come back with the line, "When are you going to stop trashing everything?" The press goes right with it and we have what we have, 60 or 70 million people out of work that are not even counted as unemployed - because they are not getting benefits, a health care system that is smoke and mirrors and you are fined if you are not on it, no raises in salary because the revenue isn't there, tremendous inflation in food - which the government does not include in their numbers, and the list goes on and on.

I hate politics and what it does to people and they are too stupid to open their eyes and see what's going on !!!!

I will seriously be glad to retire (if I can afford it), do my woodworking, and get away from Washington D.C.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Not quite sure why you guys always resort to tit-for-tat to respond to the facts. Lots of evidence of blind eyes here ;-( They are all screwing us, U.S. TPP will be the final nail in the coffin. Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## DrDirt

> Not quite sure why you guys always resort to tit-for-tat to respond to the facts. Lots of evidence of blind eyes here ;-( They are all screwing us, U.S. TPP will be the final nail in the coffin. Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Because you always and ONLY ever blame the Republicans. Reagan did it… everything was perfect Unicorn Tears until Reagan and the Air Controller Strike….
It was perfect under Clinton… then Bush made it about the 1%.

It is not about Tit for Tat.. it is showing the other side is as bad or sometimes worse depending on the player.

I LOATHE Hillary, and the in your face corruption. The "Convenient Server - she wiped clean, but HONEST it was ONLY personal stuff aout Yoga and Chelsea's wedding.

Anybody else would be doing time like G.Gordon Liddy or Scooter Libby. But there is a protected class that the press covers for. The Dems get away with crap a republican would be publicly hung for.

We could DREAM that the press was just complacent… but the cheerleading and cover-up is apalling.

How about the 'interview' from Mark Halperin of Ted Cruz.

When THINKPROGRESS - - complains about a rough interview of a Republican candidate… you know you crossed the line.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/11/3657223/prize-racist-interview-2016-candidate-goes-bloombergs-mark-halperin/

Topa is right about Follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Things get a bit out of line once in a while. 20 years ago Progressive Magazine named Senator Patty Murray D-WA as the 2nd dumbest person in the US Senate; barely able to follow the proceedings. I don't remember who was first, probably a R because their job is to pick on Rs.

Facts are facts. The elite learned during the Viet Nam war they could not afford an affluent middle class. The long game plan of the Kochs and their ilk has been very successful. Suppression of the peons is nearly complete. Here is the public's opinion, yet those opposing it are successfully buying elections ;-(

Kind of hard for me to fit in here being independent ex-R accused of being a D and seeing evil on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## dbray45

What I think is serious funny - I start bringing up points that you cannot argue with and now you scream that I am doing tit for tat. Really?

Wake up and start thinking - really seriously take a look around you.

Are things really better in your lives? What is your future - what the politicians promise you?

Americans make their own way, they do not rely on handouts, they think for themselves, they make what they are. That is what it is all about!


----------



## DrDirt

> Suppression of the peons is nearly complete. Here is the public s opinion, yet those opposing it are successfully buying elections ;-(
> 
> Kind of hard for me to fit in here being independent ex-R accused of being a D and seeing evil on both sides of the aisle.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


The "supposed Consensus" versus the actual questions is revealing…. what a hack piece this is. I just look at the top 12









So the big #1 item of consensus is that the government should negotiate our drug prices….
hmmm the ACTUAL QUESTION:
Allow the government to negotiate lower drug prices for *Medicare and Medicaid* beneficiaries, which could save two-hundred-and-thirty billion dollars per year for taxpayers and seniors.
Not set prices nationally for everyone

So yeah - just like blue cross… the government should set prices for medicaid reimbursements as pertaining to prescriptions.

#2 Student loans….. the problem with Debt from college is not from the interest rate… it is the 100K debt being racked up, not that the interest rate is 3.856 through Sallie Mae. Paying a roughly 4% interest rate on student loans is not 'breaking the backs of the kids.' Instead it is a diversion away from looking at why tuition is skyrocketing far faster than medical cost.

When I finished college in the 80's my total bill for 4 years was the price of a car @ 15K total (the price of a Honda Accord).... not college is ~25K EVERY YEAR… also about the price of an Accord.

So we went from graduating with a "Car Payment - - on a 10 year note" (easy to pay off) to a Home Mortgage on a 10 year note (damn tough on entry level salary). 
The interest rate is smoke and mirrors.









Similarly -I do not believe there is consensus to have people *drain their 401K* to pay for their subprime mortgage. You can borrow money for a house… you cannot borrow money to retire on.

The Universal Pre-K.
the actual question is about ACCESS… not FREE/Government provided (Taxpayer funded pre-K)
Question: 
Ensure that high-quality pre-Kindergarten
programs *are available* to every child in
America.

Well Gee - who would claim that Preschool should be UN-available???

Polls can and do say whatever the prognosticators want them to… the addage Figures lie and Liars Figure.


----------



## patcollins

The last thing I want to see in 2016 is a Clinton v Bush race, as much as I dislike Martin O'Malley he is right in this regard.

What I really don't is a president too stupid to set up two different email accounts on their phone.


----------



## DrDirt

> The last thing I want to see in 2016 is a Clinton v Bush race,
> - patcollins


Can I get an Amen!!! ANYBODY but those two turds…PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.


----------



## RobS888

> According to Factcheck "There are reports all over that Obama's India trip will cost $200 million per day. I haven't been able to find a credible rebuttal to this but I can't believe it could be true." They cannot disprove it and the White House and government do NOT offer any "credible" numbers - as they put it.
> 
> How many times do we find out what Obama does from outside sources like Reuters - Many more than from our own media.
> 
> Ahhh - "convicted of abuses" - King Obama???? Why do you put your head in the sand for this guy? He isn t even questioned about his original citizenship - You are aware that it is a matter of the Constitution that a President MUST be a native born American citizen - aren t you? There is nothing about this person that is viable - except that he has great speech writers.
> 
> - dbray45


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/04/michele-bachmann/rep-michele-bachmann-claims-obamas-trip-india-will/

Politifact called the 200million/day accusation by Michelle Bachman totally false.

Obama's mother was a US citizen, so he is eligible. Doesn't matter where he was born. Even if in Asia he is still eligible. Raphael Cruz wasn't born in the US either his father is Cuban, but his mother is a US citizen, and hey look, he is running for Prez.

Your hatred makes your opinion have less value than most.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Wake up and start thinking - really seriously take a look around you.
> 
> - dbray45


I did. I used to be a party officer. Remember? or did you read that? I was cheering the day Sandra Day O'Connor gave the presidency to Bush the Dumber; although I did not know she was the one that did it at the time and I had no idea what a disaster for us, U.S. and the rest of the world lie ahead.

Sorry Dr Dirt, but one needs to have a basic understanding of the issues they are polling. It is very naive to try to compare your college costs and loan to what students are facing today.

After WWII, there was concern the US could follow a leader like Hitler through the gates of hell like the Germans did. There was a lot of psychological research to understand why they did it. It was determined about 30% of the population is right wing authoritarian. There are also left wing authoritarians but not as many. The left and right do not refer to political views, but those groups generally tend to lean that direction. Bob Altemeyer at the University of Manitoba spent his career researching authoritarians. You guys might find his work interesting. It explains a lot about why things are the way they are.


----------



## dbray45

Rob - I don't hate him or anyone else - I do not like what is going on, I do not like that specific people are given a complete pass while others are scrutinized down to what shorts they wear, how many times they are laundered and by whom.

Bob - All of the things that GWB did or didn't do is minuscule by comparison to what Obama has done and is doing. Obama has trashed the economy, trashed health care, gutted the military, opened the boarders for anybody to walk through, trashed the working base, trashed business, put the black population against the police, driven a wedge into all race relations, trashed our allies, emboldened our enemies (and our ally's enemies), handed radicals entire countries (remember the Arab Spring) - I am not seeing much left on his plate to do - he has had a very full presidency.

I fault all of the people on the hill because they are ONLY concerned about how they look instead of doing what is right and what makes sense. If the republicans can't or won't repeal Obamacare, then fix it - nothing being done in any case. Could Congress have stopped Obama in the incredulously stupid things he has done - absolutely. Why don't they - so they can say at election time - "Obama did that!" Largely because the press is so slanted to the left that the republicans are blasted for everything they do. People complain about gridlock - when there is gridlock, nothing gets done - THAT is a good thing! Because nothing ever gets reversed - it just stays, festers, and gets worse - something to blame later on. The problem is that it destroys our country - piece by piece.

If you want an example, look at the trade deal vote that many republicans backed Obama - the Democrats shot it down. Even the Democrats don't want Obama to have blanket power to destroy what is left. The Republicans are clueless at this point and don't even try to stop him - which is worse?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Sorry David, but the economy when down before GWB could get out of the White House. Obama's biggest short coming is his inability to admit he will never get any cooperation from Congress. Hartmann refers to this meeting occasionally. It was very traumatic for me when I realized those who I had supported an believed in most of my life were stabbing me and America in the back. There is no doubt DC is about not letting the other guy look good in the eye of the public no matter the cost to us, U.S. If Obamacare needs fixing, then where is the proposal other than just say "NO" or give it to a CEO to pad his own pockets at our expense. Hartmann has requested anyone to call him with any program the conservative Rs have proposed in the last 100 years to benefit the middle class and common people. Lots call to rant and rave, but there has never been a single viable response in the last couple of years the challenge has been out.. Do you have one?


----------



## DrDirt

> Sorry Dr Dirt, but one needs to have a basic understanding of the issues they are polling. It is very naive to try to compare your college costs and loan to what students are facing today.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


What is so Naive about the analysis…. comparing how inflation and car prices have tracked with College Tuition.

My experience is that whenver the defense of something is described as "too complex" it is because it is indefensible.
WHy has college increased in cost at twice the rate of inflation.

Since 1978 7.8% EVERY SINGLE YEAR>.. and no 'Dip" nor Flattening while we went through the financial crisis in 2008 or the recession in 2000.

A car every year versus a car for all 4 years combined fits with the actual Data.

The problem is NOT the interest rate, it is the price tag.
What if the Interest rate was 0 instead if 3.8%....does that really make a dent in the payment of 100K in loans for 4 years. You still need to pay 833 a month at 0% for 10 years.
Pretty tough just starting out as a fresh graduate.
My loan was at 7% and I only paid 159/month …. Pretty easy even in the late 80's to pay that.

We instead do things like this:
With 8700 dollar annual tuition at LSU… they could have given a FREE tuition for all 4 years to 2500 students, for the latest pork boondoggle.

an 85 million dollar "Lazy River" is why tuition skyrockets… not cost of new technology or even professor salaries.
Of course the 85 million is the construction cost… next you need staff, maintenance, lifeguards, supervisors of life guards, chemicals, etc. I don't say they should go swim in the swamp…. but there are some lines to be drawn around teh mission of taxpayer funded education at State Universities - - who all complain about reduced support.









http://sites01.lsu.edu/wp/admissions/costs-aid/tuition-fees/


----------



## RobS888

> Rob - I don t hate him or anyone else - I do not like what is going on, I do not like that specific people are given a complete pass while others are scrutinized down to what shorts they wear, how many times they are laundered and by whom.
> 
> Bob - All of the things that GWB did or didn t do is minuscule by comparison to what Obama has done and is doing. *Obama has trashed the economy, trashed health care, gutted the military, opened the boarders for anybody to walk through, trashed the working base, trashed business, put the black population against the police, driven a wedge into all race relations, trashed our allies, emboldened our enemies (and our ally s enemies), handed radicals entire countries (remember the Arab Spring)* - I am not seeing much left on his plate to do - he has had a very full presidency.
> 
> - dbray45


Can you prove any of that? You seem to be confused on who actually makes laws in this country. What to work through them in order?

Prove the President trashed the economy.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> What is so Naive about the analysis…. comparing how inflation and car prices have tracked with College Tuition.
> 
> - DrDirt


Sorry, I misunderstood what you said. One of the occasional hazards of having been malpracticed upon whit Topamax. ;-((


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The first phase of Trans-Pacific Partnership has been blocked.

I can't help but wonder if Obama has compromised his principles and pulled a "Clinton" to make himself a multimillionaire when he leaves office, if he just wants a deal with the Rs for his legacy or if he truly believes this is good for us, U.S.? Considering it was done by nearly 600 corporate managers and lobbyists and it is classified, it can't be good for 99% of us!


----------



## dbray45

DrDirt - The college tuition has not gone up twice as fast as inflation - it has gone up twice as fast as REPORTED inflation.

Bob - the economy goes up and down all the time. I lost my job and a profession under Congress's tax increase under Uncle Ronny. I went on to different pastures and did better, never even took unemployment. Had some rocky issues under GB senior. Obama has taken over corporations and given them to the unions, who were the problem to begin with.

People think unions are for the people, they are seriously mistaken. Their #1 priority is for them to grow and prosper. There is nothing in their charter that says they are to help or be fair to anyone but themselves - just for them to grow.

Under Clinton - the first thing he did was to raise taxes - to take place before he went into office. The last thing he did was to limit losses to income at $3,000 a year - I lost my retirement in the stock market that year because a trade that should have executed - didn't (now it is the law) and if I could have written it off, I would have been able to start the rebuilding process - at $3,000 write-off, not going to happen. Every penny of profit is taxed.


----------



## RobS888

> *DrDirt - The college tuition has not gone up twice as fast as inflation - it has gone up twice as fast as REPORTED inflation.*
> 
> *Obama has taken over corporations and given them to the unions, who were the problem to begin with. *
> 
> *Under Clinton - the first thing he did was to raise taxes - to take place before he went into office. *
> 
> - dbray45


Could you prove these please?


----------



## DrDirt

> DrDirt - The college tuition has not gone up twice as fast as inflation - it has gone up twice as fast as REPORTED inflation.
> - dbray45


True - but decent 30 year metrics of REAL inflation are tougher to dig up.
That Tuition has grown faster than than either inflation and Medical costs is a problem that now puts higher education out of reach of many…. in an era where STEM is crucial.

That is why I Compared the cost of going to school with Automobiles….

I got my BS in 4 years - and had a State of Alaska Student loan, which you can borrow 100% of teh cost. So I had loans that paid Tuition, fees, books, dorm and meal plan…..100% financed.

At the end of 4 years I had a total debt for a BS in Chemistry of less than 15K
That was AFFORDABLE… it was the price of a basic midsized car….but had a 10 year schedule.

Today it is the cost of a new car EVERY year… that 15K Honda Accord is now 23K

Imagine the affordability of college if a State School University degree was ~ the cost of a car today.


----------



## patcollins

How did Bill Clinton raise taxes before he even went into office? I know he was smooth but damn!


----------



## patcollins

> The first phase of Trans-Pacific Partnership has been blocked.
> 
> I can t help but wonder if Obama has compromised his principles and pulled a "Clinton" to make himself a multimillionaire when he leaves office, if he just wants a deal with the Rs for his legacy or if he truly believes this is good for us, U.S.? Considering it was done by nearly 600 corporate managers and lobbyists and it is classified, it can t be good for 99% of us!
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


You are assuming the he has principals in the first place. You refused to see that he is and always was about himself.


----------



## Bonka

Pat. President Clinton made the tax hike retroactive back to Jan. 1 of that year. That is how I recall it.


----------



## RobS888

> Pat. President Clinton made the tax hike retroactive back to Jan. 1 of that year. That is how I recall it.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


In the 90's the President set the tax rate? How did congress ever wrestle that ability from him?


----------



## Bonka

I do not recall him setting the rate. The tax increase was done by congress and the retroactive rate was in the bill.
Again this is how I recall it. At the time I felt this was another greedy grab for out money.


----------



## dbray45

Food is not calculated in the COLA formulations. When they claimed 0 inflation for Social Security (several times in the last several years), housing was flat or in decline but food went up 30-40% in a year. I don't know anybody that lives on SSA that buys and sells houses for their income - but they have to eat.

The Democrat Congress passed the new taxes and Clinton made the recommendation to make them retroactive - something in the law that requires new taxes to start on the new year for IRS requirements. Instead of waiting to the next year, they made them retroactive by over a month - if I recall. If you look at your pay stub, there may be a field for additional money paid by your employer that you owe them from that time. I remember having to pay out extra withholding for my employees at the time and work out a way to deduct that amount from their pay so it would not impact them.

The "New General Motors" is now managed by the unions. If you recall - unless you head was in the sand, Obama decreed that GM was to shut down entire lines of cars - like the Saturn line - because HE didn't think it was required? In the end, the unions were given control of the company. If you remember, he decreed that they were too large to fail, instead of going under bankruptcy protection and letting the company renegotiate the union contracts - which would have been the appropriate thing to do. - Unless, again, you had your head in the sand! Heaven forbid that a company should be allowed to scrutinize the union contract.


----------



## dbray45

New in the news today - In response to the Amtrak accident, the airlines are putting more planes in the air between DC and NYC. They are only raising the rates a little - $200-400 EACH WAY. For people the commute for their jobs. this is a serious issue.

How is it that what appears to be a control malfunction - it is, according to the Democrats, all because the Republicans underfunded Amtrak? Really????

Every good accident is a Democrat opportunity - so it seems. If I cut my hand in the shop, I am sure that it will be all because the Republicans didn't pass a law to prevent it - is that the real reason they took shop out of the schools?


----------



## DrDirt

Yeah David… they all subscribe to Rahm Emmanuel's rule book "Never let a crisis go to waste"

Somehow taking the 50 mile/hour curve at 106…. and having it derail, is an Infrastructure problem.

Infrastructure in the US is indeed getting worse, but question is:
What happened to all that Stimulus for 'Shovel Ready Jobs'

The pundits and floor speeches in the House, like to put up graphics of what China spends on railroads.

But we did the 800 Billion Stimulus…. only 33 Billion went to transportation…. so ~4% (and that was all passed when there was the Democrat Supermajority)


----------



## RobS888

> The "New General Motors" is now managed by the unions. If you recall - unless you head was in the sand, Obama decreed that GM was to shut down entire lines of cars - like the Saturn line - because HE didn t think it was required? In the end, the unions were given control of the company. If you remember, he decreed that they were too large to fail, instead of going under bankruptcy protection and letting the company renegotiate the union contracts - which would have been the appropriate thing to do. - Unless, again, you had your head in the sand! Heaven forbid that a company should be allowed to scrutinize the union contract.
> 
> - dbray45


Saturn was sold. Can you prove the president decided what was required?

GM is a publicly traded company. Are you saying a minor shareholder like the unions is in control of the whole company? Don't the major shareholders have a say in that?

According to Nasdaq there are 972 institutional holders with 1.2 billion shares. 
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/gm/institutional-holdings

Companies like: Harris and associates, vanguard, franklin, state street, JP Morgan, Berkshire, capital research, & blackrock trust hold over a billion$ each. The other 966 investors have less than 1 billion in shares. I paged through the first hundred in the list and couldn't see an obvious union, so not sure why you think they are in control.


----------



## dbray45

Ahh! GM is not the same GM. Officially the original GM stock was frozen - when the feds loaned it all that money, along with Chrysler, were under complete federal control. It was later issued a new name and stock.

Where have you been the last 5 years? Under the federal loan agreement, the union has majority management control of the company. I didn't say Stock ownership, I said management control.

Saturn is dissolved.


----------



## patcollins

> The "New General Motors" is now managed by the unions. If you recall - unless you head was in the sand, Obama decreed that GM was to shut down entire lines of cars - like the Saturn line - because HE didn t think it was required? In the end, the unions were given control of the company. If you remember, he decreed that they were too large to fail, instead of going under bankruptcy protection and letting the company renegotiate the union contracts - which would have been the appropriate thing to do. - Unless, again, you had your head in the sand! Heaven forbid that a company should be allowed to scrutinize the union contract.
> 
> - dbray45
> 
> Saturn was sold. Can you prove the president decided what was required?
> 
> GM is a publicly traded company. Are you saying a minor shareholder like the unions is in control of the whole company? Don t the major shareholders have a say in that?
> 
> According to Nasdaq there are 972 institutional holders with 1.2 billion shares.
> http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/gm/institutional-holdings
> 
> Companies like: Harris and associates, vanguard, franklin, state street, JP Morgan, Berkshire, capital research, & blackrock trust hold over a billion$ each. The other 966 investors have less than 1 billion in shares. I paged through the first hundred in the list and couldn t see an obvious union, so not sure why you think they are in control.
> 
> - RobS888


The bond holders and share holders were basically wiped out, whenever a company is dissolved, liquidates etc the bond holders are supposed to get first crack at the assets much like a lien holder on your house/car etc. In GMs case the rules were simply ignored and new ones made on the spot, if you owned GM shares or bonds you ended up with nothing.

GM was a train wreck for years, they actually borrowed money to pay dividends and kept doing it to keep shareholders happy, about 2006 when I realized this i sold all of mine and am so happy I did.

What was done was wrong and I will bet you within 10 years GM will be needing another government bailout.


----------



## RobS888

> Ahh! GM is not the same GM. Officially the original GM stock was frozen - when the feds loaned it all that money, along with Chrysler, were under complete federal control. It was later issued a new name and stock.
> 
> Where have you been the last 5 years? Under the federal loan agreement, the union has majority management control of the company. I didn t say Stock ownership, I said management control.
> 
> Saturn is dissolved.
> 
> - dbray45


What I listed is the current GM shares.
You are correct abuut Saturn, I thought it was sold.

The owners decide who manages a company.

Do you have proof that the uaw manages GM? I can't find any.


----------



## RobS888

> The bond holders and share holders were basically wiped out, whenever a company is dissolved, liquidates etc the bond holders are supposed to get first crack at the assets much like a lien holder on your house/car etc. In GMs case the rules were simply ignored and new ones made on the spot, if you owned GM shares or bonds you ended up with nothing.
> 
> GM was a train wreck for years, they actually borrowed money to pay dividends and kept doing it to keep shareholders happy, about 2006 when I realized this i sold all of mine and am so happy I did.
> 
> What was done was wrong and I will bet you within 10 years GM will be needing another government bailout.
> 
> - patcollins


GM was a special case. The effect would have been very bad for the auto industry. Ford was solvent and didn't need or ask for any money, but they knew if GM went down most if not all the feeder plants would go down. You know, the people what make parts for them.

GM is the 24th largest company in the world. 11 of the larger ones are auto or oil and gas companies. If you think the auto industry isn't big consider that almost 1/2 of the 25 largest companies are auto related. Guess what, there are no banks above GM. So if the banks were too big to fail, so was GM.


----------



## dbray45

Everything in a special case - if you decree it


----------



## RobS888

> Everything in a special case - if you decree it
> 
> - dbray45


Or a problem if *you* decree it.

GM going out of business would be far worse than the banks.


----------



## patcollins

> The bond holders and share holders were basically wiped out, whenever a company is dissolved, liquidates etc the bond holders are supposed to get first crack at the assets much like a lien holder on your house/car etc. In GMs case the rules were simply ignored and new ones made on the spot, if you owned GM shares or bonds you ended up with nothing.
> 
> GM was a train wreck for years, they actually borrowed money to pay dividends and kept doing it to keep shareholders happy, about 2006 when I realized this i sold all of mine and am so happy I did.
> 
> What was done was wrong and I will bet you within 10 years GM will be needing another government bailout.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> GM was a special case. The effect would have been very bad for the auto industry. Ford was solvent and didn t need or ask for any money, but they knew if GM went down most if not all the feeder plants would go down. You know, the people what make parts for them.
> 
> GM is the 24th largest company in the world. 11 of the larger ones are auto or oil and gas companies. If you think the auto industry isn t big consider that almost 1/2 of the 25 largest companies are auto related. Guess what, there are no banks above GM. So if the banks were too big to fail, so was GM.
> 
> - RobS888


I disagree, unlike banks GM had solid assets that they could have sold off, closed etc to cut off the necrotic parts of their business. GM should have been doing this all along but they were slow to change and adapt, which is part of what being so big does to you. Hypothetically lets say they did go under, GM going under would not have changed the worlds need for automobiles and the other manufactures would have jumped at the chance to take a bigger piece of the pie.

I see you are for corporate welfare,


----------



## dbray45

Going bankrupt for reorganization is NOT going out of business - lose the scare tactics and BS. What it does is allows all of the contracts to be renegotiated with a bankrupcy judge making the new contracts equitable for the compay.

It also helps the company to reduce the overhead where it makes sense. It is not the government's place, especially Obama, or responsibility to mandate what a corporation needs to do.

Oh, by the way, GM is still having problems - mostly because the employees are the highest paid, by a whole lot, in the industry.


----------



## dbray45

Let's face it - Obama likes to meddle in places where he has no business being.


----------



## RobS888

> Going bankrupt for reorganization is NOT going out of business - *lose the scare tactics and BS. * What it does is allows all of the contracts to be renegotiated with a bankrupcy judge making the new contracts equitable for the compay.
> 
> It also helps the company to reduce the overhead where it makes sense. It is not the government s place, *especially Obama*, or responsibility to mandate what a corporation needs to do.
> 
> Oh, by the way, GM is still having problems - mostly because the employees are the highest paid, by a whole lot, in the industry.
> 
> - dbray45


Now that was funny. Scare tactics and BS! YOU saying that made me chuckle.

Why "especially" President Obama? Because you hate him?

Are you absolutely sure the president made GM drop car lines and not GMs idea to get the money? I seem to recall several attempts to get the loans.


----------



## RobS888

> Let s face it - Obama likes to meddle in places where he has no business being.
> 
> - dbray45


You are embarrassing your self or trolling…or both.


----------



## DKV

I have always thought that Democrats are people that need government assistance and guidance and Republicans are people that want to make it on their own and have less to little government "help".


----------



## patcollins

> Oh, by the way, GM is still having problems - mostly because the employees are the highest paid, by a whole lot, in the industry.
> 
> - dbray45


The hourly rate is actually of little consequence, the Honda, Toyota, and BMW plants that I am familiar with pay an hourly rate that is very comparable. What killed GM was "legacy costs", many stock analysts refereed to GM as a health care company masquerading as an auto company.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/auto-worker-salaries/

One thing that I think really hurt GM was Chrysler, as much as GM was a basket case Chrysler was worse for much longer, they would compare themselves to them and probably think "hey we are in pretty good shape".


----------



## RobS888

> I have always thought that Democrats are people that need government assistance and guidance and Republicans are people that want to make it on their own and have less to little government "help".
> 
> - DKV


Your comment clearly shows a republican delusion. There are many, but that is definitely one of them. How do you like being painted with such a large brush?


----------



## RobS888

> Oh, by the way, GM is still having problems - mostly because the employees are the highest paid, by a whole lot, in the industry.
> 
> - dbray45
> 
> The hourly rate is actually of little consequence, the Honda, Toyota, and BMW plants that I am familiar with pay an hourly rate that is very comparable. What killed GM was "legacy costs", many stock analysts refereed to GM as a health care company masquerading as an auto company.
> 
> http://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/auto-worker-salaries/
> 
> One thing that I think really hurt GM was Chrysler, as much as GM was a basket case Chrysler was worse for much longer, they would compare themselves to them and probably think "hey we are in pretty good shape".
> 
> - patcollins


Well said! They forgot the difference between being the best and sucking the least.

I thought the point the article made about the transplanted auto companies, not having many retires yet, was pretty important.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I have always thought that Democrats are people that need government assistance and guidance and Republicans are people that want to make it on their own and have less to little government "help".
> 
> - DKV


Rs definitely have an advantage in that area. They believe fraud is a market risk, not a criminal activity. One of my discoveries when I was a party officer ;-(


----------



## dbray45

Just out of curiosity, let's see what your comments are to this?

If you remember the bailout and all of the stupdi things they did to "help GM", how about Obama's "team's" decision to shut down all of those dealerships. You know, the companies that sold their cars, paid the franchise fees, paid to have their mechanics trained - and hired all kinds of local people.

I remember this as well, I have a "former" Chevrolet dealer up the street from me. They opened their doors in the early 1900s and Obama's Team decided that they were not needed. I would like you to tell me how this was a good thing.

In the article:

http://theweek.com/articles/454749/auto-bailout-officially-over-heres-what-america-lost-gained

It tells you what they believe we won out of this. What I see - we still have 10s of millions, if not 100s of million that lost their jobs and are no longer counted because they no longer receive benefits - 8 years later. The losses from shutting down those dealers are still being felt. My take on it - as soon as the government is involved, it will cost you 100x more and the results will not be good.


----------



## patcollins

I think the decision on the dealerships was one of the worst thing to come out of the bailout. GM might have had an idea of which dealerships needed closed but I know of one very high volume dealer near me that was closed. There were also rumblings that political affiliation of dealers had something to do with whether or not they were closed, I guess this is inside info because I have no idea what the political affiliation of a dealer is when I drive up to it. http://nlpc.org/stories/2013/05/28/were-republicans-targeted-gm-and-chrysler-dealership-closures

That said, it is pretty hard to feel bad for a car salesman.


----------



## RobS888

> Just out of curiosity, let s see what your comments are to this?
> 
> If you remember the bailout and all of the stupdi things they did to "help GM", how about Obama s "team s" decision to shut down all of those dealerships. You know, the companies that sold their cars, paid the franchise fees, paid to have their mechanics trained - and hired all kinds of local people.
> 
> I remember this as well, I have a "former" Chevrolet dealer up the street from me. They opened their doors in the early 1900s and Obama s Team decided that they were not needed. I would like you to tell me how this was a good thing.
> 
> In the article:
> 
> http://theweek.com/articles/454749/auto-bailout-officially-over-heres-what-america-lost-gained
> 
> It tells you what they believe we won out of this. What I see - we still have 10s of millions, if not 100s of million that lost their jobs and are no longer counted because they no longer receive benefits - 8 years later. The losses from shutting down those dealers are still being felt. My take on it - as soon as the government is involved, it will cost you 100x more and the results will not be good.
> 
> - dbray45


Even a casual reading of that article proves my points about GM needing to be saved. Thank you for the link.

When we are talking about multi-billion dollar companies anecdotal evidence, regardless of how compelling to you, is meaningless.

So are you complaining that GM was forced to shed unprofitable or redundant branches in order to be bailed out, or was it that they were bailed out at all? It is hard to follow, since you said earlier chapter 11 wouldn't be so bad for all of GM, but here you are decrying 10% being shutdown.

And finally, *if not 100s of million that lost their jobs* really are you counting children and retired as out of work? Do you remember during the 2012 elections Republicans were saying 300,000/month were leaving the workforce? Sounds really bad doesn't it? I mean how could we possible sustain such massive job losses? The thing was they weren't job losses: 10,000 boomers/day were retiring. Even you can see that 10,000/day X 30 days = 300,000/month. They took you hook, line, and sinker to the polls didn't they?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/24/do-10000-baby-boomers-retire-every-day/


----------



## RobS888

> I think the decision on the dealerships was one of the worst thing to come out of the bailout. GM might have had an idea of which dealerships needed closed but I know of one very high volume dealer near me that was closed. There were also rumblings that political affiliation of dealers had something to do with whether or not they were closed, I guess this is inside info because I have no idea what the political affiliation of a dealer is when I drive up to it. http://nlpc.org/stories/2013/05/28/were-republicans-targeted-gm-and-chrysler-dealership-closures
> 
> That said, it is pretty hard to feel bad for a car salesman.
> 
> - patcollins


The link referring to the Washington Examiner makes me question the validity of the whole article. The Baltimore and Washington Examiners are junk papers. They ended up mostly on the sewer grates when they used to pretend to be a local paper and delivered it free to our driveway. Numerous calls asking to be removed from the sub list went unheeded. An acquaintance knew the distribution manager and got me off the list.

Their "reporters" are on FOX noise all the time, so that is a another mark against them. I bet they have circular references on stories, FOX reports that the Examiner said… then the Examiner mentions FOX reports about…

I wonder if a word search would show Benghazi was used more on one or the other. Prolly same.


----------



## DrDirt

> The link referring to the Washington Examiner makes me question the validity of the whole article. The Baltimore and Washington Examiners are junk papers. T
> 
> Their "reporters" are on FOX noise all the time, so that is a another mark against them. I bet they have circular references on stories, FOX reports that the Examiner said… then the Examiner mentions FOX reports about…
> 
> I wonder if a word search would show Benghazi was used more on one or the other. Prolly same.
> 
> - RobS888


Which reporters are you talking about.
Charles Krauthammer writes for the Washington Post… not the examiner.
Kirsten Powers (D) is from USA Today

Mike Barone works at teh Examiner…. after leaving US News and Readers Digest.. (not exactly Breitbart)

I think Charles and Kirsten are both about the most honest commentators out there.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/11/how-the-illiberal-left-uses-silencing-tactics/


----------



## RobS888

> Which reporters are you talking about.
> Charles Krauthammer writes for the Washington Post… not the examiner.
> Kirsten Powers (D) is from USA Today
> 
> Mike Barone works at teh Examiner…. after leaving US News and Readers Digest.. (not exactly Breitbart)
> 
> I think Charles and Kirsten are both about the most honest commentators out there.
> http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/11/how-the-illiberal-left-uses-silencing-tactics/
> 
> - DrDirt


From your link: *Breitbart.com* posted a copy of the letter and reviewed the congressmen's concerns as follows:

The IRS scandal 'raises serious questions about past decisions made by the [Treasury] Department regarding auto dealership closures that occurred in 2008 and 2009,' reads the letter. 'We formally request that the Treasury Department provide all e-mails, phone records, notes, memoranda, reports, and other communications regarding the decision-making process for dealership closures from the Automotive Task Force headed by Car Czars Steve Rattner and Ron Bloom.'

The letter also notes that while the Automotive Task Force claimed to have objectively evaluated each dealership, a Special Inspector General Report found that there was 'little or no documentation' that proves objective criteria were used.

'At the heart of this request,' the letter concludes, 'is the obligation we have to the American people to ensure that political profiling has not been a systemic issue within this administration.'

*The original concerns regarding possible targeting of Republican-owned dealerships were spelled out back in May of 2009 by the Washington Examiner. *

So the article references Brietbart and the "Examiner" that's a double whammy to credibility. Not just any particular reporter…the entire organizations are suspect to me.

Sometimes Kirsten seems very honest and other times she seems to be skirting proscribed topics. Krauthammer is just ridiculous, dBray45 reminds me of him. Politifact has only rated him 3 times, but he isn't doing well.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/charles-krauthammer/


----------



## dbray45

My My My! Could there have been an ulterior agenda here? Hmmm! Aren't the Democrats supposed to be the "caring" party? And the Republicans are those nasty people that put people out of work.

Only Obama used the IRS, Justice, and the Treasury to target and shut people down.


----------



## RobS888

> My My My! Could there have been an ulterior agenda here? Hmmm! Aren t the Democrats supposed to be the "caring" party? And the Republicans are those nasty people that put people out of work.
> 
> Only Obama used the IRS, Justice, and the Treasury to target and shut people down.
> 
> - dbray45


Hysteria!


----------



## DrDirt

Um Rob - - - are you sure your post #2180 talks about the Car Czar and Breitbart is from me?... I don't see that in the Kirsten Powers article I posted…. (when you say 'from my link')

But may question to you was about which Examiner writers are on Fox news? When you said about the Examiner:


> *Their "reporters" are on FOX noise all the time,* so that is a another mark against them. I bet they have circular references on stories, FOX reports that the Examiner said… then the Examiner mentions FOX reports about…
> 
> - RobS888


----------



## RobS888

> Um Rob - - - are you sure your post #2180 talks about the Car Czar and Breitbart is from me?... I don t see that in the Kirsten Powers article I posted…. (when you say from my link )
> 
> But may question to you was about which Examiner writers are on Fox news? When you said about the Examiner:
> 
> *Their "reporters" are on FOX noise all the time,* so that is a another mark against them. I bet they have circular references on stories, FOX reports that the Examiner said… then the Examiner mentions FOX reports about…
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> - DrDirt


You are totally correct! I was referring to a link Patcollins posted #2,176. Sorry about that.

I don't watch any news, any more, but I do recall seeing a Washington Examiner reporter with a beard/goatee on FOX all the time.

Do you know who runs the site you linked to? The Heritage Foundation.

Side note: did you know the Heritage Foundation came up with plan that became Rmoneycare and then Obamacare? Weird stuff.


----------



## dbray45

Rob - why is it that when somebody comes along and points out what your chosen ones do - it is hysteria. While everything that the other side does (or what is supposed to be the other side) is always so wrong or this or that and it is a conspiracy or something. Just saying!

You are also aware that whatever we discuss and point out and argue about - won't change a thing and the people in power are just going to continue what they do - aren't you? Sad but it is the reality of it.

I am only pointing out what I am - to hopefully get people thinking about what they really want out of life. I expect, in a very short time, you will not be able to buy the tools of our trades because they are dangerous and could hurt us - this will be the rationale. Let the machines do all this kind of work, we just program it in and out it comes. It really is not that far off. They are not even teaching the basics anymore!


----------



## DrDirt

> Do you know who runs the site you linked to? The Heritage Foundation.
> 
> Side note: did you know the Heritage Foundation came up with plan that became Rmoneycare and then Obamacare? Weird stuff.
> 
> - RobS888


No for that link I didn't go to the line of the site owner.

My focus was Kirsten Powers, and here discussion and examples how free speech and dissention are being squashed by liberals.
Which is also the subject of her book. *The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech *

There are a lot of examples to support her position…. and so I felt her "editorial" was just that (her opinion) regardless of the site.
If instead it was a staff 'analysis of some issue or policy in DC' then I would be more critical of the source.

Just as I don't think the opinions you post here are somehow "falsified" because …"They were posted on a woodworking site"


----------



## RobS888

> Rob - why is it that when somebody comes along and points out what your chosen ones do - it is hysteria. While everything that the other side does (or what is supposed to be the other side) is always so wrong or this or that and it is a conspiracy or something. Just saying!
> 
> You are also aware that whatever we discuss and point out and argue about - won t change a thing and the people in power are just going to continue what they do - aren t you? Sad but it is the reality of it.
> 
> I am only pointing out what I am - to hopefully get people thinking about what they really want out of life. I expect, in a very short time, you will not be able to buy the tools of our trades because they are dangerous and could hurt us - this will be the rationale. Let the machines do all this kind of work, we just program it in and out it comes. It really is not that far off. They are not even teaching the basics anymore!
> 
> - dbray45


I've asked you for proof several times to back up your claims, but you haven't even tried to prove your claims against the president. Lacking proof they are just emotional outbursts.

Take this:

*Only Obama used the IRS, Justice, and the Treasury to target and shut people down.*

First it is naive to think anything President Obama could do, hasn't been done before (baring digital age advancements).

Second, how did the IRS shut people down? Given the law, I don't think the TEA party or other political parties should get tax free status. Not having tax free status in no way shuts you down, it just means rich people can't deduct their donations to you. You are in no way prohibited from any activity. If I formed a political group called "not really a charity" and the IRS was sceptical, well good for them. Their job was to make sure real charities only got tax free status.

You'll have to prove how the justice & treasury departments were used to shut people down.

Not teaching woodworking is a fiscal decision not a political ploy to take your machines.


----------



## RobS888

> Do you know who runs the site you linked to? The Heritage Foundation.
> 
> Side note: did you know the Heritage Foundation came up with plan that became Rmoneycare and then Obamacare? Weird stuff.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> No for that link I didn t go to the line of the site owner.
> 
> My focus was Kirsten Powers, and here discussion and examples how free speech and dissention are being squashed by liberals.
> Which is also the subject of her book. *The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech *
> 
> There are a lot of examples to support her position…. and so I felt her "editorial" was just that (her opinion) regardless of the site.
> If instead it was a staff analysis of some issue or policy in DC then I would be more critical of the source.
> 
> Just as I don t think the opinions you post here are somehow "falsified" because …"They were posted on a woodworking site"
> 
> - DrDirt


Not being falsified (true) doesn't mean there is no agenda. I'm not being paid to post here, therefore not an employee. She could be considered an employee of FOX and of that website. Also, not sure how the boss of Mozilla being ousted is bad, so if I don't believe her first example then it is hard to align with the rest of the article.

She is selling a book to conservatives, so it is tailored to them. She may as well climb on the bandwagon with the rest of the FOX people.

She was the only Buxom Blond on FOX I gave any credibility to. I first heard her defending Sandra Fluke on FOX, it was like watching an adult talk with children, as she explained how not to confuse the messenger with the message.

She does look good on the cover of her book, I wonder if I can just buy the cover?


----------



## DrDirt

> She does look good on the cover of her book, I wonder if I can just buy the cover?
> 
> - RobS888


She is usually pretty levelheaded in her analysis. (I disagree with her about immigration… she is one of the complete no country/open borders for everyone crowd)
It is fun to watch her get into it with O'Reilly

She believes actually having the debate is good… the Torch and Pitchfork activism of liberals today is bad.
More akin to a Klan, or Westboro version of free speech, than a healthy thing.

I think as her book alludes to, the mob silencing is a problem. E.g. Mozilla. When you have crowds of 'activists' using online petitioning to take down anyone that has a different view than them…. e.g. as she pointed out, he (Mozilla CEO) donated 1000 dollars to the Prop 8 group in 2008, how does that disqualify him from his current job.

Maybe we should have fired the Professors that were members of the Weather Underground? Since they actually killed people??
If he were discriminating at the company - doing something illegal - then sure.

I don't believe that somehow everyone that believes in traditional marriage should be fired from their jobs and forced to live under a bridge. All under the guise of "Being Tolerant of others Views"

Perhaps if the tide continues to turn and large groups of folks don't belive in Global warming anymore…. they can troll through and Fire any employee that donated money or speeches claiming AGW was real?

Or is having an opinion on an issue and excercising your right to express it, only OK if it is the deemed the "RIGHT" position?

Creating "hit lists" by getting leaked donor lists from causes - is pretty dangerous…. Are you still going to support it when the tide swings the other way when Obama is out and there is a New Attorney General? Or will you start to think the First Amendment is a good thing even outside of the Government Designated Free Speech Zones?


----------



## DrDirt

> Take this:
> 
> *Only Obama used the IRS, Justice, and the Treasury to target and shut people down.*
> 
> First it is naive to think anything President Obama could do, hasn t been done before (baring digital age advancements).
> 
> - RobS888


You should read Nixons Articles of Impeachment…..."never done before"


----------



## RobS888

> She is usually pretty levelheaded in her analysis. (I disagree with her about immigration… she is one of the complete no country/open borders for everyone crowd)
> It is fun to watch her get into it with O Reilly
> 
> She believes actually having the debate is good… the Torch and Pitchfork activism of liberals today is bad.
> More akin to a Klan, or Westboro version of free speech, than a healthy thing.
> 
> I think as her book alludes to, the mob silencing is a problem. E.g. Mozilla. When you have crowds of activists using online petitioning to take down anyone that has a different view than them…. e.g. as she pointed out, he (Mozilla CEO) donated 1000 dollars to the Prop 8 group in 2008, how does that disqualify him from his current job.
> 
> Maybe we should have fired the Professors that were members of the Weather Underground? Since they actually killed people??
> If he were discriminating at the company - doing something illegal - then sure.
> 
> I don t believe that somehow everyone that believes in traditional marriage should be fired from their jobs and forced to live under a bridge. All under the guise of "Being Tolerant of others Views"
> 
> Perhaps if the tide continues to turn and large groups of folks don t belive in Global warming anymore…. they can troll through and Fire any employee that donated money or speeches claiming AGW was real?
> 
> Or is having an opinion on an issue and excercising your right to express it, only OK if it is the deemed the "RIGHT" position?
> 
> Creating "hit lists" by getting leaked donor lists from causes - is pretty dangerous…. Are you still going to support it when the tide swings the other way when Obama is out and there is a New Attorney General? Or will you start to think the First Amendment is a good thing even outside of the Government Designated Free Speech Zones?
> 
> - DrDirt


I believe that the president/CEO/COO of a company can be held to higher standards than other employees. 
If you get 70,000 people against you, apologize and duck your head.

He had the right to do what he wanted just like the company had the right to fire him, as did the people that felt he wasn't right to lead the company.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the first amendment a restriction on the federal government, not on other groups? You can say what you want, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences. You just won't get arrested unless people got hurt immediately after you said it.

He wasn't fired for what he said, but that many people felt he was fundamentally wrong for the job. I don't see where free speech comes into play at all. That is why I felt her argument fell down.


----------



## RobS888

> Take this:
> 
> *Only Obama used the IRS, Justice, and the Treasury to target and shut people down.*
> 
> First it is naive to think anything President Obama could do, hasn t been done before (baring digital age advancements).
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> You should read Nixons Articles of Impeachment…..."never done before"
> 
> - DrDirt


Exactly the kind of things I meant. Nixon makes Obama look like an angel.


----------



## DrDirt

> I believe that the president/CEO/COO of a company can be held to higher standards than other employees.
> If you get 70,000 people against you, apologize and duck your head.
> 
> He had the right to do what he wanted just like the company had the right to fire him, as did the people that felt he wasn t right to lead the company.
> 
> Correct me if I m wrong here, but isn t the first amendment a restriction on the federal government, not on other groups? You can say what you want, but that doesn t mean there aren t consequences. You just won t get arrested unless people got hurt immediately after you said it.
> 
> *He wasn t fired for what he said, but that many people felt he was fundamentally wrong for the job. I don t see where free speech comes into play at all. That is why I felt her argument fell down.*
> 
> - RobS888


Wasn't fired for the 1000 dollar donation…. what is the atmosphere on the planet where you live?

What is "fundamentally wrong for the job?" He lead a bunch of work from home computer geeks.

It is not like he went off on some rant, like a Basketball Team Owner.
He made a campaign donation, then 6 years later, someone (NOT from the company) decides that you have a position they don't agree with, and organize a mob.

Pu$$y boards directors, cave to that pressure from OUTSIDE the company and you are terminated.

Sure we all answer to a boss, however I think "running people out on a rail through protest" has been designed and now abused as a tool for SILENCING people.

These groups create an atmosphere, where if you utter anything that is outside their dogma, they will litterally hunt you down.

There are lots of organizations that work that way.

ISIS comes to mind.

If you made a donation to Planned Parenthood, or the Clinton Global Initiative… as you are free to do, is that grounds for termination because there are CONSEQUENCES to be met out by people with a different world view? Or more directly… if a group of people start a petition drive in Honolulu saying you should be tossed, they find your donation offensive?


----------



## RobS888

> Wasn t fired for the 1000 dollar donation…. what is the atmosphere on the planet where you live?
> 
> What is "fundamentally wrong for the job?" He lead a bunch of work from home computer geeks.
> 
> It is not like he went off on some rant, like a Basketball Team Owner.
> He made a campaign donation, then 6 years later, someone (NOT from the company) decides that you have a position they don t agree with, and organize a mob.
> 
> Pu$$y boards directors, cave to that pressure from OUTSIDE the company and you are terminated.
> 
> Sure we all answer to a boss, however I think "running people out on a rail through protest" has been designed and now abused as a tool for SILENCING people.
> 
> These groups create an atmosphere, where if you utter anything that is outside their dogma, they will litterally hunt you down.
> 
> There are lots of organizations that work that way.
> 
> ISIS comes to mind.
> 
> If you made a donation to Planned Parenthood, or the Clinton Global Initiative… as you are free to do, is that grounds for termination because there are CONSEQUENCES to be met out by people with a different world view? Or more directly… if a group of people start a petition drive in Honolulu saying you should be tossed, they find your donation offensive?
> 
> - DrDirt


I see we are back to the vivid examples again.

I don't see 70k people as a mob, more of a movement. His donation shows a desire to restrict other peoples right to marry. There was no rail and I bet he got a partial golden parachute. Admit it, no laws were broken, so her argument still falls down. I would say this is a triumph of free speech.

The 99% got their way over the 1%! As it should be.


----------



## DrDirt

No laws were broken by keeping slaves either….

So I guess it is OK…. Democracy in action?

We tend to defend positions we agree with, and are often too willing to throw liberty under the bus, because someone has a different view.

Can we ban hiring muslims because of their views? Don't say 'freedom of religion' because that doesn't apply to Christian bakers….
Can I reject them because the view women as property…. and have the kind of legal standing you apply to the firing of Mozilla….

"He had an unpopular political position that we found out about so he is out?" 
Or should people be judged on their performance, not some bereived group from Poughkipsee

This is why elections are by secret ballots and curtains on the voting booths.

Do you support NSA spying? because you should have no issue with strangers accessing all of your thoughts/political positions/correspondence… and maybe that be sent to your employer??


----------



## RobS888

> No laws were broken by keeping slaves either….
> 
> So I guess it is OK…. Democracy in action?
> 
> - DrDirt


Nice vivid comparison, Slavery wasn't illegal when slave owners made the laws, duh!

In this case it was digital democracy.


----------



## DrDirt

No law was broken by donating 1000 to a petition drive….


----------



## RobS888

> No law was broken by donating 1000 to a petition drive….
> 
> - DrDirt


No one claimed it was, but the drive was to maintain a law that many considered negative. In fact I believe over 65% of the population are in favor of marriage equality now.

You can do anything you want, just nut up to the consequences, and there are always consequences.

How does a donation constitute freedom of speech? And since when is a petition a mob? If he was in favor of abortion, I suspect you would be fine with him being removed.

Her argument still falls down.

Have you ever signed a petition?


----------



## dbray45

Rob - You know, you are correct, I do not have the proof that you seek. I have the same proof that you have about the people that you speak of and exclaim how terrible that they are. The difference is - you have what many people claim, after they make changes here and there, omit what they want and by the time you get it, none of it is close to the truth. On the other perspective, the same people go over to the other side and ask questions that are designed to be offensive regardless of how they answer - questions like like, " when are you going to stop beating your kids?" kind of questions.

You obviously have all the answers - just be careful of the questions you ask - Oh, never mind, because from your perspective, you are told that your people "care" about you and "work" in your behalf, they "know" what you need and will give you what you want, "no stings attached, trust me, REALLY!". You don't need to ask questions - because they are the chosen ones.

Once Texas and California have a tremendous imbalance of illegals that are voting and the states turn Democrat, they will not care about what you think, or anybody else. There will be no opposition party. But them again, with the Republicans that are completely complaisant, it doesn't matter anyway.

I am not going to argue with you.


----------



## DrDirt

> No one claimed it was, but the drive was to maintain a law that many considered negative. In fact I believe over 65% of the population are in favor of marriage equality now.
> 
> Have you ever signed a petition?
> 
> - RobS888


Indeed I have signed a petition… to have issues put on the ballot to be decided by 'the people' instead of a handful of councilmen.

I have not signed a petition to have people driven from their jobs.
I did not boycott Target, because they had Ellen Degeneres as a spokesperson.
Nor did I boycott Chick-fil-a FRANCHISES because their CEO believes in traditional marraige.

Didn't boycott Hobby Lobby for standing up to Obamacare either.

As I said - -
Slavery was legal… a majority supported that too.
Cheating on your wife is LEGAL
Donating to political causes is LEGAL

Discrimination for against gays from marraige… still legal in many areas.
Running people out of their jobs because of donations.
Firing the Fire Chief because he wrote an opinion on gay marraige. Legal
Expelling 5th graders for possession of a dart fro a nerf gun….Legal
*
Of course this discussion isn't about LEGAL…. it is about RIGHT*

If someone was fired because they donated to Planned Parenthood.. libs would scream!!
They wouldn't defend the company claiming it was their right. And I would agree with them.

In fact they would work to have the business that fired them shut down (There I would disagree)

Shouting Down, and Intimidation…. the punishment of dissent is not a path to a stronger nor more civil society.
It turns all dialogue into essentially Baltimore Riots… where the most obnoxious and violent voice is the winner

We thus are controlled and ruled by fear of retalliation…. the libs learned well from Bush/Cheney to use fear to control public opinion and squash dissent.
Label all dissent as Racist…..because everyone that doesn't like the ACA, is a closet Klansman?
I don't think so

My view of right and wrong is not based on a Gallup Poll on the issue.
Are you saying in 2008 when the donation happened…. and the Ballot issue PASSED. It shouldn't have been appealed, because it was widely supported?
Obama felt it was RIGHT as well.


----------



## DrDirt

This kind of thing…. is LEGAL to attempt, but is not RIGHT.

Leading to support his opposition… sure even demanding a recall election,,, maybe

But revoking a college degree in political science because he doesn't do your bidding?

REALLY!! Maybe because Obama does things I don't agree with we shoudl get Harvard to Revoke his law degree? mmmmmm NO!!!


----------



## RobS888

> Rob - You know, you are correct, I do not have the proof that you seek. I have the same proof that you have about the people that you speak of and exclaim how terrible that they are. The difference is - you have what many people claim, after they make changes here and there, omit what they want and by the time you get it, none of it is close to the truth. On the other perspective, the same people go over to the other side and ask questions that are designed to be offensive regardless of how they answer - questions like like, " when are you going to stop beating your kids?" kind of questions.
> 
> You obviously have all the answers - just be careful of the questions you ask - Oh, never mind, because from your perspective, you are told that your people "care" about you and "work" in your behalf, they "know" what you need and will give you what you want, "no stings attached, trust me, REALLY!". You don t need to ask questions - because they are the chosen ones.
> 
> Once Texas and California have a tremendous imbalance of illegals that are voting and the states turn Democrat, they will not care about what you think, or anybody else. There will be no opposition party. But them again, with the Republicans that are completely complaisant, it doesn t matter anyway.
> 
> I am not going to argue with you.
> 
> - dbray45


This is a childish post. Also, non-documented aliens can't vote!


----------



## RobS888

> Indeed I have signed a petition… to have issues put on the ballot to be decided by the people instead of a handful of councilmen.
> 
> I have not signed a petition to have people driven from their jobs.
> I did not boycott Target, because they had Ellen Degeneres as a spokesperson.
> Nor did I boycott Chick-fil-a FRANCHISES because their CEO believes in traditional marraige.
> 
> Didn t boycott Hobby Lobby for standing up to Obamacare either.
> 
> As I said - -
> *Slavery was legal… a majority supported that too.*
> Cheating on your wife is LEGAL
> Donating to political causes is LEGAL
> 
> Discrimination for against gays from marraige… still legal in many areas.
> Running people out of their jobs because of donations.
> Firing the Fire Chief because he wrote an opinion on gay marraige. Legal
> Expelling 5th graders for possession of a dart fro a nerf gun….Legal
> *
> Of course this discussion isn t about LEGAL…. it is about RIGHT*
> 
> If someone was fired because they donated to Planned Parenthood.. libs would scream!!
> They wouldn t defend the company claiming it was their right. And I would agree with them.
> 
> In fact they would work to have the business that fired them shut down (There I would disagree)
> 
> Shouting Down, and Intimidation…. the punishment of dissent is not a path to a stronger nor more civil society.
> It turns all dialogue into essentially Baltimore Riots… where the most obnoxious and violent voice is the winner
> 
> We thus are controlled and ruled by fear of retalliation…. the libs learned well from Bush/Cheney to use fear to control public opinion and squash dissent.
> Label all dissent as Racist…..because everyone that doesn t like the ACA, is a closet Klansman?
> I don t think so
> 
> My view of right and wrong is not based on a Gallup Poll on the issue.
> Are you saying in 2008 when the donation happened…. and the Ballot issue PASSED. It shouldn t have been appealed, because it was widely supported?
> Obama felt it was RIGHT as well.
> 
> - DrDirt


No time to address all your points, so I'll look at the most egregious…
*Slavery was legal… a majority supported that too.* less than 25% of US citizens could vote at first, so no not true.
*Cheating on your wife is LEGAL* Not in Maryland it isn't, you can be arrested for the appearance of impropriety.
*Donating to political causes is LEGAL* Sure and so is asking for someone to be fired or really "object to them being hired".

*Shouting Down, and Intimidation…. the punishment of dissent is not a path to a stronger nor more civil society.
It turns all dialogue into essentially Baltimore Riots… where the most obnoxious and violent voice is the winner*

The TEA party loved shouting down dissent, was that ok? If you are referring to the recent riot, not sure how the most violent voice was heard, since the murderers were arrested, no one was killed in the riots (unless you count the CVS pharmacy.) Having seen riots in Detroit, this seemed like vandalism mostly.

You really need to understand that you live in a democracy, therefore the majority rules, except in the Senate where the minority rules. Didn't we settle this topic before?


----------



## Bonka

We not live in a democracy. We live in a republic with representative form of government.


----------



## DrDirt

> The TEA party loved shouting down dissent, was that ok? If you are referring to the recent riot, not sure how the most violent voice was heard, since the murderers were arrested, no one was killed in the riots (unless you count the CVS pharmacy.) Having seen riots in Detroit, this seemed like vandalism mostly.
> 
> You really need to understand that you live in a democracy, therefore the majority rules, except in the Senate where the minority rules. Didn t we settle this topic before?
> 
> - RobS888


If it really is just MAJORITY RULES… that is a rebuke of any civil rights. Just the foxes getting together with teh rooster to decide what is for dinner.
Sounds like Sharia….and paying special taxes to the muslims for 'permission' to exist in their city (Jizya).

Think you are confusing teh Tea Party with Occupy Wallstreet.
Do show me the tea party shout down.

You know the wahoos that stand up shouting "MIc Check" to …. "END DEBATE OR 2 Way discussion." 
Even when it is Obama at the podium





or Education Dept Meetings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/occupy-wall-street-department-of-education_n_1031812.html



> We not live in a democracy. We live in a republic with representative form of government.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Unfortunately only true in theory…. not sure what to really call what we have had for about the past 10 years, but it isn't representing "We the People"


----------



## Bonka

I agree that "We the People" are not being represented. It seems to me that we will become a de-fatco democracy. This is occurring as our elected, in order to stay in office, are handing out goodies to the populace in the form of entitlements, tax incentives, ad infinitum, until they have a group that knows they can line their pockets with other peoples money.
It seem to me that The Constitution is merely a historical object to go to see at The Smithsonian. I think that is where it is.


----------



## RobS888

> I agree that "We the People" are not being represented. It seems to me that we will become a de-fatco democracy. This is occurring as our elected, in order to stay in office, are handing out goodies to the populace in the form of entitlements, tax incentives, ad infinitum, until they have a group that knows they can line their pockets with other peoples money.
> It seem to me that The Constitution is merely a historical object to go to see at The Smithsonian. I think that is where it is.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


If that was true, nuts wouldn't have guns.


----------



## RobS888

> We not live in a democracy. We live in a republic with representative form of government.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


A republic means/meant no monarchy. If Canada or UK ended the monarchy, but kept everything as is they would be republics. One of the FF was a little confused on what a democracy was, so we have a different meaning than the rest of the world. A true democracy is where everyone votes on everything. A representative democracy has elected reps voting on things. Sound familiar?

Also, I challenge you to find where it says republic form of federal government in the constitution. The only time republic is mentioned is in regard to the states.


----------



## RobS888

> If it really is just MAJORITY RULES… that is a rebuke of any civil rights. Just the foxes getting together with teh rooster to decide what is for dinner.
> Sounds like Sharia….and paying special taxes to the muslims for permission to exist in their city (Jizya).
> 
> *Think you are confusing teh Tea Party with Occupy Wallstreet.
> Do show me the tea party shout down.*
> 
> You know the wahoos that stand up shouting "MIc Check" to …. "END DEBATE OR 2 Way discussion."
> Even when it is Obama at the podium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or Education Dept Meetings.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/occupy-wall-street-department-of-education_n_1031812.html


Selective retention?
https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+town+hall+shouting&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=kIFeVafuNNW1sQTJ7YLQDQ&ved=0CDEQ7Ak&biw=768&bih=901

The majority decides what the rules are. Sheria? Really?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> We not live in a democracy. We live in a republic with representative form of government.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Thom Hartmann makes a compelling case for the gov't to be a monarchy with the 9 Supreme Court Justices sharing the throne.


----------



## DrDirt

> Selective retention?
> https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+town+hall+shouting&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=kIFeVafuNNW1sQTJ7YLQDQ&ved=0CDEQ7Ak&biw=768&bih=901
> 
> The majority decides what the rules are. Sheria? Really?
> 
> - RobS888


Ranting at a TOWN HALL FORUM…is part of the2-way discussion.
Representatives are supposed to answer to their constituents.

Shouting down, is (as the videos you don't look at) 
Where OWS, or Code Pink, shows up at events to Shout down/drown out speakers.
*It is a method to ensure that an opposing view is not presented.*

*AKA.. the Human Microphone*
Used as a form of protest…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microphone
As a form of protest

The technique has also been used by protestors to interrupt and talk over a speaker.[4] Politicians such as Scott Walker,[4][5] Michele Bachmann,[6] Joseph Lieberman, Christine Lagarde7 and Barack Obama8 have been targets for this style of heckling. Using the human microphone to interrupt an electrically amplified speech has become known as "mic checking" the speaker, as in "Karl Rove [...] got mic-checked during his speaking event".[9]

------------
It is a technique taught by Alinsky:
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.* Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions*.

AND
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

------------------

I guess I agree more with Voltaire….
*"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." *

Or better

*"Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too."*
― Voltaire, Traité sur la tolérance, à l'occasion de la mort de Jean Calas

I don't support firing someone for being a 9/11 truther
I don't support firing someone for being a Birther either
I wouldn't fire people for supporting a Nuke Free World
Nor if they have Obama Bumperstickers
If they oppose vaccinations of their children… that isn't a requirement for their employment

The Targetting and personalized destruction of anyone with an opposing voice is wrong and dangerous.
But as you point out… Not Illegal

I don't think that opposing mob rule, is just a matter of as you say "nutting up and accepting consequences"


----------



## dbray45

Rob - You do not live in Maryland. Here, undocumented aliens routinely vote - may not be their name, but they vote. I watched people get off charter buses spoken to in Spanish, in Maryland you are not allowed to show ID. They did not speak English, armed with a piece of paper with the names they are to vote for, and a piece of paper with "their" name on it - vote and then return to the bus. My guess is that they go to the next voting place.

Do I have proof - nope. It is my word against-- who? The obligatory "them"?

I suppose you will tell me that what I saw was wrong, didn't happen, just my imagination, because without "proof"...


----------



## dbray45

Rob - I forgot to mention - documented voters usually don't come in buses, counseled in a different language, handed papers of who to vote for and WHO they are. They might come on a bus but they know who they are and are proud to vote.


----------



## Bonka

Topa;
I agree with you on that one. 
I am not paranoid they really are after me.


----------



## RobS888

> I guess I agree more with Voltaire….
> *"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I ll defend to the death your right to say it." *
> 
> Or better
> 
> **"Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too."*
> ― Voltaire, Traité sur la tolérance, à l occasion de la mort de Jean Calas *


No offense, but I don't believe you follow the second one at all. You will devote thousands of words to change peoples opinion.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob - You do not live in Maryland. Here, undocumented aliens routinely vote - may not be their name, but they vote. I watched people get off charter buses spoken to in Spanish, in Maryland you are not allowed to show ID. They did not speak English, armed with a piece of paper with the names they are to vote for, and a piece of paper with "their" name on it - vote and then return to the bus. My guess is that they go to the next voting place.
> 
> Do I have proof - nope. It is my word against-- who? The obligatory "them"?
> 
> I suppose you will tell me that what I saw was wrong, didn t happen, just my imagination, because without "proof"...
> 
> - dbray45


In a away you are correct because I spend more time outside of MD than in it. 
I've only voted twice, both times for Obama I'm proud to say. Since I travel a lot my wife tells me what I should vote for, I have no idea what the local issues are.

As to ID, did you mean not required to show picture ID? I always have to prove who I am.

This is from the vote MD website. http://www.elections.state.md.us/voting/election_day_questions.html

Some first time voters in Maryland will be asked to show ID before voting. If you are asked to show ID, please show an election judge one of the following forms of ID:

A copy of a current and valid photo ID (i.e., Maryland driver's license, MVA ID card, student, employee, or military ID card, U.S. passport, or any other State or federal government-issued ID card); or
A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows your name and address. Current means that the document is dated within 3 months of the election.

So, I'm not sure if where you live they allow the rules to be broken, but to me it seems voters need a picture id or something other than a piece of paper with their name on it.

If you felt this was improper why didn't you snap a picture or challenge them? I would have said something if I felt the rules were being broken.

This is definitely anecdotal, many of your claims about the president aren't and should be able to be proven, I mean something must have convinced you.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob - I forgot to mention - documented voters usually don t come in buses, counseled in a different language, handed papers of who to vote for and WHO they are. They might come on a bus but they know who they are and are proud to vote.
> 
> - dbray45


Why didn't you do/say something?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Rob - You do not live in Maryland. Here, undocumented aliens routinely vote - may not be their name, but they vote. I watched people get off charter buses spoken to in Spanish, in Maryland you are not allowed to show ID. They did not speak English, armed with a piece of paper with the names they are to vote for, and a piece of paper with "their" name on it - vote and then return to the bus. My guess is that they go to the next voting place.
> 
> Do I have proof - nope. It is my word against-- who? The obligatory "them"?
> 
> I suppose you will tell me that what I saw was wrong, didn t happen, just my imagination, because without "proof"...
> 
> - dbray45


I'm sure this happened in WA too. I heard advertisements on the radio for illegals to come to a certain intersection in Seattle to register prior to an election a few years ago. One of the reasons you need a Passport to get back from Canada now is WA had "motor voter". When getting or renewing a driver's license, they asked if you wanted to register to vote but it was illegal to ask if they were citizens. The feds decided WA DL was totally worthless as a form of ID. Hard for me to disagree on that one ;-(


----------



## RobS888

> Rob - I forgot to mention - documented voters usually don t come in buses, counseled in a different language, handed papers of who to vote for and WHO they are. They might come on a bus but they know who they are and are proud to vote.
> 
> - dbray45
> 
> Why didn t you do/say something?
> 
> - RobS888


Edit:

Some of the duties of a challenger:

*During voting hours, you must be positioned near the check-in judges and inside the voting room so that you can see and hear each person as he or she checks in to vote. The chief judges will determine where you will be positioned; they will ensure that you can see and hear voters as they check in to vote and that the voting room is efficiently managed. They are NOT required to place you directly behind the check-in table or where you can see the screen of the electronic pollbooks. As long as you can see and hear voters check in to vote, your location is acceptable If you do not believe that a voter is who he or she claims to be, you may challenge the voter's identity. Refer to Question #18 for more information about the challenge process*

This sounds perfect for you and you certainly have time to get accredited as a challenger for 2016. Just think you could personally make sure that roving Spanish speaking illegal aliens never vote in your district again! How cool is that?


----------



## dbray45

I offered to show a picture ID and I was told that they did NOT want to see it. Need I say more? When I went to vote, there are spanish speaking folks. English is not required to vote. You are asked to sign that you are the person you claim to be.


----------



## RobS888

> I offered to show a picture ID and I was told that they did NOT want to see it. Need I say more? When I went to vote, there are spanish speaking folks. English is not required to vote. You are asked to sign that you are the person you claim to be.
> 
> - dbray45


As I said, it seems like a place for you to make a difference.


----------



## patcollins

> Rob - You do not live in Maryland. Here, undocumented aliens routinely vote - may not be their name, but they vote. I watched people get off charter buses spoken to in Spanish, in Maryland you are not allowed to show ID. They did not speak English, armed with a piece of paper with the names they are to vote for, and a piece of paper with "their" name on it - vote and then return to the bus. My guess is that they go to the next voting place.
> 
> Do I have proof - nope. It is my word against-- who? The obligatory "them"?
> 
> I suppose you will tell me that what I saw was wrong, didn t happen, just my imagination, because without "proof"...
> 
> - dbray45
> 
> In a away you are correct because I spend more time outside of MD than in it.
> I ve only voted twice, both times for Obama I m proud to say. Since I travel a lot my wife tells me what I should vote for, I have no idea what the local issues are.
> 
> As to ID, did you mean not required to show picture ID? I always have to prove who I am.
> 
> This is from the vote MD website. http://www.elections.state.md.us/voting/election_day_questions.html
> 
> Some first time voters in Maryland will be asked to show ID before voting. If you are asked to show ID, please show an election judge one of the following forms of ID:
> 
> A copy of a current and valid photo ID (i.e., Maryland driver s license, MVA ID card, student, employee, or military ID card, U.S. passport, or any other State or federal government-issued ID card); or
> A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows your name and address. Current means that the document is dated within 3 months of the election.
> 
> So, I m not sure if where you live they allow the rules to be broken, but to me it seems voters need a picture id or something other than a piece of paper with their name on it.
> 
> If you felt this was improper why didn t you snap a picture or challenge them? I would have said something if I felt the rules were being broken.
> 
> This is definitely anecdotal, many of your claims about the president aren t and should be able to be proven, I mean something must have convinced you.
> 
> - RobS888


Rob

In St Marys they simply ask your name and address. One year they told me 3 or 4 times in a row that they could not find me in the book and I was able to point right to it in a couple seconds and they proceeded as normal giving me that card for the electronic machine.

I have been a MD voter since 2000 when I moved here. I've often wondered what would stop someone from saying they were someone they know and voting their vote, or even just using the phone book for people that vote in different polling places.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob
> 
> In St Marys they simply ask your name and address. One year they told me 3 or 4 times in a row that they could not find me in the book and I was able to point right to it in a couple seconds and they proceeded as normal giving me that card for the electronic machine.
> 
> I have been a MD voter since 2000 when I moved here. I ve often wondered what would stop someone from saying they were someone they know and voting their vote, or even just using the phone book for people that vote in different polling places.
> 
> - patcollins


No idea, we get asked at our polling station. I suppose when the real person shows up and their vote has already been cast there might be a stink. I've never heard of that happening though, so you would need to register and vote under that name, using someone else's vote probably would be tricky. I heard of a lady that cast her grandmothers vote for her and got caught.

Have you seen busses of roaming Spanish speaking voters? I can't see you or most people just watching that happen.


----------



## patcollins

> Rob
> 
> In St Marys they simply ask your name and address. One year they told me 3 or 4 times in a row that they could not find me in the book and I was able to point right to it in a couple seconds and they proceeded as normal giving me that card for the electronic machine.
> 
> I have been a MD voter since 2000 when I moved here. I ve often wondered what would stop someone from saying they were someone they know and voting their vote, or even just using the phone book for people that vote in different polling places.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> No idea, we get asked at our polling station. I suppose when the real person shows up and their vote has already been cast there might be a stink. I ve never heard of that happening though, so you would need to register and vote under that name, using someone else s vote probably would be tricky. I heard of a lady that cast her grandmothers vote for her and got caught.
> 
> Have you seen busses of roaming Spanish speaking voters? I can t see you or most people just watching that happen.
> 
> - RobS888


No but I saw someone throw a temper tantrum and start beating on a voting machine before.


----------



## RobS888

They are annoying, I wish I could vote via the interwebs.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> They are annoying, I wish I could vote via the interwebs.
> 
> - RobS888


Unfortunately the that would absolutely guarantee more fraud than is currently being committed. There needs to be a paper trail;-) WA voted by mail in ballot. Works well and is verifiable.


----------



## RobS888

Well, I was thinking we would get a printout of our choices and perhaps a random reference number. That way we can prove how we did vote and we could verify at anytime that our vote was used as we voted.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

There needs to be a permanent record to document the process. Thom Hartmann stalks quite regularly about the abuses of electronic voting machines without hard copy verification. There is voter fraud, but most is committed by authorities in charge of the processes or the companies contracted to supply and operate the systems.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## dbray45

Dan-um - where did you get that poster - 1985?

First - the idea that ALL jobs are to be "livable" wages is stupid and unrealistic - the minimum wage earner - these are "entry level" jobs. This term is used to describe people that have no skill and are coming into the work force. These positions are supposed to give people a solid foundation - not a career unless you really have no motivation. Sometimes, but rarely, these people can handle money but they are supervised closely. I did this as my first job and quickly found the merits in doing better (something about wanting to eat) - hourly rates - $7.50 - 12.00 hour

Second - Median wages - these are blue collar, skilled positions. These are folks that have developed the skills and work habits that can be assigned or sent to a job with the understanding that they will complete the tasks required. Depending upon your area, the hourly rates are generally $10.00 - 35.00 an hour

Third - Upper income wages - These are the professionals and experts. These are the folks that have gained a significant amount of expertise in their field, are instrumental in establishing guidelines and operating employee policy. They are usually considered the middle management level executive in a corporation. Many times they may be the small business owner. These are the people that make the decisions that effect the people that they are responsible for. In the case of the small business owner, they put everything on the line. By law, the small business owner has to pay their employees before they get paid. If they make poor decisions, they loose everything and are not eligible for unemployment while the employees can just leave, get a new job or unemployment. Their rates are usually in the $25.00 to 90.00 an hour.

Fourth - Executive wages - These folks are the people that make the decisions in larger corporations - in the past, these people were compensated for making the decisions that focused on overall all policy and corporate direction. If they were successful, they made a percentage of the business. Remember Lee Iacocca? When given Chrysler, his compensation was $1.00 a year until he made it profitable, then he made a % of the net profit. These are the people that make the most - are some of these extravagant? Maybe, but their pay and position is governed by their Board of Directors.

I just bought a HALF gallon of organic milk for $5.00. Yes I buy organic milk because it cannot come from cloned cows - I have issues with the concept.


----------



## RobS888

Median is the point where half fall above and half fall below, I don't see how Median becomes blue collar to you.

Other than taking the three categories and explaining them in four categories that *YOU* see, what was the point? Are you doubting the math of the poster?


----------



## patcollins

He is right about minimum wage jobs not intended to be a career, they are second jobs, jobs for kids, jubs for a college student for beer money, or my first job and are not meant to a job to sustain an adult.


----------



## RobS888

> He is right about minimum wage jobs not intended to be a career, they are second jobs, jobs for kids, jubs for a college student for beer money, or my first job and are not meant to a job to sustain an adult.
> 
> - patcollins


And yet more adults on minimum wage than younger people.


----------



## Bonka

Where are the statistics on, " And yet more adults on minimum wage than younger people?"


----------



## RobS888

Since when do we have to prove things? You don't.

Would proof make any difference to your opinion about wage disparity?


----------



## DanYo

> Dan-um - where did you get that poster - 1985?
> 
> - dbray45


haha


----------



## Bonka

So Rob, you must have pulled that one out of thin air.


----------



## RobS888

> So Rob, you must have pulled that one out of thin air.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Perhaps, but you didn't answer. Would any proof that say 80% of people on Min wage are over 20 mean anything to you?


----------



## Bonka

Show me the "Proof."


----------



## RobS888

> Show me the "Proof."
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Ah, but I don't need to prove it is Thursday in the US, so why do I need to prove something that was well known during the last election.

So you won't say whether proof will mean anything to you. I suspect it won't matter, that is why I'm not bothering.


----------



## dbray45

There is a point to be made here. Since Obama became president, there was tremendous unemployment - far worse than the Great Depression of the '30s (percentage wise). Since then unemployment has gone down - according to what the press is pushing. Apparently, these mid to upper paychecks have not come back - these people are taking minimum wage positions just so they can eat. Obama wants these positions to be livable so he doesn't get blamed for completely destroying the economy (which I believe was his design in the first place). But - THEY ARE EMPLOYED.

Do I have actual proof - when you put the facts and the things the administration wants on the table, it is apparently obvious. When you have an administration that puts out tremendous amounts of "facts" but leaves out specific things you wonder what is going on.

Rob - you will want specifics so lets look at Cost of Living - according to the government, cost of living for the last several years is almost flat. This is why they did not increase Social Security for a couple of years. They calculated the cost of buying a house (with the house bubble crash, it went down - A LOT) into the numbers but the cost of food was never put into the equation. Maybe it is just me but I don't plan to buy and sell properties every month after I retire - but I do plan on buying food. For me, over the last 4 years, my food bill has more than tripled. But the cost of living has stayed the same - this is a scam at best.


----------



## Bonka

Rob-Yes proof would mean something.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob-Yes proof would mean something.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


So to be clear, if I provide proof, that more adults than younger people are on minimum wage. You would rethink your opinion or would you nitpick the ages? Could you tell me what age is an adult to you and what age is a younger person?


----------



## RobS888

> There is a point to be made here. Since Obama became president, there was tremendous unemployment - far worse than the Great Depression of the 30s (percentage wise). Since then unemployment has gone down - according to what the press is pushing. Apparently, these mid to upper paychecks have not come back - these people are taking minimum wage positions just so they can eat. Obama wants these positions to be livable so he doesn t get blamed for completely destroying the economy (which I believe was his design in the first place). But - THEY ARE EMPLOYED.
> 
> Do I have actual proof - when you put the facts and the things the administration wants on the table, it is apparently obvious. When you have an administration that puts out tremendous amounts of "facts" but leaves out specific things you wonder what is going on.
> 
> Rob - you will want specifics so lets look at Cost of Living - according to the government, cost of living for the last several years is almost flat. This is why they did not increase Social Security for a couple of years. They calculated the cost of buying a house (with the house bubble crash, it went down - A LOT) into the numbers but the cost of food was never put into the equation. Maybe it is just me but I don t plan to buy and sell properties every month after I retire - but I do plan on buying food. For me, over the last 4 years, my food bill has more than tripled. But the cost of living has stayed the same - this is a scam at best.
> 
> - dbray45


There was tremendous unemployment before he was sworn in. Forgot that didn't you? 800,000/month the month he was sworn in.

EDIT:

In fact Nov '08 and Jan '09 were the highest monthly job losses of the Bush recession.


----------



## Bonka

To me an adult is over 18. If anyone is on welfare that has to be put into the income mix.


----------



## RobS888

> To me an adult is over 18. If anyone is on welfare that has to be put into the income mix.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/
Disproportionately young: 50.4% are ages 16 to 24; *24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19)*.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf
Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made *up about half *of those paid the federal minimum wage or less

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/01/30/almost-everything-you-have-been-told-about-the-minimum-wage-is-false/
Within that small group, 31 percent are teenagers and *55 percent *are 25 years old or younger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/upshot/minimum-wage.html?_r=0
Minimum-wage workers are older than they used to be. Their average age is 35, and *88 percent are at least 20 years* old. Half are older than 30, and about a third are at least 40.

These patterns are somewhat new. In 1979, 27 percent of low-wage workers (those making $10.10 per hour or less in today's dollars) *were teenagers, compared with 12 percent in 2013*, according to John Schmitt and Janelle Jones


----------



## Bonka

No I won't nitpick the ages. What I want to know what is their combined income. As an example, if a worker is making $8.00/hr. and if that person is receiving assistance, such as food stamps etc, what is his computed income?
To get an accurate picture on one's financial picture the social programs must be included in the mix.
Then if the min. wage goes to $15.00/hr. how many will still be eligible for food stamps, housing, ad infinitum?
All of these must be included to give an accurate picture of people's monetary condition.
If a person is working for minimum wage do they live with others and not pay rent? If the minimum wage is increased as it is desired by many, will that person move out of a rent free situation? 
Then again how many jobs will be lost if this comes to fruition? How many jobs will be automated?


----------



## RobS888

> No I won t nitpick the ages. What I want to know what is their combined income. As an example, if a worker is making $8.00/hr. and if that person is receiving assistance, such as food stamps etc, what is his computed income?
> To get an accurate picture on one s financial picture the social programs must be included in the mix.
> Then if the min. wage goes to $15.00/hr. how many will still be eligible for food stamps, housing, ad infinitum?
> All of these must be included to give an accurate picture of people s monetary condition.
> If a person is working for minimum wage do they live with others and not pay rent? If the minimum wage is increased as it is desired by many, will that person move out of a rent free situation?
> Then again how many jobs will be lost if this comes to fruition? How many jobs will be automated?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


I suspect if they make $15/hour they won't need assistance. We as a society are picking up the tab for companies to not pay a higher wage. A WallMart in NY was shown to cost $900,000/year in public assistance to less than 100 employees. It would be nice if the people made $15/hour, they would have more choices in life.

It is hard to predict the outcome. However there are many examples of cities raising the minimum wage and it not having the dire results predicted.

So you accept more adults on minimum wage as being verified? Doesn't it bother you that we pay, so McDonald's can make a larger profit?


----------



## Bonka

Businesses have to make profits. How does a government entity know how much profit they should make? Keep the government out of it. The government only wants to control.
So many people worry about business profits. What about all of the money the governments take from us with little or no return? The true evil is government and that was recognized by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution and The Bill of Rights were written to protect us from the government. But then again those laws were trample upon by our elected officials from the get-go.
How about the small business's? Most of them cannot afford the high wages and stay in business.
Again, how much do these people make that work and are on public assistance as well? Include what is take from us and given to them, after government filtering, as income.


----------



## RobS888

Your getting WAY off course here. This is about people not being able to make a living wage.

I saw The Mayor of NY on the Daily show last night and he said they figure the pay and Government portion makes around $15/hour.

Doesn't it bother you that a lot of taxes go to boost peoples wages? I bet you didn't want GM assisted, but you don't seem to worry about other businesses being assisted on a permanent basis. GM paid back most of the money, Wallmart doesn't pay back the $900,000/year for 1 store.


----------



## Bonka

Please tell me what, in dollars, a living wage is.
No I am not off course the government should have let it all play out in the free market.


----------



## RobS888

You were off course in bringing them up, not necessarily in your opinion.

Were were discussing how the minimum wage wasn't for just teenagers anymore.

The free market is predatory and will ruin us all.


----------



## Bonka

Again, what is a "Lining Wage" in dollars?
What do you purpose other than a free market? Socialism, Communism, Fascism?


----------



## patcollins

The argument could be made that if you cut off the government assistance then a lot less people would be willing to work for minimum wage and companies would have to raise their pay to retain workers.


----------



## BroncoBrian

I was a billionaire but I lost my wallet.

Blue, velcro, anyone see it?


----------



## RobS888

> Again, what is a "Lining Wage" in dollars?
> What do you purpose other than a free market? Socialism, Communism, Fascism?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


I'm gonna go with $15/ hour.

I like our mixed capitalist/socialist system. I just would like a few more controls on the financial markets.


----------



## RobS888

> The argument could be made that if you cut off the government assistance then a lot less people would be willing to work for minimum wage and companies would have to raise their pay to retain workers.
> 
> - patcollins


Not if they have half a brain they wouldn't! Just kidding, there were poor people before government assistance, yeah? So why do we have assistance if it wasn't needed because companies would raise their pay to retain their workers. There isn't a complete circle there.

Just to be clear, I'm making a chicken/egg comparison about minimum wage and assistance. Assistance would be the egg in this comparison.


----------



## DrDirt

David makes a good point.

The progressives and media talk about how "You cannot support a family with a minimum wage job"

Well thank you captain obvious!

However there are also very few jobs at the actual minimum wage. Although minimum wage is still 7.25, Mc Donalds is paying 8.11 to start here.

WHy is the raise a family of 4 somehow the benchmark for the MINIMUM anyone should be legally paid?

I don't know of any couples that do not both work… even when both are professionals, the single breadwinner has been gone since the 1980's. Women work, they don't just sit at home and dust and go to Tupperware parties as Stepford wives.

Fact is raising a family takes 2 NON-minimum wage jobs. the idea that working the drive through window of Mcdonalds should pay 30 grand a year is an idiotic concept.


----------



## dbray45

The month AFTER I got out of the Navy in 79, the government gave the NAVY a 14% increase because we were eligible for food stamps even as a 3rd Class PO.

The only things that raising the minimum wage does:
1.) gives the politicians a talking point - "they made those evil corporations give you something!" 
2.) What it really does
a.) makes the people that get the raise feel good for a paycheck
b.) increases the amount of collected taxes - has no affect when the lower 25-30% are exempted from taxes
c.) all those people that were above minimum wage that don't get a raise - makes them closer to minimum wage - in effect-increases the "lower income wage pool" 
d.) resets the inflation to 0.

If you raise minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.00, you have just reset the books to erase a 25% inflation - why - because the cost of everything goes up 25% to compensate for the increase. If you go from $7.25 to a "livable" wage of $15, you have just increased the minimum wage by over 100%. Anybody that was making $15.25 and above don't get a raise so now, their income is now basically minimum wage. What will the corporations do? They will increase the price of everything to the new levels, their profits will go up 25-30% and the execs that get paid a percentage of profits will not be touched - but - anybody making an hourly rate (at all levels) will feel this as a serious cut in pay unless you are paid between minimum wage to the new level - you will get a raise (for a day).

In short - you actually lose on the whole event while being told of all the good things that they "do" for you - so vote for them - to make you poorer and suffer more so they can "give' you more.

Think about this - You work in the A/C field and start out on minimum wage at $7.25 and hour, you work your way up the ladder by learning a skill and now you are making $20.00 and hour. The new minimum (livable) wage is now $15 and hour takes affect. Your company is now going to charge $10 more an hour for its services to its customers to compensate (they will do this in two $5 an hour increases. Because you are making $20 an hour, you do not get this raise but, if you have to call any service people, you will pay this additional amount. Actually everything you buy will just about double (econ 101). Are you then going to be so happy with this - you have spent several years to move up the food chain and now you are right back at the bottom. I am not good with this.


----------



## patcollins

My first job was working at a grocery store, no skills, never made minimum wage, The job started out at 5 cents higher than minimum wage. I hated that job mostly because the assistant manager felt that he had to talk to everyone like they were a child (he later got fired for assaulting an employee). As soon as I could I got an on campus job and that started out at $1/hr more than minimum wage, the min wage was raised about a year after and I got the same size raise that the minimum wage folks got. The job helped pay rent, some beer money etc. Not long after I noticed that everything I spent my money on went up, fast food, blockbuster rental fees, beer etc. I don't think that raise got me anything, but I knew jobs like that were just for kids.


----------



## dbray45

Now, that job is to support a family - why - because if you have a profession and sit on unemployment for 3 years, your skills are not valid.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Dan-um - where did you get that poster - 1985?
> 
> First - the idea that ALL jobs are to be "livable" wages is stupid and unrealistic-dbray45


Minimum wage jobs supported families with a single wage earner in the 50s and 60s.

What is your proposal for farm labor? Expect them to hibernate in the off season? Where will the hibernation facility be? No wages, no rent? Perhaps gov't provided off season hibernation facilities?

Looks like the brain washing by Faux News propaganda and their ilk are achieving their goals. ;-((


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Businesses have to make profits. How does a government entity know how much profit they should make? Keep the government out of it. The government only wants to control.
> So many people worry about business profits. What about all of the money the governments take from us with little or no return? The true evil is government and that was recognized by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution and The Bill of Rights were written to protect us from the government. But then again those laws were trample upon by our elected officials from the get-go.
> How about the small business s? Most of them cannot afford the high wages and stay in business.
> Again, how much do these people make that work and are on public assistance as well? Include what is take from us and given to them, after government filtering, as income.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Just curious, have you ever owned and operated a business? In the 30 years I did, I found I could not afford to be a baby sitter. It is much easier to make a buck with competent people; of course, to get them you have to pay good wages and benes.


----------



## patcollins

> Just curious, have you ever owned and operated a business? In the 30 years I did, I found I could not afford to be a baby sitter. It is much easier to make a buck with competent people; of course, to get them you have to pay good wages and benes.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


What about the people that aren't competent, that aren't worth more than $5 an hr? Is it better to have them unemployed or to pay them what they are worth?

A friend of mine pays his workers $15/hr because he says if you pay minimum wage you get minimum people, the people that will apply for minimum wage will steal from you, break things, be completely irresponsible etc.

Does increasing someones pay suddenly make them competent?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Does increasing someones pay suddenly make them competent?
> 
> - patcollins


No, that is not the point. You get what you pay for. A business acquaintance of mine mentioned how the quality of work had fallen on jobs over a 10 year period. The industry trend was towards more specialized people with a narrow skill set paying less than half journeyman scale and significantly lower benefits. The best quality people moved to the higher paying jobs leaving the lower quality and less motivated to man those jobs.

Minimum wage actually grows the economy because those people spend it all on necessities. It takes about 3 years for a minimum wage increase to be seen in the economy.

I have no answer for totally incompetents. Life of crime I guess ;-((


----------



## patcollins

> No, that is not the point. You get what you pay for. A business acquaintance of mine mentioned how the quality of work had fallen on jobs over a 10 year period. The industry trend was towards more specialized people with a narrow skill set paying less than half journeyman scale and significantly lower benefits. The best quality people moved to the higher paying jobs leaving the lower quality and less motivated to man those jobs.
> 
> Minimum wage actually grows the economy because those people spend it all on necessities. It takes about 3 years for a minimum wage increase to be seen in the economy.
> 
> I have no answer for totally incompetents. Life of crime I guess ;-((
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


My point is that it will most likely raise unemployment for the bottom of the barrel. Around here we have very low unemployment and the folks that work in fast food etc obviously don't want to work in those jobs they don't say please, thank you etc. I came from someplace that always had 10% or so unemployment and the fast food workers were always friendlier, actually asked you if you wanted ketchup etc.

My question is that is raising the wage for the better workers worth losing the poor ones to unemployment? Not asking on an individual basis but as a society which is better?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Any job worth doing should pay enough for a basic living standard. Do you want the fast food workers living in cardboard boxes behind the store?

All businesses have to employ enough people to meet a minimum level of service to keep operations going well enough they do not loose their customers to the competition. Monopolies like Comcast do not have this concern; however, with Centurylink starting fiber optic service, they may have to rethink their lousy CS ;-))

I have no idea where the cut off point is for the totally worthless wannabe employees or what to do with them. All I know for sure is Hitler's solution was found to be totally unacceptable.

The US has dramatically increased the poverty rates in the last 30 years. China has lifted 400,000 out of poverty by filling the void in manufacturing the US left open as we exported manufacturing jobs to whom ever was willing to take them. The problem is far beyond a simple raising the minimum wage question. The question is will we continue to give tax breakers to multi-national corps that ship jobs out of the US while allowing them to have free uninhibited to the US market?

I am quite amazed at the resilience of the US economy. It is truly amazing what the post WWII economic engine produced here. In 1980, when we decided we had had enough of that system, the state of Ohio had more miles of paved roads than all of the Soviet Union. Now, instead of going commy which has proven to be a disaster, we are going to the other extreme: Fascism. All the infrastructure we built during the apex of capitalism is wearing out and we can't even maintain, much less replace.


----------



## patcollins

> Any job worth doing should pay enough for a basic living standard. Do you want the fast food workers living in cardboard boxes behind the store?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


No I want them living with their parents (because they are still in high school) or their college dorm room.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I suppose that would be OK if you could limit minimum wage jobs to teeny-boppers entering the work force. Unfortunately according to the Economic Policy Institute's State of Working America, a stunning 35 million Americans - 26 percent of our workforce - earn less than $10.55 an hour. While that is slightly above the minimum wage, it is not a living wage. Add to that another 20% of the work force who are not even participating is a recipe for disaster. I believe this to be the result of the lessons learned by the sociopathic elite who run most of the corps during the Viet Nam war; they could not tolerate an affluent middle class who would not snap-to and follow orders without question or hesitation.

In the early 80s they began systematically dismantling the the economy that supported the middle class and have been remarkably successful in that endeavor. Recently, there was an open letter in the Wall Street Journal signed by many billionaires including ex-CEO of Microsoft, Steve Balmer, saying the US could not afford Social Security or Medicare. I'm not sure how far they intend to go, but the total destruction of the middle class is clearly a goal. I wonder how much they need to accumulate individually? Clearly more than they can ever spend and can support many generations of their decedents is not enough.

Looking at the politics and wealth distribution patterns developing after the American Revolution, it is quite clear that the elite began to realize oppression of the peons carried risk. The French and Bolshevik Revolutions clearly modified the thinking and strategies of the oppressing classes. Those lessons are but a distant side note in history now. The current crop of oppressors is ripe for a lesson. I only wonder how much longer before it happens? Clearly, there are too many who feel they have more to lose and gain at this time. Continued export of living wage jobs, deterioration of the infrastructure and a broadening population who will have a higher stake in social changes will eventually reset the the "system".


----------



## DrDirt

> Dan-um - where did you get that poster - 1985?
> 
> First - the idea that ALL jobs are to be "livable" wages is stupid and unrealistic-dbray45
> 
> Minimum wage jobs supported families with a single wage earner in the 50s and 60s.
> 
> What is your proposal for farm labor? Expect them to hibernate in the off season? Where will the hibernation facility be? No wages, no rent? Perhaps gov t provided off season hibernation facilities?
> 
> Looks like the brain washing by Faux News propaganda and their ilk are achieving their goals. ;-((
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I question your assertion that people could raise a family at minimum wage in the 40's and 50's..

There was no such thing as a federal minimum wage until AFTER the Fair labor standards act in 1938. (of course we were already shifting towards a wartime economy, and supplying England with materials to resist the Germans.

However that wage was 0.25/hour…. for a 2000 hour work year that is 500 dollars/year

*I really don't believe that you could raise a family on less than 10 dollars a week.*
Adjusting for inflation to 2013 dollars, the minimum wage of the 40's was about 4 dollars an hour.

So the whole - minimum wage would be 20 bucks an hours projecting from inflation isn't so honest from the MSNBC crew.


----------



## DrDirt

> I suppose that would be OK if you could limit minimum wage jobs to teeny-boppers entering the work force. Unfortunately according to the Economic Policy Institute's State of Working America, a stunning 35 million Americans - 26 percent of our workforce - earn less than $10.55 an hour.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


According to the latest from the DOL…. 93 million Americans are not working at all (labor participation rate for May 2015).

The AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD income is ~50K/year. that is of course a mix of single and married, and single and multiple income households.

But 50K/year is 25 dollars an hour.
So 26% earn less than half the median HOUSEHOLD income, is not a cause for alarm. I remember being a starving student then getting established…. I had Roomates!! to share costs there were 4 of us that rented a house in PA.

Maybe we need dipweeds like Obama not to start even MORE trade agreements, so that we would have BETTER jobs…. instead of demanding the lowest crappiest jobs, jack their pay rates and inflation.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I question your assertion that people could raise a family at minimum wage in the 40 s and 50 s..
> 
> There was no such thing as a federal minimum wage until AFTER the Fair labor standards act in 1938. (of course we were already shifting towards a wartime economy, and supplying England with materials to resist the Germans.
> 
> - DrDirt


The median income in 1965 was $6,000 / year or $500 / mo. I made that the summer I graduated from high school. Of course I was working 16 hrs a day 6 days a week and only had to milk on Sunday so it was an easy 8 hr day unless dad needed help at home with haying or something else. I'd be up and get milking and feeding done and maybe haul a load or 2 of hay before the kids from town showed up for their job. They couldn't keep up and and often went back to town by noon on the first day. Sometimes they stuck it out. After they went home, I was back to milking and feeding. ect. It didn't hurt me. I was a farm kid and didn't know any better.

Figures can lie and liars can figure. Numbers are easily skewed to fit most positions. Most statistics cannot possibly tell the whole story. Some the dads of kids I went to school with worked as farm laborers. Their mothers were housewives and did not work for wages except for maybe driving truck during grain, silage or beet harvest for a few days. They might have been paid a bit of a premium above $1.25, I do not really know and suppose they probably did get an extra .10 or .25 when permanently employed by a farmer who wanted to keep them. Technically, they might have made more than minimum wage, but not enough to really matter for purposes of this discussion.

During the farming season there were lots of migrant farm workers mostly from Mexico who who worked for minimum wage, but the whole family worked. It was not year around. I am 99.9% sure they did not get anything over the minimum.

Maybe the numbers show it was not possible. If that is the case, then I know people who did the impossible. The bottom line is the elite of the oligarchy has waged economic war on the middle class starting in the middle 80s and they have been quite successful.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Maybe we need dipweeds like Obama not to start even MORE trade agreements, so that we would have BETTER jobs…. instead of demanding the lowest crappiest jobs, jack their pay rates and inflation.
> 
> - DrDirt


If the oligarchs continue to buy prostitutes to occupy DC, I say get it done. The sooner we get to the reset, the better off our kids and grand kids will be. There is little to be gained by dragging this out endlessly unless you happen to be a sociopath with billions.


----------



## DrDirt

> The median income in 1965 was $6,000 / year or $500 / mo.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I don't doubt that…was the median…

But I was responding specifically to the idea that you said:
"Minimum wage jobs supported families with a *single* wage earner in the 50s and 60s."

I don't believe that has EVER been true - - you always needed a DECENT JOB to afford a house and family.

I don't know of any couples that do not both work.

That said.. what has changed: in the 50's and 60's there was a range of jobs available. 
Outsourcing hadn't really kicked in. Toyota and Honda cars were still somewhat of a novelty until the mid 70's when inflation was double digit, and we were just getting out of Vietnam.

Once we started shipping all the manufacturing jobs out of the country, and importing more than we exported….then it turned to poop.

I also Agree, that now crappy bottom of the pay scale service industry jobs seem to be all that is available. I see it where McDonalds used to be mostly pimply teenagers, now most workers are in their 40's.

Moving those minimum wage jobs to 30K/year… means a couple at 15 dollars an hour each would be earning 60K… 20% above the current median income of 50K.

the idea that such a move would not lead to inflation is just a fallacy.
What about the people making 12 or 13 dollars an hour today? You can expect that they expect to still be paid MORE THAN minimum wage.


----------



## patcollins

I simply don't get where the idea is that there is a war on the middle class, are you being nice and calling the bottom class middle class?

I am middle class and I do not feel there is a war being waged against me, in face I am doing better than I ever figured possible when I was in college in the 1990's.

In the liberal leaning sociology class I had to take the professor and book were all too happy that manufacturing was disappearing from the US and "all jobs in the future would be providing services and information". This is where I don't understand unions tying themselves to the liberals that so despise the type of work they do.

Economically there are only a couple ways a country can prosper in the global market, either produce things for export or export your natural resources otherwise it is going to be a slow bleed until death.

I do agree with that website that the minimum wage should be tied to some sort of index, but of course the government told us there was no inflation when housing, food, and energy prices were skyrocketing so will that really matter?

I think raising the min wage up fairly high such as $15 an hr would be ok, if the earned income tax credit was done away with.


----------



## patcollins

The biggest problem with creating a "living wage" has been going on in Europe for quite some time. Take France for example, every job over there is a "good" job with benefits etc, however the unemployment rate is quite high, for young people it is extremely high. Places simply do not want to hire more that they absolutely need, in the restaurants there the wait staff works their asses off, nothing wrong with that really but with so many young people unemployed riots over no jobs are quite common even making international news occasionally.


----------



## DrDirt

> Economically there are only a couple ways a country can prosper in the global market, either produce things for export or export your natural resources otherwise it is going to be a slow bleed until death.
> 
> I do agree with that website that the minimum wage should be tied to some sort of index, but of course the government told us there was no inflation when housing, food, and energy prices were skyrocketing so will that really matter?
> 
> I think raising the min wage up fairly high such as $15 an hr would be ok, if the earned income tax credit was done away with.
> 
> - patcollins


Pat I agree I don't understand the unions tying themselves to liberals who seem to love exporting jobs.

Not so sure about the index. from the data I put in, the inflation adjusted minimum wage in the 50's was onlyl about 4 dollars an hour in buying power. But then we had real ENTRY LEVEL work, and you could progress. Now today it is just a big puddle at the bottom,little opportunity to grow.

Raising the minimum wage has one or both of two effects. 1 Inflation - - jack up the cost of production, the cost of the goods and services goes up. Then to win #2 happens… Automation.
Who doesn't have direct deposit, who still visits a teller to get a withdrawl.. many also get Mortgages on line through quicken. You have self check-out at the stores including Walmart. So when Automation happens… then where do people work?
Even Fast food is moving to robots and touchscreens

http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/22/technology/innovation/fast-food-robot/index.html
Panera is moving quickly this way already.
I was at Chilis SUnday evening and you have a touch screen to order your food, reorder drinks and pay your bill at the table….. so what do you tip your server??

Panera Bread (PNRA) is the latest chain to introduce automated service, announcing in April that it plans to bring self-service ordering kiosks as well as a mobile ordering option to all its locations within the next three years. The news follows moves from Chili's and Applebee's to place tablets on their tables, allowing diners to order and pay without interacting with human wait staff at all.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Pat I agree I don t understand the unions tying themselves to liberals who seem to love exporting jobs.


That is quite easily answered. Other than Teddy Roosevelt, it has been the "liberal Ds" (which should really be labeled conservative today) that have supported and promoted the middle class wages and benefits. The "conservative Rs" (which should really be labeled regressive today) have always undercut those efforts. Today the oligarchs buy elections and the Ds are stabbing labor in the back, but still not as bad as the Rs. Make no doubt about it, exporting jobs is the R union busting plan. No jobs, no workers to organize, or at least there will be pleanty of scabs to act as strike breakers.



> Raising the minimum wage has one or both of two effects. 1 Inflation - - jack up the cost of production, the cost of the goods and services goes up. Then to win #2 happens… Automation.
> Who doesn t have direct deposit, who still visits a teller to get a withdrawl.. many also get Mortgages on line through quicken. You have self check-out at the stores including Walmart. So when Automation happens… then where do people work?
> 
> - DrDirt


That is an interesting concept. Why has there been inflation while wages have been stagnant for 30+ years? Will there then be deflation when automation displaces millions of workers?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The median income in 1965 was $6,000 / year or $500 / mo.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> I don t doubt that…was the median…
> 
> But I was responding specifically to the idea that you said:
> "Minimum wage jobs supported families with a *single* wage earner in the 50s and 60s."
> 
> I don t believe that has EVER been true - - you always needed a DECENT JOB to afford a house and family.
> 
> DrDirt


I really do not now what to tell you. You are obviously not old enough to remember or have experienced a pre-Reaganomics America. Maybe the people I remember growing up with starved and I didn't notice? I think all the farmers and their help thought they had decent jobs in the 50s and 60s. My wife never worked until the kids got to be teenagers and then she started for something to do more than anything else. It is true today that nearly all homes are 2 incomes. Reaganomics brought that to America. Apparently you do not remember the Leave it to Beaver lifestyle. That was not TV fantasy, that was the typical American household. The oligarchs have been very effective in the long game. William F Buckley threw Fred Koch out of the R party because he was too radical. Today his sons own it pushing the same policies.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I simply don t get where the idea is that there is a war on the middle class, are you being nice and calling the bottom class middle class?
> 
> I am middle class and I do not feel there is a war being waged against me, in face I am doing better than I ever figured possible when I was in college in the 1990 s.


You are too young to have any personal experience relating to this discussion about the war on the middle class. 
When the protesters stood up against the Viet Nam War, the conservatives decided they could not tolerate that behavior. They eliminated the nearly free education most received through 4 years of college. That took many of the protesters out of the picture, especially starting with Berkeley, I believe. They have systematically dismantled any economic security most of us, US, ever had. You really need to look at the history of organized labor and the subsequent union busting activities of nearly every administration since Carter. I doubt anyone will ever understand that war looking at economic stats and graphs.

In Seattle, about 1982 to 83, the electricians lost $4.50/hr off their pay checks. If that isn't declaring war, I don't know what it is. That was the house payment! ;-( Most guys had to take it on the chin. I was very fortunate, I eliminated the middle man, my boss ;-) and took more than my $4.50 back. It was not an easy row to hoe. There was definitely an effort to keep the capable wireman from getting a contractor's license and becoming the competition rather than remaining the slave. There is a lot of history you will never see in print about the war on the middle class and the efforts to suppress and contain those capable of becoming the competition except fort union training classes.

The triggering event was an artificial recession in the construction industry by the Business Round Table. The purpose was to break the trade unions and they were very successful. Seattle was one of the strong points where they failed. I am not really familiar enough with the story to fully discuss it.



> In the liberal leaning sociology class I had to take the professor and book were all too happy that manufacturing was disappearing from the US and "all jobs in the future would be providing services and information". This is where I don t understand unions tying themselves to the liberals that so despise the type of work they do.
> 
> Economically there are only a couple ways a country can prosper in the global market, either produce things for export or export your natural resources otherwise it is going to be a slow bleed until death.


That new economy hasn't worked out very well has it? The reason they tied to the "liberals" is they opposition has always opposed organized labor.


----------



## SirIrb

I don't understand the love with unions or minimum wage. Maybe someone can enplane to me why they see them as necessary.


----------



## DrDirt

> I really do not now what to tell you. You are obviously not old enough to remember or have experienced a pre-Reaganomics America. Maybe the people I remember growing up with starved and I didn t notice? I think all the farmers and their help thought they had decent jobs in the 50s and 60s. My wife never worked until the kids got to be teenagers and then she started for something to do more than anything else. It is true today that nearly all homes are 2 incomes. Reaganomics brought that to America. Apparently you do not remember the Leave it to Beaver lifestyle. That was not TV fantasy, that was the typical American household. The oligarchs have been very effective in the long game. William F Buckley threw Fred Koch out of the R party because he was too radical. Today his sons own it pushing the same policies.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Indeed my mom didn't work until I was in high school either, my working career started as carter was getting booted from office in a landslide loss.

Reaganomics had little to do with women working. that would be more with the (A) the growing feminist movement post LBJ… and (B) our Consumer driven lifestyle, and the idea of disposable income, needing a new car every 2 years, and buying Florida Timeshares and going to Disneyworld (opened in 1971).

Not a presidential economic policy.

I still look at the FACT… not a foggy wistful opinion…. that it was not possible in the 50's to have a house and a family of 4… *on less than 1 dollar an hour, AND only one person working.*

I suspect that when you were married and your wife stayed home…. *you made more than 1 dollar/hour.* AND I don't get the impression you lived a lavish lifestyle, with a vacation home at Tahoe.

Minimum wage didn't hit 2 dollars an hour until 1975. Minimum wage has NEVER represented a living wage for a *single income* family.

*
The assertion that you bought a house and had a new station wagon in the driveway for the "leave it to beaver" lifestyle that was COMPLETELY supported on 40 dollars a week… that is nonsense.*


----------



## patcollins

> It is true today that nearly all homes are 2 incomes. Reaganomics brought that to America. Apparently you do not remember the Leave it to Beaver lifestyle.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I would say the liberal/feminist hate of the stay at home mom calling her a servant etc.

By the way Wally and the Beaver had to share a room, how many bedroom were in that house?


----------



## patcollins

> I was at Chilis SUnday evening and you have a touch screen to order your food, reorder drinks and pay your bill at the table….. so what do you tip your server??
> 
> Panera Bread (PNRA) is the latest chain to introduce automated service, announcing in April that it plans to bring self-service ordering kiosks as well as a mobile ordering option to all its locations within the next three years. The news follows moves from Chili s and Applebee s to place tablets on their tables, allowing diners to order and pay without interacting with human wait staff at all.
> 
> - DrDirt


From what I understand a lot of the fast food places in Europe (you know where they have high wages and benefits for all) have had automated ordering for a while like a Sheetz gas station.


----------



## DrDirt

> From what I understand a lot of the fast food places in Europe (you know where they have high wages and benefits for all) have had automated ordering for a while like a Sheetz gas station.
> 
> - patcollins


I didn't see that when I was in the Netherlands…. not that it isn't here, but it doesn't seem prolific.

Regardless, this is what accelerates when wages are raised….. they are limited in how much they can raise prices, so the replace "expensive people with automation"

So when minimum wage goes to 15 dollars… a McDonalds will in a short time have "The same labor costs" and prices because they got rid of half the workforce….it is a trend already in motion, that will accelerate.

There is this unicorn and rainbow view of the world from liberals, that see the economy in a finite space… rather than globally
People want cheap stuff.
Who bought a Grizzly tablesaw instead of the made in USA Delta Unisaw? I bet the 'decider' was price, not quality or caring about american jobs.

That is just HUMAN NATURE…. not some specific evil. People haggle on cars, clip grocery coupons, buy stuff 'on sale' etc.


----------



## DrDirt

> It is true today that nearly all homes are 2 incomes. Reaganomics brought that to America. Apparently you do not remember the Leave it to Beaver lifestyle.
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> I would say the liberal/feminist hate of the stay at home mom calling her a servant etc.
> 
> By the way Wally and the Beaver had to share a room, how many bedroom were in that house?
> 
> - patcollins


I suspect Ward Cleaver… sole breadwinner, had a job that paid more than 1 dollar an hour (1950's minimum wage).

Single incomes were common… and I argue actually a *desireable situation* when the kids are small.
But if someone is going to stay home, the spouse (regardless of sex) better be making more than 7.25/hr.

I think those economics have always been true.

The two income household as the norm has also generated inflation. As prices have tracked wages/take home pay.
Just as folks in Washington and ORegon, see skyrocketing housing costs, as people sell a million dollar POS in California and find they can afford bigger homes in other states. that Drove costs.

Costs track with "what people can afford" so there is inflation that has little to do with actual cost of goods/services…. in essence 2 income households created "Gentrification".

My relatives in Vancouver BC saw this when Hong Kong went to Chinese Control. You had a group with a butt-load of money show up and they would buy 2 houses, bulldoze them both and build McMansions…. suddenly there is no affordable housing.


----------



## DrDirt

> That is an interesting concept. Why has there been inflation while wages have been stagnant for 30+ years? Will there then be deflation when automation displaces millions of workers?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Because Inflation is about the cost of goods increasing… which are largely produced in China.
But also it excludes food.
But cost of goods has gone up…. the transportation to get them to the stores has gone up (I remember 15 years ago I could get gas for 99 cents.)
Sure officially gasoline price is not included in inflation… but the cost to get goods delivered to your store… the payment of the surcharges that are passed on, get included in the cost of goods.

Look around seattle… how many houses are purchased by Chinese citizens, yielding a shortage of affordable housing.

Finally factor in Quantitative easing, inflating the stock market 87 billion dollars a month…. and you see INFLATION, with flat to declining income.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> ... that it was not possible in the 50 s to have a house and a family of 4… *on less than 1 dollar an hour, AND only one person working.*
> 
> I suspect that when you were married and your wife stayed home…. *you made more than 1 dollar/hour.* AND I don t get the impression you lived a lavish lifestyle, with a vacation home at Tahoe.
> 
> Minimum wage didn t hit 2 dollars an hour until 1975. Minimum wage has NEVER represented a living wage for a *single income* family.
> 
> *
> The assertion that you bought a house and had a new station wagon in the driveway for the "leave it to beaver" lifestyle that was COMPLETELY supported on 40 dollars a week… that is nonsense.*
> 
> - DrDirt


I never said Ward earned minimum wages in his suit and tie. I mentioned that in response to your statement every one you know has 2 incomes. That is not the way it always was until the WAR on the Middle class was declared and wages went sideways.

Minimum wages hit $1.00 in 1956. No I never worked for a dollar an hour or less until I became self employed. I learned to sort out the dead beats rather quickly as I hated jobs with a negative net ;-(

I never said minimum wage was a "living wage" by most definitions. What I said was in the 50s and 60s, I knew people who lived on primarily minimum wage single wage earner incomes. The wives worked a lot harder in the home than they do today. Most washed with a wringer washer and dried on the clothes line. Most grew a garden and canned most of their veggies, ect. Of course the typical house was 2 bedroom 500 sq ft not close to 5,000 sq ft that is required by most people to today.

No, I never lived a lavish lifestyle. I was just a capable guy that was said to set the industry standard in my little niche of the world. I was very efficient and made good money at a price most of the competition could not touch. Many jobs I did I did not need to be the low bidder if performance and quality were significant considerations. I never exploited my employees, they all said I was the best employer they ever worked for. They always did a good job for me except a couple that were just not capable. Mostly, I was a high net worth investor who worked by myself a lot because I was too lazy to report to employees every morning ;-) I enjoyed my freedom. Probably the most extravagant thing I ever did was put a washer / dryer in the 5th wheel when my wife said it was going to be a pain in the butt to spend a night a week in laundromats when we were planning a 2 month road trip one summer. That 5th wheel was over 1/2 the sq ft of the house my parents raised us 3 kids in. I was very fortunate and very conservative financially.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> By the way Wally and the Beaver had to share a room, how many bedroom were in that house?
> 
> - patcollins


Probably 2. It was very common to have 400 to 900 sq ft houses in those days.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Look around seattle… how many houses are purchased by Chinese citizens, yielding a shortage of affordable housing.
> 
> Finally factor in Quantitative easing, inflating the stock market 87 billion dollars a month…. and you see INFLATION, with flat to declining income.
> 
> - DrDirt


Quantitative Easing; an interesting term. I wonder how long the economy could survive if the people knew what it really meant?

Thom Hartmenn mentioned a few days ago how much of the assets of the US are now foreign owned because of the trade deficit. It seems that it is about 50%, but I am not sure.

Alexander Hamilton and Adam Smith laid out the rules for a thriving economy in the 18th century. That systematic served us,U.S., well until the 80s when the systematic dismantling started.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I don t understand the love with unions or minimum wage. Maybe someone can enplane to me why they see them as necessary.
> 
> - SirIrb


I see them as necessary evils in the battle against oppression of the peons by the sociopaths willing to exploit everything and everyone for the sake of a penny. You really need to look at the pitiful conditions of the workers during the industrial revolution, late 19th and early 20th centuries to really understand why they came to be. Many men sacrificed their lives for the socially accepted and expected conditions we enjoy today.

There was a fellow on Hartmann's show a few months ago talking about his grandfather who organized a coal miners strike in czarist Russian in the late 19th century. They wanted better working conditions including relief from 14 hour work days. The czar realizing he had no real way to break the strike relented. He not only reduced the work day to 10 hours, he gave them a 6 day week with Sundays off too!

At the turn of the 20th century, the "Breaker Boys" sat along chutes breaking coal pieces into smaller sizes starting at about age 10 depending on their sized. By 14 or 15, most went into the mines to spend the rest of their lives until they died of black lung, explosions or other dangerous conditions.

Here in WA, I know a fellow whose grandfather refused to pay wages when the Wobblies succeed in getting relief from living in the company town and shopping in the company store with company issued script rather than dollars. He refused to pay wages and went out of business as he couldn't get any help for his timber operations.

Now Rs in Congress want to repeal every gain labor made in the 20th century, including Social Security and Medicare. It's not enough to just steal the pensions million of us, U.S., have earned. They want it all!! In April, Rep. Dave Reichert, R-8th, WA introduced a bill to retrain workers displaced by the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and other NAFTA-like deals using Medicare funds. If it is going to displace more American workers, why not introduce legislation to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership?


----------



## SirIrb

In the examples where unions were used historically, did the workers have legs? You can leave one job and go to another.

I will go ahead and say it: not only do i not see a usefulness for unions today, as long as the workers had an option to leave (i.e. not slavery) then I do not believe they ever had a usefulness. Though as long as they abstain from violence I think that if the shop is silly enough to recognize them there should be able to organize as they like…peacefully.

The minimum wage is just absolutely baffling. It holds people back. For instance: there is a shop owner who only needs his floors swept. There is a young guy who wants any way in the shop he can get. The law says for the young guy to get hired the owner has to pay him X. But sweeping the floors is only worth Y to the owner. He doesnt hire the young guy, the young guy does not get a toe hold in the trade he wants in, he doesnt get a chance to prove him self. He would have taken Y for the job just to get a chance but the gvt says he can not because they mandate X.

How does this help anyone?



> I don t understand the love with unions or minimum wage. Maybe someone can enplane to me why they see them as necessary.
> 
> - SirIrb
> 
> I see them as necessary evils in the battle against oppression of the peons by the sociopaths willing to exploit everything and everyone for the sake of a penny. You really need to look at the pitiful conditions of the workers during the industrial revolution, late 19th and early 20th centuries to really understand why they came to be. Many men sacrificed their lives for the socially accepted and expected conditions we enjoy today.
> 
> There was a fellow on Hartmann s show a few months ago talking about his grandfather who organized a coal miners strike in czarist Russian in the late 19th century. They wanted better working conditions including relief from 14 hour work days. The czar realizing he had no real way to break the strike relented. He not only reduced the work day to 10 hours, he gave them a 6 day week with Sundays off too!
> 
> At the turn of the 20th century, the "Breaker Boys" sat along chutes breaking coal pieces into smaller sizes starting at about age 10 depending on their sized. By 14 or 15, most went into the mines to spend the rest of their lives until they died of black lung, explosions or other dangerous conditions.
> 
> Here in WA, I know a fellow whose grandfather refused to pay wages when the Wobblies succeed in getting relief from living in the company town and shopping in the company store with company issued script rather than dollars. He refused to pay wages and went out of business as he couldn t get any help for his timber operations.
> 
> Now Rs in Congress want to repeal every gain labor made in the 20th century, including Social Security and Medicare. It s not enough to just steal the pensions million of us, U.S., have earned. They want it all!! In April, Rep. Dave Reichert, R-8th, WA introduced a bill to retrain workers displaced by the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and other NAFTA-like deals using Medicare funds. If it is going to displace more American workers, why not introduce legislation to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


----------



## dbray45

Here is the irony - when Social Security was created, it was designed to BE your retirement and only your retirement. It was a good idea because a lot of small businesses could not pay for retirement benefits. The amounts that Social Security was to pay was about what you made.

Once the politicians got a hold of it, after the reserves got into the billions, they reduced the benefits paid out - actually they just didn't increase them to keep up with inflation. Their rationale - many people were still getting retirements and pensions - and that was unfair. As a result, who gets the shaft - the people that didn't have the retirements and pensions (you know, the people that it was supposed to provide for). Getting back, the politicians had other ideas for your money that was sitting there so they decided to start siphoning off the interest to the fund. Many people in Puerto Rico, after it became a "territory" was paid Social Security to "bring them up" to a level above poverty. They do not pay income taxes or pay into Social Security.

Since the fed doesn't include food into the calculations for inflation, they can sleep at night just knowing that they can say that there was little or no inflation - even though people that get it are starving. The fed says that Social Security is bankrupt - well, if they were to put back the 1.5 trillion that they have taken out of it + interest (siphoning is a gentle process, now they are blatant - because there is no accountability) to balance the budget, fund PR, fund this and that, we would have more than enough to pay these people a decent retirement.

Social Security is 75% tax, 25% retirement at best.

The idea that someone makes $25,000 a year (puts in 15% - including employer) gets $1,000 and month and 
someone that makes $100,000 and puts in 15%, including employer, gets $1,500 a month (at best), both collecting at 62 is incredulous. The rationale - if you are making $100,000 a year, you should be investing in a retirement - if you live in the Washington DC area, for a family of 4, you are just getting by - so the rationale doesn't hold any more.


----------



## SirIrb

So what seems to the the problem child in the equation, saving or the gvt?

A personal choice to save is great. Forced saving is not.

We all make choices and pay for the bad ones.



> Here is the irony - when Social Security was created, it was designed to BE your retirement and only your retirement. It was a good idea because a lot of small businesses could not pay for retirement benefits. The amounts that Social Security was to pay was about what you made.
> 
> Once the politicians got a hold of it, after the reserves got into the billions, they reduced the benefits paid out - actually they just didn t increase them to keep up with inflation. Their rationale - many people were still getting retirements and pensions - and that was unfair. As a result, who gets the shaft - the people that didn t have the retirements and pensions (you know, the people that it was supposed to provide for). Getting back, the politicians had other ideas for your money that was sitting there so they decided to start siphoning off the interest to the fund. Many people in Puerto Rico, after it became a "territory" was paid Social Security to "bring them up" to a level above poverty. They do not pay income taxes or pay into Social Security.
> 
> Since the fed doesn t include food into the calculations for inflation, they can sleep at night just knowing that they can say that there was little or no inflation - even though people that get it are starving. The fed says that Social Security is bankrupt - well, if they were to put back the 1.5 trillion that they have taken out of it + interest (siphoning is a gentle process, now they are blatant - because there is no accountability) to balance the budget, fund PR, fund this and that, we would have more than enough to pay these people a decent retirement.
> 
> Social Security is 75% tax, 25% retirement at best.
> 
> The idea that someone makes $25,000 a year (puts in 15% - including employer) gets $1,000 and month and
> someone that makes $100,000 and puts in 15%, including employer, gets $1,500 a month (at best), both collecting at 62 is incredulous. The rationale - if you are making $100,000 a year, you should be investing in a retirement - if you live in the Washington DC area, for a family of 4, you are just getting by - so the rationale doesn t hold any more.
> 
> - dbray45


----------



## DrDirt

> I never said minimum wage was a "living wage" by most definitions. What I said was in the 50s and 60s, I knew people who lived on primarily minimum wage single wage earner incomes.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


That is pretty different than:
"Minimum wage jobs supported families with a single wage earner in the 50s and 60s."
Not sure you can have it both ways….. in the first part you say Minimum wage was never a living wage…..

Then the second sentence you say you knew people that lived on it.???

If you cannot live on it…. then how did they live? Second job? "Butter and egg money" doing odd handyman jobs for additional cash?

Basically that would be the same as today… you CANNOT raise a family on minimum wage….. and never could.

--------

Indeed quantitiative easing is just a stock market bailout to make people feel good about their 401K's…. and they want to "Prevent Deflation"

But it is still at the heart of your question…. "How do we get inflation with declining US incomes." The Government picking winners and losers, and foreign investment and control over our markets, has fundamentally enslaved the population, and we just get to watch the standard of living go down, as the Democrats funded by foreigners and the Clinton Global Initiative, flush us down the toilet with newer and 'better' trade agreements.

I work at a factory. We had been seeing some leveling out in the attractiveness of making everythying in China. Some accomplished by automation, so "High Wage Country" has less impact. But more with near double digit annual wage inflation in China.

Now the proposal is to double our minimum wage…. a nice "Reset Button" to offset our competitiveness with an increasing China Cost.

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
According to BLS, the Median wage in the US is 17 dollars.

So moving the bottom, will actually mean substantial raises for more than half the working population.
~40% earn less than 15 dollars today… so they ALL get moved up, not just the current population that is at 7.25.

Then of course if you had been earning double the minimum wage…. you still want to be ahead…. so it will drive EVERYONES wages up.
Count on more H1B visas, because Microsoft will not pay the locals the new wage demand.


----------



## dbray45

SirIrb - If you make, in this area, less than $30 - 40 an hour, you are not saving for anything, you are trying to stay afloat. Throw in a car payment and 2 kids, you are seriously struggling.

This is why the fed is changing the "can't be paid overtime (time and a half) if you make $23 an hour or more (in IT)" to $50 and hour.


----------



## SirIrb

I do not see that as a problem one should use the strong arm of gvt to fix. Learn another trade or move. Choose not to have kids/ or not have kids now. Use one car rather than two.

What about what I wrote about the minimum wage being a barrier to entry? Does that make sense? When I was a teen I would have taken less than 4.25 an hour to just get in…anywhere. I had to wait till I was 16 (regulation) and someone would see my services as worth more to them than 4.25 (regulation). Its a barrier to entry.



> SirIrb - If you make, in this area, less than $30 - 40 an hour, you are not saving for anything, you are trying to stay afloat. Throw in a car payment and 2 kids, you are seriously struggling.
> 
> This is why the fed is changing the "can t be paid overtime (time and a half) if you make $23 an hour or more (in IT)" to $50 and hour.
> 
> - dbray45


----------



## dbray45

If you want to create jobs - and sustain them, drop the minimum wage to $5.00 an hour. You will see kids getting hired again and the costs of some things will come down. Will there be people taking advantage of it - sure but overall, there will be a surge in growth.

This does not hold to the "look what we did for you" mentality but it will help the economy in a big way. Increasing the minimum wage sure hasn't helped.

I made minimum wage (2.00) when I was a kid - it sucks, but it got me into the job market. I also worked 10 hours of overtime a week to move ahead and technically, I was part time.


----------



## SirIrb

So it seems that a drop in the min wage opens the market up to a place where employers want to hire less skilled labor, and this gives the labor a chance to get a toe hold in the market, think what would happen if the minimum wage was abolished.

It is horrible. It is saying to some "No, we want to make it hard for you to get a job". Where, between consenting parties, the employer and the worker, there is no problem. Sure, the employer wants free labor in their perfect world and the labor wants to be able to retire off of one hours labor. But at least this way the labor gets to get in the market and the employer gets some task done for a small fee which otherwise he would have to pay a higher skilled person to do because he can not fathom hiring someone to do it at the mandated rates.



> If you want to create jobs - and sustain them, drop the minimum wage to $5.00 an hour. You will see kids getting hired again and the costs of some things will come down. Will there be people taking advantage of it - sure but overall, there will be a surge in growth.
> 
> This does not hold to the "look what we did for you" mentality but it will help the economy in a big way. Increasing the minimum wage sure hasn t helped.
> 
> I made minimum wage (2.00) when I was a kid - it sucks, but it got me into the job market. I also worked 10 hours of overtime a week to move ahead and technically, I was part time.
> 
> - dbray45


----------



## CharlesA

a $2.00 minimum wage in 1974, adjusted for inflation, is higher than the minimum wage is now.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I never said minimum wage was a "living wage" by most definitions. What I said was in the 50s and 60s, I knew people who lived on primarily minimum wage single wage earner incomes.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> That is pretty different than:
> "Minimum wage jobs supported families with a single wage earner in the 50s and 60s."
> Not sure you can have it both ways….. in the first part you say Minimum wage was never a living wage…..
> 
> Then the second sentence you say you knew people that lived on it.???
> 
> If you cannot live on it…. then how did they live? Second job? "Butter and egg money" doing odd handyman jobs for additional cash?
> 
> Basically that would be the same as today… you CANNOT raise a family on minimum wage….. and never could.


Maybe a better term would have been poverty level. The point I am making is people I knew in the 50s and 60s growing up were making minimum wages or slightly more as farm laborers. They lived in houses, drove cars and did not starve on a single income. Minimum wage earners today have to chose one of the 3. Just because you have not seen it and your interpenetration of the statistics you find does not mean it did not happen.

In another few years there will be no one left that remembers it just like the memories of the Great Depression have faded.


----------



## SirIrb

If someone only has the skill for what goes as minimum wage maybe they should not have a house. Maybe rent. Maybe no car. Maybe take a bus. Maybe get a trade.

Who in their right mind would start a family on minimum wage? By the time I was 17 I was making more than minimum wage. Then I got a trade and by 24 I was making 35K and by 28 I was making 45K. Ten years later I am at 100K.

Dont even say it. No, I have no degree. I wanted better. God provided. I went after it.



> I never said minimum wage was a "living wage" by most definitions. What I said was in the 50s and 60s, I knew people who lived on primarily minimum wage single wage earner incomes.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> That is pretty different than:
> "Minimum wage jobs supported families with a single wage earner in the 50s and 60s."
> Not sure you can have it both ways….. in the first part you say Minimum wage was never a living wage…..
> 
> Then the second sentence you say you knew people that lived on it.???
> 
> If you cannot live on it…. then how did they live? Second job? "Butter and egg money" doing odd handyman jobs for additional cash?
> 
> Basically that would be the same as today… you CANNOT raise a family on minimum wage….. and never could.
> 
> Maybe a better term would have been poverty level. The point I am making is people I knew in the 50s and 60s growing up were making minimum wages or slightly more as farm laborers. They lived in houses, drove cars and did not starve on a single income. Minimum wage earners today have to chose one of the 3. Just because you have not seen it and your interpenetration of the statistics you find does not mean it did not happen.
> 
> In another few years there will be no one left that remembers it just like the memories of the Great Depression have faded.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm
> According to BLS, the Median wage in the US is 17 dollars.
> 
> - DrDirt


That is an interesting chart. I noticed the median wage for electricians is about $24. We were making that in the early 80s before class warfare was instigated.

I took an economic/investing course in the 70s. I began to wonder when our hourly rate would hit $50 based on inflation rates. My calculations showed it would happen in the early 90s. I felt it was psychologically impossible for that to happen. That turned out to be a very perceptive prediction. I had no idea what the mechanism to suppress the labor class would be, but I knew it was coming and it started a few years later. Today, the local rate is $43.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> If someone only has the skill for what goes as minimum wage maybe they should not have a house. Maybe rent. Maybe no car. Maybe take a bus. Maybe get a trade.
> 
> Who in their right mind would start a family on minimum wage? By the time I was 17 I was making more than minimum wage. Then I got a trade and by 24 I was making 35K and by 28 I was making 45K. Ten years later I am at 100K.
> 
> Dont even say it. No, I have no degree. I wanted better. God provided. I went after it.
> 
> - SirIrb


In an agrarian area where I grew up there was no bus. Who would start a family on minimum wage? Ask those who were making nothing during the Great Depression. Many had less than that and no prospects. My mother remembers kids coming to school bare foot in the snow.

Rent costs as much as a payment and in many cases more. Renters pay off mortgages for landlords. I doubt if many minimum wage workers are able to make a down payment, I'm sure most are renters if they can afford a roof overhead.

It is easy to say everyone should be able to do what a few of us have accomplished personally. My granddaughter finished high school in 1.5 years. She would probably be nearly done with college if she hadn't wanted to stay with kids her own age when she was in elementary school. What is wrong with the rest of the kids? Just because a few of us are blessed with ambition, abilities and a certain amount of good luck does not mean that the are universal traits in the general population.


----------



## SirIrb

I dont understand. So one who has ambition-agreed, blessed-doesnt have to live in the min wage trenches. But those who do not have ambition should be mandated to make nothing below a gvt regulated hourly wage?

Again, read what I wrote above in my first post, i believe, about how it is a barrier to entry. The min wage is a horrible way to artificially keep competition low. Also, unions usually love it because their hourly rates are based as a multiplier of the min wage, as is my understanding. As one goes up the other does to.

What about a world where one gets what the market will offer. If they dont like what the market offers they change their game plan, get a trade, go to school, apprentice somewhere, anything except using the strong arm of the gvt to get them where they believe they should be. And the drivel about a living wage, honestly a living wage sounds like something Marx would love.



> If someone only has the skill for what goes as minimum wage maybe they should not have a house. Maybe rent. Maybe no car. Maybe take a bus. Maybe get a trade.
> 
> Who in their right mind would start a family on minimum wage? By the time I was 17 I was making more than minimum wage. Then I got a trade and by 24 I was making 35K and by 28 I was making 45K. Ten years later I am at 100K.
> 
> Dont even say it. No, I have no degree. I wanted better. God provided. I went after it.
> 
> - SirIrb
> 
> In an agrarian are where I grew up there was no bus. Who would start a family on minimum wage? Ask those who were making nothing during the Great Depression. Many had less than that and no prospects. My mother remembers kids coming to school bare foot in the snow.
> 
> Rent costs as much as a payment and in many cases more. Renters pay off mortgages for landlords. I doubt if many minimum wage workers are able to make a down payment, I m sure most are renters if they can afford a roof overhead.
> 
> It is easy say everyone should be able to do what a few of us have accomplished personally. My granddaughter finished high school in 1.5 years. She would probably be nearly done with college if she hadn t wanted to stay with kids her own age when she was in elementary school. What is wrong with the rest of the kids? Just because a few of us are blessed with ambition, abilities and a certain amount of good luck does not mean that the are universal traits in the general population.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I dont understand. So one who has ambition-agreed, blessed-doesnt have to live in the min wage trenches. But those who do not have ambition should be mandated to make nothing below a gvt regulated hourly wage?
> 
> Again, read what I wrote above in my first post, i believe, about how it is a barrier to entry. The min wage is a horrible way to artificially keep competition low. Also, unions usually love it because their hourly rates are based as a multiplier of the min wage, as is my understanding. As one goes up the other does to.
> 
> What about a world where one gets what the market will offer. If they dont like what the market offers they change their game plan, get a trade, go to school, apprentice somewhere, anything except using the strong arm of the gvt to get them where they believe they should be. And the drivel about a living wage, honestly a living wage sounds like something Marx would love.
> 
> If someone only has the skill for what goes as minimum wage maybe they should not have a house. Maybe rent. Maybe no car. Maybe take a bus. Maybe get a trade.
> 
> Who in their right mind would start a family on minimum wage? By the time I was 17 I was making more than minimum wage. Then I got a trade and by 24 I was making 35K and by 28 I was making 45K. Ten years later I am at 100K.
> 
> Dont even say it. No, I have no degree. I wanted better. God provided. I went after it.
> 
> - SirIrb


Looking at the number of people who have dropped out of the labor force due to lack of available jobs, I would disagree that there are opportunities for all to get out of the minimum wage trench. I have known several people who where down sized in there 50s who never worked again for much more than minimum wage. I could see the hand writing on the wall when Reagan institutionalized class warfare and job exports to aid union busting.

I too took advantage of my own abilities. Industrial accounts would follow me from employer to employer unsolicited. Why do I need an employer. As long as it was they paid me well enough, why bother with the hassles of the business world? When the 25% cut came, I took my customers and cut the boss out ;-) It was their call ;-))

I am not saying minimum wage is not a barrier in many cases. My position is the same as Teddy Roosevelt at turn of the 20th century. Working a 40 hour week should provide food, shelter, an education for your children, an occasional vacation and a retirement. If it does not, then the job is not worth doing with exception of a few entry level jobs kids take for pocket change while in school. Any job that requires a full time staff should provide those things. Fast food included ;-)

Labor unions with all individuals paid the same regardless of ability are basically Marxist. They were formed in response to the suppression of the fascist oligarchy using extremely biased and suppressive employment practices. The US economic structure has degraded to fascism. At our apex, we built the greatest economic engine the world had ever experienced. It was midway between Marxism and Fascism.

BTW, I have no degree either ;-) Neither do my kids ;-) The median is in all of our rear view mirrors ;-)) I paid more to Uncle Sam some years than the median wage earner grossed. But life is not fair. There are many reasons we cannot all be on top of the economic pile.


----------



## SirIrb

"Working a 40 hour week should provide food, shelter, an education for your children, an occasional vacation and a retirement. If it does not, then the job is not worth doing with exception of a few entry level jobs kids take for pocket change while in school."*

Working is a response to the markets demand and ones choice to fulfill that demand. If one chooses to work any job they made a choice and their labor is worth less to them than the money they earn for doing that labor. The labor is worth more to the employer than the money they pay. The results can be seen by the labor choosing to stay and the employer choosing to keep the labor. Anything else is just ignoring this economic truth. Anything more is just adding something to the equation which doesnt belong. (Anything less is either slavery or forcing someone to pay for labor they dont want, I dont know if there is a word for that).

When you say "The job is not worth doing" you are making a decision for a lot of people. I am sure there are a bunch of people who would gladly take any job in the hopes of being able to get a promotion, prove they can do it well, get another promotion etc. Again, I would have taken anything at 15. It was gvt mandated wages that kept me out until I found someone who would give me a shot. Shout-out to Fred's dollar store.



> I dont understand. So one who has ambition-agreed, blessed-doesnt have to live in the min wage trenches. But those who do not have ambition should be mandated to make nothing below a gvt regulated hourly wage?
> 
> Again, read what I wrote above in my first post, i believe, about how it is a barrier to entry. The min wage is a horrible way to artificially keep competition low. Also, unions usually love it because their hourly rates are based as a multiplier of the min wage, as is my understanding. As one goes up the other does to.
> 
> What about a world where one gets what the market will offer. If they dont like what the market offers they change their game plan, get a trade, go to school, apprentice somewhere, anything except using the strong arm of the gvt to get them where they believe they should be. And the drivel about a living wage, honestly a living wage sounds like something Marx would love.
> 
> If someone only has the skill for what goes as minimum wage maybe they should not have a house. Maybe rent. Maybe no car. Maybe take a bus. Maybe get a trade.
> 
> Who in their right mind would start a family on minimum wage? By the time I was 17 I was making more than minimum wage. Then I got a trade and by 24 I was making 35K and by 28 I was making 45K. Ten years later I am at 100K.
> 
> Dont even say it. No, I have no degree. I wanted better. God provided. I went after it.
> 
> - SirIrb
> 
> Looking at the number of people who have dropped out of the labor force due to lack of available jobs, I would disagree that there are opportunities for all to get out of the minimum wage trench. I have known several people who where down sized in there 50s who never worked again for much more than minimum wage. I could see the hand writing on the wall when Reagan institutionalized class warfare and job exports to aid union busting.
> 
> I too took advantage of my own abilities. Industrial accounts would follow me from employer to employer unsolicited. Why do I need an employer. As long as it was they paid me well enough, why bother with the hassles of the business world? When the 25% cut came, I took my customers and cut the boss out ;-) It was their call ;-))
> 
> I am not saying minimum wage is not a barrier in many cases. My position is the same as Teddy Roosevelt at turn of the 20th century. Working a 40 hour week should provide food, shelter, an education for your children, an occasional vacation and a retirement. If it does not, then the job is not worth doing with exception of a few entry level jobs kids take for pocket change while in school. Any job that requires a full time staff should provide those things. Fast food included ;-)
> 
> Labor unions with all individuals paid the same regardless of ability are basically Marxist. They were formed in response to the suppression of the fascist oligarchy using extremely biased and suppressive employment practices. The US economic structure has degraded to fascism. At our apex, we built the greatest economic engine the world had ever experienced. It was midway between Marxism and Fascism.
> 
> BTW, I have no degree either ;-) Neither do my kids ;-) The median is in all of our rear view mirrors ;-)) I paid more to Uncle Sam some years than the median wage earner grossed. But life is not fair. There are many reasons we cannot all be on top of the economic pile.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Too bad everyone and everything isn't fair and just. If there had been no changes since the late 19th century, the average family of 4 would have nothing; a $7,000 net worth in today's dollars. Setting higher standards and requirements eventually raises the entire population. Take a look at the differences between Wisconsin and Minnesota in the last few years. Scott Walker's suppression has destroyed the Wisconsin economy while Mark Dayton's policies has created dynamic opportunity.


----------



## dbray45

Getting a job and getting a career are very different things. I have had many jobs that through this curve and that curve and a few changes - evolved into a career. I have been paid minimum wage and a few times when I had my own business - I would have been lucky to get minimum wage while other times, I was doing quite well. Later, I am doing better - but - that could change again several times over - I don't know, the book has not been written yet.

Every step is a learning opportunity - make use of it and always move forward.


----------



## DrDirt

> a $2.00 minimum wage in 1974, adjusted for inflation, is higher than the minimum wage is now.
> 
> - CharlesA


Nice Cherrypick…. If I pick 1950…. that minimum wage "adjusted for inflation is only 4 dollars an hour" versus todays 7.25

Why is picking the PEAK minimum wage (1976)... when inflation was running 12% the "right" number to project from.

Most chose not to social engineer based on financial crisis numbers but instead something more"typical" with historical support.

We shouldn't use the early 1940s to decide what percent of GDP should be spent on building Navy Carriers either.


----------



## DrDirt

> Maybe a better term would have been poverty level. The point I am making is people I knew in the 50s and 60s growing up were making minimum wages or slightly more as farm laborers. They lived in houses, drove cars and did not starve on a single income. Minimum wage earners today have to chose one of the 3. Just because you have not seen it and your interpenetration of the statistics you find does not mean it did not happen.
> 
> In another few years there will be no one left that remembers it just like the memories of the Great Depression have faded.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Did they OWN the house or rent?
Perhaps they had (as was typical) ONE car, not 3
and it likely wasn't brand new.

The farm laborers, then as today often worked as a family in the fields…. it was not solely the man working.
Though the draft years, the women had to work, and use the military pay (and on post purchasing power) to survive.

If the only point you want to make is that a single income at minimum wage means you live in abject poverty… well no argument there.

Minimum wage was NEVEr based on what it takes to raise a family on a single income…. even when FDR passed it in 1938 for 25 cents /hour.

the "agreed" livable wage being discussed was 40 cents and hour….16 dollars a week… so 37% lower than the accepted poverty level.
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm#38

The FLSA was about leveling the playing field between states…. not setting a minimum livable wage.
If you want to have kids… you need a better than minimum wage job.

NOT the Government needing to Jack the wages of more than half the US population


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Did they OWN the house or rent?
> Perhaps they had (as was typical) ONE car, not 3
> and it likely wasn t brand new.


They definitely did not have new cars. I do not know how many were renters or how many owed. I suppose a few were provided a house as my uncle did for his hired man, but certainly not all.



> The farm laborers, then as today often worked as a family in the fields…. it was not solely the man working.
> Though the draft years, the women had to work, and use the military pay (and on post purchasing power) to survive.


The migrants definitely worked as family groups. Their kids started by age 6 or 8 by my observations. Most of the kids I grew up with that were permanent residents did not work in family groups as the migrants did when hoeing corn or beans and blocking beets. The migrants worked primarily for row croppers. There was not work for them from late summer through the fall and winter.

The year round guys did tractor work, dairy operations and cattle feeding , ect. not suited to a family group application. That is not to say they did not earn a few extra dollars during specific harvest operations. I'm sure they took advantage of those opportunities when they could.



> If the only point you want to make is that a single income at minimum wage means you live in abject poverty… well no argument there.
> - DrDirt


No that is not the point. They were not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. They did not consider themselves as being in abject poverty nor did the community. The dad of one of my best friends growing up worked for a cattle feeder and his mother stayed home in the house they owned. Others in the area did the same.

The point is the changes in the economic structure combined with the ideological war on the middle class make it nearly impossible for a single wage earner to support a family today. They certainly cannot support themselves alone on minimum wage. Kid's dads I grew up with did it. Your lack of experience with post WWII economic reality in the 50s and 60s does not mean it did not happen. Hell, I was there. Where were you?


----------



## DrDirt

> I suppose a few were provided a house as my uncle did for his hired man, but certainly not all.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Gee - - the LIVABILITY goes up a lot if you have no mortgage or rent to pay… hell I would have an extra 1100 a month with no mortgage! 
Being provided housing…. would be part of your "Compensation", as you didn't have to come up with rent out of your minimum wage pay.
Much like the military pay levels…. it is doable living in enlisted base housing, and shopping at the PX, and having full medical.



> The year round guys did tractor work, dairy operations and cattle feeding , ect. not suited to a family group application. *That is not to say they did not earn a few extra dollars during specific harvest operations. I m sure they took advantage of those opportunities when they could. *
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Of course they did!!... just as they do today. They never survived SOLELY, on a SINGLE minimum wage paycheck.



> No that is not the point. They were not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. They did not consider themselves as being in abject poverty nor did the community. The dad of one of my best friends growing up worked for a cattle feeder and his mother stayed home in the house they owned. Others in the area did the same.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


And that cattle feeder made more than just MINIMUM WAGE….
You seem to conflate single income, and having single SOLELY FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE income….

How is it you are so certain that your friends dads SOLE income was ONLY at minimum wage… NO overtime… NO extra work… nothing!!??
Whether I was standing there in your driveway is irrelevant, to what the economics are.

In 1970 the median house in Washington state was 18000 dollars (unadjusted for inflation).
The Fannie Mae Interest rates were 7.6% and rising fast

That made the Mortgage payment 127/month. (not including tax nor insurance)
on a GROSS pay of 160.

Given that nobody will give you a loan greater than half your gross pay… even less so back then when we didn't do "110% nor Interest only mortgages"... you had to be in the house for less than 80 dollars.

That means you could at most "Blow" 10K on your home. (doable for a mobile home) but not a house.
But given your take home was likely 90% of that 160 dollar gross… =$144 - 80 = 64 dollars a month to pay for everything else.

The basic math doesn't work… so while the COSTS are easy to talley….the 1 dollar an hour piece doesn't work. To pull this off, they needed more money coming in, from working more… from additional job for dad or mom…. or a relative sending money to 'help out the kids'

This is not doable solely on a single minimum wage pay…. the case simply cannot be made that "you could buy a house and raise a family on a single minimum wage job then,.,... but you cannot do it now"

Home Ownership has always been more of a middle class position, not attainable at the VERY BOTTOM of the pay scale….. you needed to acumulate a few years of raises/ get a better job etc.

Even at McDonalds, (here starts above minimum) but first raises are 6 months into your 'career'. Before you could afford a family and home you needed to climb a few rungs in pay grade.

That has ALWAYS been true.



> The point is the changes in the economic structure combined with the ideological war on the middle class make it nearly impossible for a single wage earner to support a family today. They certainly cannot support themselves alone on minimum wage.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


That is true…



> Kid s dads I grew up with did it. Your lack of experience with post WWII economic reality in the 50s and 60s does not mean it did not happen. Hell, I was there. Where were you?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I think this is Nostalgia about some "good old days" that never really existed. Just as folks that grew up poor… never knew they were poor growing up.
I am unconvinced that you knew your friends fathers finances inside out…. and know every source of money they had access to, used, nor what his weekly paycheck was.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Where where you in the 50s and 60s? I grew up with these people and worked with many of them as a teenager.

This reminds me of a history teacher making a comment about a certain bomber flown (don't remember which) in WWII in the European theater. The next day, my cousin came to class claiming my uncle said those planes were never used in Europe. He had just finished aircraft mechanic training when the war ended. He never left the US. The history teacher responded stating he had flown them on bomb runs over Germany.

Too bad America is losing its collective memory of how it was and with that, the expectation of what it can be again ;-((


----------



## CharlesA

This chirping wears me out. Dbray45 wrote that he had worked for a $2.00 minimum wage. I was curious, so I looked it up, and the MW was $2 for only one year, in 1974. That was it . . . no plot to pick particular data. If I was cherry picking I would have picked the $1.60 MW in 1968 that is $10.34 adjusted for inflation, not the $9.12 from 1974.



> a $2.00 minimum wage in 1974, adjusted for inflation, is higher than the minimum wage is now.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Nice Cherrypick…. If I pick 1950…. that minimum wage "adjusted for inflation is only 4 dollars an hour" versus todays 7.25
> 
> Why is picking the PEAK minimum wage (1976)... when inflation was running 12% the "right" number to project from.
> 
> Most chose not to social engineer based on financial crisis numbers but instead something more"typical" with historical support.
> 
> We shouldn t use the early 1940s to decide what percent of GDP should be spent on building Navy Carriers either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt


----------



## patcollins

Topa you happen to have lived in very prosperous area of the country in the 50's and 60's, while I was not alive then I can tell you that the south and a pretty good portion of the midwest was not so lucky. My father grew up without indoor plumbing, phone, television etc as did many of the people in the area he grew up.

On my mothers side of the family her father was chief electrician at the local power plant, while I wouldn't call them poor they lived very modestly with him growing most of their vegetables during the summer and my grandmother canning them, sewing the kids clothes herself etc.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Topa you happen to have lived in very prosperous area of the country in the 50 s and 60 s, while I was not alive then I can tell you that the south and a pretty good portion of the midwest was not so lucky. My father grew up without indoor plumbing, phone, television etc as did many of the people in the area he grew up.
> 
> On my mothers side of the family her father was chief electrician at the local power plant, while I wouldn t call them poor they lived very modestly with him growing most of their vegetables during the summer and my grandmother canning them, sewing the kids clothes herself etc.
> 
> - patcollins


Yes, I believe we did ;-) Most everyone had indoor plumbing and electric power, except for maybe one home that I can think of. We only had to milk by hand when the power went out. But my dad did farm exclusively with horses and mules until about 55 or 56. Nearly everyone had a big garden. Ours was about 1/5 acre. My grandpa's was probably close to 1/2. All of the garden doesn't show in the picture. Note there is a smaller one too. They gave a lot to the "poor." Nearly everyone canned except for the super rich ;-) The best plums in the world came off that tree on the edge of the big garden and there were plenty of black caps too ;-)










I was probably about 8 when we got TV. Not sure when we got a phone. Probably after that.


----------



## DrDirt

> Where where you in the 50s and 60s? I grew up with these people and worked with many of them as a teenager.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Sigh!! Really??? you are saying that… these teenagers you worked with, their father…. was STILL at minimum wage?

I can believe folks *started* at minimum…. however (and true I cannot prove it) but I comfortably bet that during those 13 years between the kids birth and working with you as teenagers… Their old man got raises.
The lifestyle you observed was not a single income AT MINIMUM wage.

Similarly, he certainly didn't start day one of his career as a homeowner.

This is the heart of the proponents of a 15 dollar/hour minimum… it is based on affording a family of 4.

You cannot buy a house and raise a family on the minimum. More realistically, folks were shopping for the house in the burbs *after a few raises and/or promotions* You had to have a work history to show the banker before they gave you the loan.

There have always been working poor… but I struggle making the finances work within your constraints:

That the ONLY source of income was 1 full time minimum wage job… 
no overtime pay - 
no second jobs
no family from the city sending you a few bucks periodically.
nor any outside sources of income.
Family of 4
owning a house.

The numbers don't work. 
The numbers are documented…. I wasn't there when George Washington Crossed the Delaware either… but I have confidence that the historical records prove it happened.

By the same token it is known/documented what the cost of living was… what housing costs were… and what the federally mandated minimum wage was every year since the law passed in 1938

To have the lifestyle you describe required more than minimum wage.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

As I said before, they may have been getting a small premium and they may have worked more than 40 hours a week as most farmers do, especially in livestock operations. People lived on those kinds of jobs in those days, there was no gov't assistance like Walmart depends on to support their labor force. For all practical purposes they were minimum wage jobs.

I do not know how they got their houses. Some may have got them for back taxes during the Depression for all I know if they had a few dollars at the opportune moment. A 500 sq ft house in Bowmont, ID or even Nampa, certainly could not have cost much in the early 50s. When my grandpa was facing foreclosure during the Depression, he was told he may as well stay and farm it, they couldn't find anyone else to do it. He eventually caught up and saved it. I'm sure his numbers don't add up very well, but it happened.

The bottom line is trickle down economics and the policies put in motion by Reagan, continued and expanded under Bush 41, Clinton, Bush the Dumber and now Obama have been a disaster for America and the middle class. Brokaw's Greatest Generation must be rolling over in their graves wondering why they made the scarifies fighting WWII just to see the Baby Boomers give it all to China.

I doubt the numbers work out for my daughter buying her first house on her own as a single mother at age 21 either, but she did it.

I doubt the numbers work out for my grandson buying his first house on his own while working nights, going to college and being in Navy Reserve at age 21, but he is doing it.

Figures can lie and liars can figure. Never under estimate the resourcefulness used in pursuit of the American dream. ;-))


----------



## dbray45

I worked a season in an orange grove in Florida. I got to know a couple of the pickers. This was a small grove and the pickers were migrant, they came here every year (whole family) from Georgia where they did peaches before coming there. They worked 3 or 4 places every year (can't remember now) and always the same places. The guy that owned the grove had a doctor come if any of them needed care, he paid them in cash and it was by the bushel of fruit. Didn't matter who picked what, it was all about getting it done. All in all, the family of 12 got a fairly good paycheck but there were 3 or 4 months of the year where they were traveling or waiting for the fruit to mature. What ever the case, they were very careful about what they spent and kept to themselves.

They were good people, it is a hard life. You worked regardless of the weather because once the fruit was ripe enough, it had to be picked. If it fell off the trees, it was discarded.

My job was cleaning, sorting, sizing, and grading fruit to be boxed and shipped out. I never worked so hard in my life - and it was great!


----------



## DrDirt

> Figures can lie and liars can figure. *Never under estimate the resourcefulness used in pursuit of the American dream. ;-)) *
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


That was how it was done in the past as well….just collecting a check at federal minimum wage, and being frugal isn't workable… They had to be resourceful though WW2 with gas rationing, and food coupons.
But people traded thier cigarette allocation, for more butter… etc.

Doubling the minimum wage will ensure that China continues its dominance…. we essentially solve their wage inflation problem, where their salaries are growing double digits… and we start to feel like it isnt so attractive to shut everything down and move it… then we decide… Lets Double our pay rate.

It is like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of the pool, pouring it into the shallow end, and thinking the shallow end is somehow deeper.


----------



## SirIrb

Serious question.

For pro min wage people, why not make it $100 an hour?

Yes, this is leading somewhere, but I want rationale first.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I don't really know the minimum wage law is the answer. Many other policies can be enacted to ensure the jobs pay a reasonable living wage. TTP will ensure China's continuing toward world dominance if the few leaks are true. If it is really good for us, US, make it public before the Senate vote to approve. Unskilled labor in an industrialize society will never compete with an endless supply peasants.

*I never worked so hard in my life - and it was great! -David in Damascus, MD*

David, I used to tell people I retired when I was 19 years old. They would invariably ask how I did that. I responded saying I left the farm, came to Seattle, got a good job paying good wages working only 40 hours a week ;-)) It was a great life, but I'm glad I did not stay and make a career out of it. My dad used to advise us, go get a trade or education; then come back and farm if you want to, but by then you will know better.


----------



## DrDirt

> Unskilled labor in an industrialized society will never compete with an endless supply peasants.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


+ 10,000,000

This is why we need an immigration program more like Canada….and less like the trail of tears


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

So, should we let our unskilled excess starve, humanely euthanize them, provide a minimum level of support, return to the policies of the Eisenhower Administration or just wait for a French style revolution?


----------



## DrDirt

No - but the police of permitting millions of unskilled workers, into the country for jobs that are to ultimately be phased out, only accelerates the path to a French Revolution.

We have millions who are riding unaccompanied atop rail cars from El Salvador - - for which the idea that they will contribute in the futer is dubious at best.

We cannot "RETRAIN" everyone here, and in addition, train an endless stream of immigrants with 4th grade educations and no english skills.

That is why Canada establishes some quotas of what can be absorbed, and has preferential admission to people with skills that are beneficial.
We import welfare recipients… which is OK in moderation.

NOT THIS…this is not sustainable


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Seems like I heard this warning about 40 years ago. Wonder how many other catastrophic events the future holds as we continue to ignore warnings? The last of critical thinkers in positions of authority certainly comes with a very high price ;-((


----------



## SirIrb

I always am up for a good ole fashioned revolution.
Do you expect real change (that would be "good change") could happen without it?



> So, should we let our unskilled excess starve, humanely euthanize them, provide a minimum level of support, return to the policies of the Eisenhower Administration or just wait for a French style revolution?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


----------



## SirIrb

Heres to bringing jobs in and a shout-out to the min wage.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/ny-dems-want-15-minimum-wage-they-just-got-slammed-with-a-dose-of-reality-that-could-change-their-minds/


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Heres to bringing jobs in and a shout-out to the min wage.
> http://www.westernjournalism.com/ny-dems-want-15-minimum-wage-they-just-got-slammed-with-a-dose-of-reality-that-could-change-their-minds/
> 
> - SirIrb


Seattle has always been a bastion of liberal, socialist thinking and political action. I doubt if such an aggressive move is possible in isolated pockets. It would have to be universal to work.

The problems with the oppression of the peons (including the shrinking ex-middle class) to proceed to revolution is the unpredictable out come. Hopefully it will be at the ballot box. Will it turn us, US, into a social democracy or worse, or will it return us to what we have been? Without the New Deal, I really doubt if the economic engine of post WWII would have flourished the way it did. America walked a tight rope and won. Can it win again?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I saw a guy delivering propane bottles and thought about this forum. How much should a job like that driving truck, restocking and returning the empties for refill pay? Enough to have a woodworking shop in his spare time? If not, should he even have spare time? Should he have to work 2 or 3 of those jobs to make a living?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The Donald announced he will be running for president again. I have mixed emotions about this. Last time he said all the US trade deals should be rescinded; a good thing. I wondered if he as flip flopped on that? Even the IMF now says Reagan's policies are foolish and will never work. *But*, on the other hand, The Donald is he only guy to ever go bankrupt in the casino business. ;-(


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## patcollins

> *But*, on the other hand, The Donald is he only guy to ever go bankrupt in the casino business. ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Not really, Caesars is in pretty bad shape right now. Last time I was in Las Vegas in 2011 it looked bad, lots of new construction just abandoned halfway finished, big construction too.

Probably the best person to be president is an unknown obscure person that does not want to do it.


----------



## DrDirt

> Probably the best person to be president is an unknown obscure person that does not want to do it.
> 
> - patcollins


Indeed Twain had a keen eye on things even back in his day….

* "I ascribe to Mark Twain's theory that the last person who should be President is the one who wants it the most. The one who should be picked is the one who should be dragged kicking and screaming into the White House."*

WE haven't had that since George Washington, who walked away after two terms. Pretty much everyone else had to be voted out or died/assasinations (there were no term limits until FDR got elected a 4th time)
EDIT
Suppose LBJ walked away with his "I will not seek nor accept the nomination for a second term"


----------



## patcollins

As an interesting note I found out that I know someone who is "homeless" living in a homeless veterans shelter that just purchased his grandson an I-Phone 6+ with cash.

His daughter is worried that someone will see the wad of cash he carries around, follow him and do him harm for it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Not really, Caesars is in pretty bad shape right now. Last time I was in Las Vegas in 2011 it looked bad, lots of new construction just abandoned halfway finished, big construction too.
> 
> - patcollins


Lets just say Donald lead the way. He showed them how to do it. ;-)


----------



## dbray45

When the pocket gets tight, unlike the government, people stop enjoying the entertainment avenues. Places like Vegas and Atlantic City have really deteriorated in recent years. People are trying to get out from under debt and trying to get back on an even keel.

Even restaurants are having a hard time - because people don't have the money.


----------



## DrDirt

Some wake up calls in the street quiz on presidental candidate wealth


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The only person we have seen running that really gives a crap about us, U.S., since Ross Perot is Bernie Sanders


----------



## dbray45

Funny thing about Ross Perot. He could point out every problem with the system - but he did not tell you if or how he would fix them.

For me to consider someone, I want common sense solutions to the problems. We hear the BS everyday.


----------



## DrDirt

> Funny thing about Ross Perot. He could point out every problem with the system - but he did not tell you if or how he would fix them.
> 
> For me to consider someone, I want common sense solutions to the problems. We hear the BS everyday.
> 
> - dbray45


Had to admire Ross for personally going to Iran to retrieve his employees.

How many CEO's today would consider the personal risk, nevermind the PR of conducting a private foreign hostage rescue operation.

Someone like that might actually be able to negotiate with some credibility with Iran on Nuclear issues.

But Alas…. we have Repubs, like Christie planning to run on raising the retirement age from 67 to 69 and Means testing it. 
So instead of solving the abuses…. the rampant corruption in the SSD, and SSI portions of Social Security… he will dedicate himself to screwing everyone over.
Maybe captain Fat-ass should consider that working til 70 is easy if all you do is sit in a leather chair and bloviate…. not so realistic if you actually work for a living.
You aren't going to still be driving a bulldozer at 69, or putting shingles on a house, or logging etc.


----------



## dbray45

None of the established politicians will allow the problems to be fixed - the problems ARE their power.


----------



## patcollins

> Funny thing about Ross Perot. He could point out every problem with the system - but he did not tell you if or how he would fix them.
> 
> For me to consider someone, I want common sense solutions to the problems. We hear the BS everyday.
> 
> - dbray45


You could say the same thing about the Democrats or Republicans also.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Funny thing about Ross Perot. He could point out every problem with the system - but he did not tell you if or how he would fix them.
> 
> For me to consider someone, I want common sense solutions to the problems. We hear the BS everyday.
> 
> - dbray45


That is at least a first step, to ID the problems and issues. Light years ahead of anyone else since Eisenhower.

Speaking of IDing the issues, Ishmael by David Quinn is a good summation.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

BP agreed to pay $18.4 billion in fines and compensation for the Gulf Oil Spill payable over 20 years. Most of that is tax deductible. Like their CEO said when he visited the site during the spill; screw the little people!


----------



## DanYo




----------



## dbray45

Bob - So, Ross Perot identified all these problems and all of the politicians since then have used his findings of what to do?


> ? Not to fix but as a play book


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

They have done nothing for us, U.S. They have committed economic treason and should be punished accordingly. Follow the money. money and politics do not mix well. There is no such thing as a campaign contribution. There is extortion and bribery and a hybrid combination, but no such thing as voluntary contribution of any consequence. The campaign for suppression of the peons has been very successful. A few CEOs have done what Hitler failed to accomplish. Long live the oligarchy!


----------



## dbray45

I would love to argue with you, show you facts to the contrary… but I cannot. Sadly, I must agree with you on this.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Hopefully they will be defeated as quickly as the 3rd Reich. I'd hate to see it go for 1,000 years! ;-(( A good start would be requiring all candidates for public office to go through an extraction process to qualify.


----------



## DrDirt

Never thought Bernie would speak truth to power…..about having an HONEST debate on the economy!

Of course conservatives have been saying the unemployment rate was manipulated for years…. Surprised that Bernie is essentially calling out the administration…it is pretty refreshing.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I don't agree with everything Bernie stands for but he is the best we have to wake up us, US ;-) The only candidate not running for his own ego and self aggrandizement.


----------



## dbray45

I would not vote for a "self proclaimed socialist" on ANY day or night. The U.S. was not built to be socialist - it is a capitalist based economy, that is why it has done so well, up until the socialists started giving away the working peoples' money to everybody that could vote, then they started creating a new voting class and giving them money - illegal aliens.

The problem with a capitalist economy, it is driven by people that must work. This is harder than socialism but then, look at Greece and all of it problems, that is why the Soviet Union collapsed.


----------



## dbray45

The premise that everybody is entitled to the same as everyone else it BS. When you do that, there is no point to work hard for those "nice" things. There are many things that I would like but cannot afford them, makes me work harder to try to achieve them.

Just like woodworking, you do not pick up a carving chisel and 10 minutes later you have a three dimensional Mona Lisa. You have to work at it to become proficient, if you can do it at all. What good is it if someone drops your new Mona Lisa off to your house and you are told that you did a great job? No point.

People are designed to have wants and desires, it is their job to make it happen. If it is just handed to you, you lose all perspective of making it happen. Look at Micheal Jackson, he was given everything he wanted and never told "No, you cannot have that!" Turned out kind of strange, if you ask me.

The more work that is involved, the more satisfaction when it is completed. That is the basis of capitalism.


----------



## rwe2156

Couple points after persusing a few posts:

1. The minimum wage was never and is not intended to be a living wage. It is a "starting" wage intended for young people just getting into the workforce and for jobs at the lowest end of the skill scale.

2. Rich people are always going to be with us as long as we believe in a free market economy. Just because someone is rich does not necessarily mean they are evil. Yes, they operate in different circles, not so much because of money, I think , as they associate with achievers like themselves. They pay a disproportionate percentage of their money in taxes.

I'm not one of them, either, but I know some. The brutal fact is rich people got rich because they are smarter and worked harder than the rest of us.

Oh, and they probably write our paychecks, so lets just suck it up, OK?

dbray-good point! Too many people being handed something without having to do anything but qualify?

One day its, "thanks", then next day it is expected, then its a "right". 
Free food, free housing, free cell phones…...oh that's right, the rich guys are paying for it, right?


----------



## dbray45

There is one thing I didn't mention -

The politicians that are giving you all this money - like 4 years of unemployment. When it runs out you find that you are no longer qualified for your old job and salary - so now you work a Wendys and maybe Burger King to make two 5 hour shifts.

At that point, they OWN YOU and you have no control of your life. You would have been better to say to hell with the "free" benefits and start your own company. You may not make as much but you create a new set of skill sets - or you do better and create your own empire, putting your old boss out of work.


----------



## DrDirt

But when the libs are mad at Bernie for his gun stance…. you start wondering what planet this is!

If you just read his statement… you would think Ted Cruz said it:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-issue-which-bernie-sanders-aims-the-middle

Now, the issues that you're talking about is, if somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer, and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not anymore than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beat somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about.

"And this is part, by the way, I may say, of - you know, folks who do not like guns is fine, but we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country; *99.9 percent of those people obey the law*.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are probably the only 2 in congress that have any sense at all and give a damn about us, US, not just themselves. Could be another one or 2 but I can't think of thin right now ;-(


----------



## DrDirt

Not sure that Jeb is actually smarter than W,

His answer to our problems is that Americans just don't work enough.
So get to work you lazy pricks!!!

Yessa massa Bush… Right away Massa!!!

*What a Douchebag*


----------



## Bonka

Maybe they would work longer hours if there were jobs.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Not sure that Jeb is actually smarter than W,
> 
> His answer to our problems is that Americans just don t work enough.
> So get to work you lazy pricks!!!
> 
> Yessa massa Bush… Right away Massa!!!
> 
> *What a Douchebag*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt


Typical ignorant comment from a spoiled brat born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Too bad he never had to really work a day in his life. He might have gotten extracted in the process.


----------



## dbray45

What he actually said made sense but was poorly articulated, then ABC skewed it to mean something different.

What he was actually saying was that people need to apply themselves in order to progress and do better. If you have a work force that all they do is complain about not having and and are not willing to work harder to get those things, they are not going to move forward in a positive way. The democrat attitude is that everybody should get the same thing - it doesn't work that way.

That is having a good work ethic. One of the funny things about having money whether being born with it, making it, and or winning it - it is a fleeting event. I have known many people that came into some serious money and now they are all broke. It really takes a tremendous amount of work to keep it, build it and maintain it - because everyone wants to take it away from you. People like the government (ask Bill Gates about the $500,000 check he had to write to the IRS once), lawyers, charities, even relatives all want "their share" of your money, which is NOT their money.

One thing that this country has that places like the Soviet Union did not have - the ability to start over if you fail. Here you have bankruptcy laws that allow you to recover and start over. Our country, the good and the bad, used to promote taking risks, getting out there and try new things, open a business or service company and do well. Bill Clinton changed that with one of the last things he did in office - he reduced the deduction for capital losses to $3,000 per year. He kept the income taxes. What this did was if you had a significant loss in the stock market or any place else (a source for financing) you cannot recoup anything of value, 25% wasn't much but it was something to work with. Since retirement funds are usually in the stock market, this is a problem - was to me, I lost my retirement from $125,000 to basically $0 in one day. I will be deducting the $3,000 a year for a very long time. Had I been able to deduct the whole thing, I would have had something in which to build it back.

The idea that people are creating their opinion of someone based upon 5 words ("people should work longer hours") from what has been acknowledged as a highly liberal news media says a lot - most of it is not good for where we are headed.


----------



## dbray45

That doesn't mean I like Jeb Bush or dislike him, I have no opinion yet.


----------



## DrDirt

Agree in general David… I point to this fact…. 









you have almost 20% of the working population working 60 hours per week.

I blame a lot of that on downsizing, and obamacare costs…. such that people have to do more and more with less.

Jeb didn't say move people off welfare to work… just that we need to put in more hours.

Perhaps it was inarticulate…but he cannot really claim some lack of experience in the spotlight, nor interviewing experience for such screw-ups.

I see it as more of a freudian slip…. he "accidently said what he really meant"

But I am also biased against another Bush/Rove administration

Ted Cruz called it beter:
"The problem is not that Americans aren't working hard enough. It is that the Washington cartel of career politicians, special interests and lobbyists have rigged the game against them."


----------



## DrDirt

Bernie nailed it even better: He was interviewed and asked if "there is anything else people should know"

"The middle class is collapsing. Income and wealth inequality is greater now than it has been at any point since before the Great Depression. The American people are working longer hours for lower wages, and they're angry. Those kinds of things, you should know."
http://www.politico.com/magazine/todays-cover/?ml=na#.VZ_89_ksCRQ

I feel the Bush's are tone deaf… but all politicians are greedy whores, so who is really 'best'?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

For the record, opinion not based on 5 words. It is based on R's total commitment for advancement of oligarchy and fascism as defined and created by Mussolini to the detriment of the 99% of us, US ;-(


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Any of you ever been an officer in a political party?


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## jkl103144

My Lord, ain't Socialism just great! Nothing like taking from the producers and distributing it all to the non-producers. What's not to love,............unless you are a producer of course.

Dan'um Style, you definitely have a "Kindergarden of Eden" mentality. And you've got it bad. Evan Sayat was right. http://ai-jane.org/bb/thread-13014.html

Its a bloody shame that grown adults are unable to have their brain stuck in adolescence.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## dbray45

Bob - Both parties are equal in this, the words may be a little different in what they project (or used to) but their actions have exactly the same goals and end game - Socialism at its best. And they will do it in whatever way they can - and they are!


----------



## DrDirt

> - Dan um Style


Obama is on track to double what Bush II left us with.

So GW added 5 trillion… and Barry is going to add 10 trillion.

I wouldn't tout that as any success.

FDR ended the depression with WW2 not tax policy
As a result of deductions and exclusions, even the theoretical maximum Real Rate of taxation at 60% in 1944 overstates taxation dramatically. The reality? On earned income, the richest U.S. taxpayers paid close to 40 percent of their earned incomes in taxes in 1944. We simply didn't count much of the compensation as taxable income.

What they did historically was create a 'flatter' tax. They said lets get rid of deductions for spouse travel, credit card interest, etc. and adopt a lower rate with fewer loopholes.

NOBODY ever paid 90% of their income in taxes.


----------



## ArlinEastman

Dan

Pictures without words does not tell how you feel. To me it is just trying to cause an argument. So what is your view?


----------



## DrDirt

And the worlds poor population has been nearly cut in half since 2001. (29->15%) and ever other sector grew as a percentage of the population.
People are moving out of poverty world wide… And even the poor in the USA live comparatively high on the hog globally.


----------



## RobS888

> I would not vote for a "self proclaimed socialist" on ANY day or night. The U.S. was not built to be socialist - it is a capitalist based economy, that is why it has done so well, up until the socialists started giving away the working peoples money to everybody that could vote, then they started creating a new voting class and giving them money - illegal aliens.
> 
> The problem with a capitalist economy, it is driven by people that must work. This is harder than socialism but then, look at Greece and all of it problems, that is why the Soviet Union collapsed.
> 
> - dbray45


There are many "socialist" countries in Europe doing pretty well. 
http://www.politico.eu/article/economic-growth-eu-outpaces-us/
Don't think of socialism as communism light, think of it as capitalism plus.


----------



## dbray45

I have been to many countries and have spoken with many people in those countries. The United States and its foundation is in so many ways (in my opinion) better than anyplace I have been. All of the other places have been great to visit, many of the people are outstanding - this site is a testament to the quality of many many people of all countries.

The freedoms that we had and have recently lost, I pray we will get back. If you love Socialism sooo much, I highly recommend that you go to a country that is, learn their laws and live there for at least 2 years. If you still love it - stay there. If you cannot get employment there or paid enough to live the way you want, say the things you want (including bitch about it) - then I guess you might learn something. It is a whole different world and many things that you have grown up with here - will not be, once that (what is left to become Socialist) small step has been breached. The propaganda that you hear from the politicians and stupid press is nothing like what it will be to live it.


----------



## RobS888

> I have been to many countries and have spoken with many people in those countries. The United States and its foundation is in so many ways (in my opinion) better than anyplace I have been. All of the other places have been great to visit, many of the people are outstanding - this site is a testament to the quality of many many people of all countries.
> 
> The freedoms that we had and have recently lost, I pray we will get back. If you love Socialism sooo much, I highly recommend that you go to a country that is, learn their laws and live there for at least 2 years. If you still love it - stay there. If you cannot get employment there or paid enough to live the way you want, say the things you want (including bitch about it) - then I guess you might learn something. It is a whole different world and many things that you have grown up with here - will not be, once that (what is left to become Socialist) small step has been breached. The propaganda that you hear from the politicians and stupid press is nothing like what it will be to live it.
> 
> - dbray45


Most socialist countries in world: (Countries I have visited on list are in bold)
China, Finland, *the Netherlands*, *Canada*, *Sweden*, Norway, *Ireland*, *New Zealand*, Belgium.

List of happiest countries in the world:
Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, Norway, & Belgium

Perhaps we use the term socialism differently? Is Canada socialist? I was just there last week and it was very nice. Pretty nice infrastructure! Even compared to MD and we surpass most of the surrounding states.

It is pretty hard not to think of your home as the best place to live, but what metric(s) does one use to be objective about that? Economy? Education opportunities, or the environment? Other than a feeling of home how would you judge something like that?


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DrDirt

Socialists are theHappiest people in the world?? Interesting twist


----------



## DKV

10,000,000 US families have a net worth of 1-2 million dollars. Money magazine says so.


----------



## bigblockyeti

I remember back when 1-2 million dollars used to be a lot of money.


----------



## RobS888

> Socialists are theHappiest people in the world?? Interesting twist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt


Where would the US be, if it was included on that chart? I bet 'tween Sweden and Portugal.

If it is above the EU average then your point is moot.

Actually, I can't understand Portugal, most of the countries are Northerly (they get gulf stream warmth, but still get sunlight based on their latitude.) I was in Sweden in July one year and there was 23 hours of light, in Jan about 6 hours of light.), so them being SAD is to be expected, but Portugal, hmmm. Wonder if that is after the legalization of all drugs?


----------



## RobS888

> I remember back when 1-2 million dollars used to be a lot of money.
> 
> - bigblockyeti


I could do well with 1 million, I'm fiscally conservative (I hate applying that word to myself!)


----------



## RobS888

> 10,000,000 US families have a net worth of 1-2 million dollars. Money magazine says so.
> 
> - DKV


Do you have a link… I find that very hard to believe.


----------



## Bonka

The net worth of US families seems right. Net worth results when everything you own is added up. That would be house(s), land, etc.


----------



## DKV

Robb, the Aug issue.


----------



## DrDirt

> Where would the US be, if it was included on that chart? I bet tween Sweden and Portugal.
> 
> If it is above the EU average then your point is moot.
> 
> Actually, I can t understand Portugal, most of the countries are Northerly (they get gulf stream warmth, but still get sunlight based on their latitude.) I was in Sweden in July one year and there was 23 hours of light, in Jan about 6 hours of light.), so them being SAD is to be expected, but Portugal, hmmm. Wonder if that is after the legalization of all drugs?
> 
> - RobS888


Everything points to us being pretty high
Most articles discuss the 400% increase in the past decade….

Like other countries, the use of antidepressants in the US has soared. In 1998, 11.2 million Americans used these drugs. By 2010, it was 23.3 million. Despite that rise, expenditure on antidepressants has barely risen as the drugs have become cheaper - from $624 per person in 1998, to $651 in 2010.

If we assume ~340 million population and 23 million users… that would be at 67/thousand

So between Spain and the UK


----------



## RobS888

> Robb, the Aug issue.
> 
> - DKV


Oh wait, if it is families that would include all pensions as well as physical assets, so that might be true. Heck I met a garbage truck driver that was a millionaire. His house near Watsonville, CA was worth over 1 million.


----------



## RobS888

> Where would the US be, if it was included on that chart? I bet tween Sweden and Portugal.
> 
> If it is above the EU average then your point is moot.
> 
> Actually, I can t understand Portugal, most of the countries are Northerly (they get gulf stream warmth, but still get sunlight based on their latitude.) I was in Sweden in July one year and there was 23 hours of light, in Jan about 6 hours of light.), so them being SAD is to be expected, but Portugal, hmmm. Wonder if that is after the legalization of all drugs?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Everything points to us being #1
> Most articles discuss the 400% increase in the past decade….
> 
> ANd a study says 14% of the US population…. so that would be 140/thousand… vs Iceland at 101
> 
> - DrDirt


So the happiest countries use less antidepressants than the capitalist country. So that means a little Socialism makes for happier people!

One guy I worked with in Sweden got 6 weeks vacation and he might have been 30 at the time. 6 weeks vacation would make me happy!

EDIT:
You changed your post. The US population is 321million according to Census.gov.

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

So 23/321*100 =7.1/1,000. So 'tween Finland and Sweden. Still way up there though.

Would you say there is no correlation 'twixt socialism and antidepressants?


----------



## Bonka

Maybe in socialist countries one cannot get anti-depressants. Here. we as a people. are probably over medicated.
A lot of meds are prescribed just to please the patient. Sadness does not equate depression. It usually has to do with a neurotransmitter problem.


----------



## RobS888

> Maybe in socialist countries one cannot get anti-depressants. Here. we as a people. are probably over medicated.
> A lot of meds are prescribed just to please the patient. Sadness does not equate depression. It usually has to do with a neurotransmitter problem.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Based on dr. Dirt's chart they seem to get them pretty well.

I asked dbray what socialism meant to him, because sometimes it sounds like you guys are talking about communism.

People in Northern Europe and Canada live longer than here and wouldn't give up their health systems for ours. I suspect they have access to any regular medicines or procedures we do. I think Norway or Finland used to have really bad heart disease from a national dish made out of 3 lbs of fat!, but they are doing better now.

I spent the summer of '09 in Melbourne, OZ. I was buying an anti-inflammatory there over the counter called voltaren. $20 for 12 pills. Awesome stuff. Here it was $400 for 30! How can that be? It is from Switzerland? But here it is 20 times more.


----------



## dbray45

Rob - The only difference in socialism and communism is religion. With socialism, you can have your religion. With communism, the only authorized religion is the States' religion.

Socialism is a state where there are two classes, the ruling class and everyone else. The State tells you what you are going to make, what job you are going to have, what your health care is going to be and where you are going to live. The State "provides" you with all your needs and as a result - you work. The end result is that you have no goals, no dreams, no change to do better - and why should you work hard, everything is provided for you.

In a Capitalist society, there are no "freebies," what you get, you pay for. The harder you work, the more you apply yourself, the better off you get. You have the ability to improve yourself. If you choose to take risks - and you succeed, the reward may be great; if you fail, you have the ability to dust yourself off, learn what you did wrong and build yourself back up - if you choose to. The problem comes when you have a substantial amount of your population doesn't want to accomplish anything and in short, do nothing with their lives. They feel that since they don't want to do anything, they should be "given" everything - after all, "so and so has all this, why shouldn't I have it?" The short answer, because they found a way to overcome their obstacles, took the risks, and after failing (sometimes many times over) they succeeded. They have what they were going after and as a result, they can afford those things that everybody else wants.

One of the main issues about capitalism is the responsibility thing - YOU are responsible for what you do, where you go, what you eat, what you learn, where you work, what you make - and THAT my friend, scares the crap out people that want everything handed to them on a silver platter. That responsibility thing is THE main reason the US and its people are what they are, we look at what needs to be done and go do it, we don't need someone to tell us what we need to do - it is already done - unless you are one of those people that want to be handed everything because you are "entitled."

As a note about happiness, if a person lives their entire life experiencing "X", they are "happy" with that. If the government controls all aspects of a persons life - what they see, do, hear, and say - what do you expect for a response - you are going to get what the programmed response is supposed to be.

I have met many people in Canada that get really good health care - they come across the border to the US, see their doctor and then go home-funny that and they pay cash.

Canada in not socialist, it is a parliamentary type of government.


----------



## CharlesA

In reality, all economies are mixed. There are no pure capitalist or socialist economies, to use these broad categories. The interesting question is how the capitalistic and socialistic practices work themselves out in different contexts. We are mixed in the U.S. Socialism is fundamentally an economic category, not a system of government.

And if Canada isn't socialistic and has universal healthcare, then we in the U.S. have nothing to fear that universal healthcare will make us socialists.


----------



## dbray45

Another thing about the folks that "have" all that wealth. Many people have made serious amounts of money - and have lost it. Managing that wealth is a full time job in itself. Once you have had it, you want to keep it - but everybody is trying to take it away from you.

One more thing, just because you are "wealthy" or "rich" doesn't make you happy. I have lived with a fair amount of money, I have been in situations where I was looking at how I was going to make enough to buy a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter for food for the day - swept floors for a lady for $3.00, cleaned windows for $2.00, had food for the day. When I bought that food, I has seriously happy - crap happens when have a small boat and don't plan for bad weather.

"Happiness" charts are BS charts on the best of days - there is no value in them because they are based upon nothing.


----------



## dbray45

Charles - your utopia is fascinating. The problem with universal healthcare is that it is based upon models - what is promised is not what you get. The federal government had a policy in their procurement - if it was available on the free market and made in the US, it would be purchased. There are several reasons for this - one is cost. What you buy on the free market is about 10x less than what it cost for the government to create it. This is in large part because of the massive amounts of checks and balances that the government has to have under our society - until lately. When I was a government contractor, before my invoice was paid, 30+ people had to sign off on it to make sure it was valid, required, what they were contracting for, and the desired results.

Now that the government's health care - which you are so enamored with - started last week to work with doctors, so that they (the doctors) can provide viable solutions for 'end of life' solutions. In other words - a clean way to end your life - why - because it cost the government less-- AND YOU WANT THIS!?


----------



## CharlesA

David,

i was making a small point. You said that Canada was not a socialist state. I thought it funny that I keep hearing that if we have universal healthcare in the U.S. we will be a socialist country, but Canada has UHC and is not socialist.

Am I missing something?


----------



## dbray45

Charles - Like so many, you are being directed to look at all the pretty flowers and bushes. The idea is to focus on how each one helps all of us and how each one is your "right" and how each one will make your life better - on and on and on. When you start looking at the broader picture, a whole different agenda starts taking shape.

Let's start putting it together - for the interest of space, I will only do a few, others can add more examples.

New minimum pay - every job is to be a "livable wage" eliminating entry level positions.
You cannot fire anyone for not doing their job
Not enforcing the borders 
Selectively enforcing laws that they choose against those that they want
Using the IRS and FBI to go after your political opponents
Passing laws (health care) before reading and understanding it
Supreme Court ruling that what is written does not matter, laws are based upon the intent
You CANNOT be required to show a valid ID to vote - new federal law
Illegal aliens have more "rights" than citizens
Your children, in public schools, are encouraged to report to their teachers what their parents do - in case they are doing something that they feel is inappropriate
Your phone conversations are monitored
Your doctors are required to put all of your health information on computer disk and upload them to federal storage - this was before Obama Care
The press no longer does fact checking, they create the news that they want to publish
Unemployment for 3-4 years

All of these things and many more create a pattern (they are not in any order, just trying to get them in here) that very effectively eliminate what you as a citizen and a person are personally responsible for. It all comes down to what you should be responsible for and the government should not. By law, the federal government is responsible for the borders (maintaining them not eliminating them), and trade between the states and internationally (not giving foreign countries more preferential treatment than US companies) - like they do. The fed is not supposed to be monitoring everything you say and do, they are not supposed to be an "everything" in your life.

Bill Clinton made the statement that of course the USSR failed. He went on to say that they didn't know how to make it work. He also added that on the other hand, he knew how it could be done correctly. This is the mindset of your politicians that you love and trust soooo much.

Your tag line by Thomas Jefferson - he was incorrect. I watched a video not along ago where 3 lions decided that the leader of the pride had to go - the three lions killed and ate the lion. As a rule, the rich do not have time to "devour" the poor they are too busy making money. They do some really stupid things for money but they don't go out and intentionally hurt people. Now in politics, this is a whole different matter, everyone is fair game!


----------



## CharlesA

Nice long answer that completely avoids my point.


----------



## dbray45

The UK health system, which Obama modeled this mess after, is being scuttled by the UK - because it doesn't work, it is bankrupting the UK. Many people from Canada come to the US for their health care - that can afford it.

Health care does not make you socialist - the all encompassing - all provider government - is socialist by nature.


----------



## CharlesA

Good. So I'm assuming then we can dispense with all the "Obamacare is socialist" nonsense and concentrate on the specifics of good and bad policy.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Good. So I m assuming then we can dispense with all the "Obamacare is socialist" nonsense and concentrate on the specifics of good and bad policy.
> 
> - CharlesA


Doubt it. When the facts don't support the case, calling the opposition a socialist or commy is where it usually goes ;-((


----------



## RobS888

> Rob - The only difference in socialism and communism is religion. With socialism, you can have your religion. With communism, the only authorized religion is the States religion.
> 
> Socialism is a state where there are two classes, the ruling class and everyone else. The State tells you what you are going to make, what job you are going to have, what your health care is going to be and where you are going to live. The State "provides" you with all your needs and as a result - you work. The end result is that you have no goals, no dreams, no change to do better - and why should you work hard, everything is provided for you.
> 
> In a Capitalist society, there are no "freebies," what you get, you pay for. The harder you work, the more you apply yourself, the better off you get. You have the ability to improve yourself. If you choose to take risks - and you succeed, the reward may be great; if you fail, you have the ability to dust yourself off, learn what you did wrong and build yourself back up - if you choose to. The problem comes when you have a substantial amount of your population doesn t want to accomplish anything and in short, do nothing with their lives. They feel that since they don t want to do anything, they should be "given" everything - after all, "so and so has all this, why shouldn t I have it?" The short answer, because they found a way to overcome their obstacles, took the risks, and after failing (sometimes many times over) they succeeded. They have what they were going after and as a result, they can afford those things that everybody else wants.
> 
> One of the main issues about capitalism is the responsibility thing - YOU are responsible for what you do, where you go, what you eat, what you learn, where you work, what you make - and THAT my friend, scares the crap out people that want everything handed to them on a silver platter. That responsibility thing is THE main reason the US and its people are what they are, we look at what needs to be done and go do it, we don t need someone to tell us what we need to do - it is already done - unless you are one of those people that want to be handed everything because you are "entitled."
> 
> As a note about happiness, if a person lives their entire life experiencing "X", they are "happy" with that. If the government controls all aspects of a persons life - what they see, do, hear, and say - what do you expect for a response - you are going to get what the programmed response is supposed to be.
> 
> I have met many people in Canada that get really good health care - they come across the border to the US, see their doctor and then go home-funny that and they pay cash.
> 
> Canada in not socialist, it is a parliamentary type of government.
> 
> - dbray45


I think you are confusing government type and economic type, that's why I ask what socialism means to people. Canada is on most lists as having a lot of socialism.

More US citizens seek medicine outside of the US than Canadians outside of Canada. Probably 10 times as many seek care outside the US as Canadians seek healthcare outside Canada.

Also, there are more than 20,000,000 Canadian visits to the US every year. Largest by far of any country, how many visitors getting sick or hurt make it into the statistics?


----------



## RobS888

> In reality, all economies are mixed. There are no pure capitalist or socialist economies, to use these broad categories. The interesting question is how the capitalistic and socialistic practices work themselves out in different contexts. We are mixed in the U.S. Socialism is fundamentally an economic category, not a system of government.
> 
> And if Canada isn t socialistic and has universal healthcare, then we in the U.S. have nothing to fear that universal healthcare will make us socialists.
> 
> - CharlesA


Well said!


----------



## RobS888

> The UK health system, which Obama modeled this mess after, is being scuttled by the UK - because it doesn t work, it is bankrupting the UK. Many people from Canada come to the US for their health care - that can afford it.
> 
> Health care does not make you socialist - the all encompassing - all provider government - is socialist by nature.
> 
> - dbray45


I think you or dr dirt tried saying before that the UK was scuttling the NIH. I proved that was wrong then and I can do it again, but I believe it is in this thread.

Obamacare is modelled after Romney care that was thought up by the heritage foundation. How can you really expect to get away with this crap, again?


----------



## RobS888

> Good. So I m assuming then we can dispense with all the "Obamacare is socialist" nonsense and concentrate on the specifics of good and bad policy.
> 
> - CharlesA


Awesome!


----------



## DrDirt

> More US citizens seek medicine outside of the US than Canadians outside of Canada. Probably 10 times as many seek care outside the US as Canadians seek healthcare outside Canada.
> 
> Also, there are more than 20,000,000 Canadian visits to the US every year. Largest by far of any country, how many visitors getting sick or hurt make it into the statistics?
> 
> - RobS888


please elaborate - - do you mean total Number of US citizens or as a percentage of the population.

There are nearly *10 times as many americans as canadians.* so to say 10X can mean we are 'equal'
So just saying MORE US citizens travel for medicine, is not very useful a comparison.

20 million Canadians visits to the US is HUGE, given that there are only 35 million canadians. There are more people in California (38 million) than all of Canada.

Such social experiements work in largely homogenous and SMALL populations. This has been reported as why Denmark and Norway have such tranquility….because scandanavia is quite 'lily white'... but with Rioting over danish cartoons of the prophet. We will see how those countries survive multiculturalism, when overrun by third world refugees, like Somalia, and Rwanda, and the middle east. Once you have teh warring factions fighting over government benefits, the utopia may crumble.

Just as we cannot come together as a melting pot, and have a growing race war preventing social advancement as a country.


----------



## RobS888

20 million visits from Canada, could be many visit for some none for others. Just saying they equal the next couple of countries including Mexico.

10 times as many, so prolly same %.

52,000 to US from Canada. 600k to 850k from US to other countries.

UK is around 65 million, how much for all of Northern Europe?

Think of Canada as big as all but one state, so do "social experiments" based on state.


----------



## DrDirt

> Think of Canada as big as all but one state, so do "social experiments" based on state.
> 
> - RobS888


Welcome to the republican party!

That is what Romneycare did - - -

We Republicans said this is not a job for a 'one size fits all of the US' program written by some lobbyists.

Successful programs and states would see migration away from the places that suck.

Just as you see wealthy folks moving to Texas and Florida from California and New York.


----------



## RobS888

The heritage foundation was ascared of single payer, so they came up with this idiocy. Single payer federally mandated and administered per state would work fine. You should have tried for something better than obamacare, but you just said no. No alternative, just no.

And it would take many blows to the head for me to think like a republican.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The biggest problem with single payer is profit. How would companies like United Health Care fund CEOs that take a cool *BILLION* out in compensation not to mention the 100 other upper managers taking at least a cool million every year?


----------



## DrDirt

> The heritage foundation was ascared of single payer, so they came up with this idiocy. Single payer federally mandated and administered per state would work fine. You should have tried for something better than obamacare, but you just said no. No alternative, just no.
> 
> And it would take many blows to the head for me to think like a republican.
> 
> - RobS888


Regardless of Heritage Foundation positions….

Why didn't Omalley follow Romney's pattern for Maryland.

Seems there are lots of blue states… Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois (before current election) and all of new england, who could have 'Led the way' and actually PROVEN that single payer would work, and have data to prove it.

So assume you are right and the cajones of all the red states are controlled bty Koch and heritage Foundation…. why didn't ANYBODY else make such a move if it is so great and popular?

If it were true - there would be a migration from Red to Blue of the population and businesses… rather than the other way.


----------



## CharlesA

> why didn t ANYBODY else make such a move if it is so great and popular?


Might be great, but not popular, yet. I don't know this, but i wonder if any of the countries that have single payer now had such a "mature" health insurance industry. What made Obamacare politically possible and has led to many of its difficult compromises is because it had to be supported by the insurance companies.

I don't think it would be possible for a single state to go single payer. That seems way too complicated.


----------



## DrDirt

Interesting option Charles - - most of europe went to single payer out of WW2 and much more recently.

I think that coming out of WW2 and re-establishing functioning governments, infrastructure, and industry created the "opportunity" to start with a clean sheet of paper to determine how to treat the citizens.

Wonder what the progression would be had WW2 not happened?

Not unlike the USA… what did the elderly do before Medicare in 1965 in the USA? My feeling is that government mandates, made costs go up. Just as it has been shown that Federal student aid drove tuitions at universities out of sight.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/college-aid-means-higher-tuition-1437345298

It is interesting when UNIVERSAL healthcare started… because to listen to some, it is made to sound like a centuries old practice… heck Russia didn't have universal healthcare under Lenin or Stalin… it took until 1969.

New Zealand created a universal health care system in a series of steps from 1939 to 1941.[4][5] On July 5, *1948*, the United Kingdom implemented its universal National Health Service. Universal health care was next introduced in the Nordic countries of Sweden (*1955*),[6] Iceland (*1956*),[7] Norway (*1956*),[8] Denmark (1961),[9] and Finland (1964).[10] Universal health insurance was then implemented in Japan (*1961*), Saskatchewan (1962) followed by the rest of *Canada (1968-1972)*.[4][11] The Soviet Union extended universal health care to its rural residents in 1969.[4][12] Universal health insurance was implemented twice in Australia (1974 and 1984). Universal national health services were then introduced in the Southern European countries of Italy (1978), Portugal (1979), Greece (1983), and Spain (1986), followed by the Asian countries of South Korea (1989), Taiwan (1995), and Israel (1995). *From the 1970s to 1990s, the Western European countries of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany,[13] and Luxembourg expanded their social health insurance systems to provide universal or nearly universal coverage*, as did the Netherlands (1986 and 2006) and Switzerland (1996).

So a lot happend around the time we were arguing with Carter about going metric…


----------



## CharlesA

Thanks. That's interesting. I know that employer-based health insurance in the U.S. started during WW2 and then grew rapidly in the post-war boom.


----------



## RobS888

> The biggest problem with single payer is profit. How would companies like United Health Care fund CEOs that take a cool *BILLION* out in compensation not to mention the 100 other upper managers taking at least a cool million every year?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Perhaps they go away, I mean progress is progress.


----------



## RobS888

> The heritage foundation was ascared of single payer, so they came up with this idiocy. Single payer federally mandated and administered per state would work fine. You should have tried for something better than obamacare, but you just said no. No alternative, just no.
> 
> And it would take many blows to the head for me to think like a republican.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Regardless of Heritage Foundation positions….
> 
> Why didn t Omalley follow Romney s pattern for Maryland.
> 
> Seems there are lots of blue states… Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Illinois (before current election) and all of new england, who could have Led the way and actually PROVEN that single payer would work, and have data to prove it.
> 
> So assume you are right and the cajones of all the red states are controlled bty Koch and heritage Foundation…. why didn t ANYBODY else make such a move if it is so great and popular?
> 
> If it were true - there would be a migration from Red to Blue of the population and businesses… rather than the other way.
> 
> - DrDirt


Heritage foundation wrote it….

Have you heard of these people called lobbyists?


----------



## RobS888

Charles,

I think you're correct that single payer could not be implemented in just one state.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The biggest problem with single payer is profit. How would companies like United Health Care fund CEOs that take a cool *BILLION* out in compensation not to mention the 100 other upper managers taking at least a cool million every year?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Perhaps they go away, I mean progress is progress.
> 
> - RobS888


They ain't going away with the kind of money they milk out of the system. They buy Congress and lobbyists to keep Congress in line. Maybe, just maybe the wave of support that Bernie Sanders seems to be building will demand change and we can get on with taking down the oligarchy just like we did in 1776, 1860, & 1930. The cycle has run its course, may as well get in done.


----------



## DrDirt

> The biggest problem with single payer is profit. How would companies like United Health Care fund CEOs that take a cool *BILLION* out in compensation not to mention the 100 other upper managers taking at least a cool million every year?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Perhaps they go away, I mean progress is progress.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> They ain t going away with the kind of money they milk out of the system. They buy Congress and lobbyists to keep Congress in line. Maybe, just maybe the wave of support that Bernie Sanders seems to be building will demand change and we can get on with taking down the oligarchy just like we did in 1776, 1860, & 1930. The cycle has run its course, may as well get in done.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


a billion in Stock options is not the same as a billion dollars. they are just holding the rights for him to BUY at a certain price.
He would receive the "appreciation" in value for his billion in options when he chooses to Excercise them.

Still a buttload of money - - But to get a billion in appreciation… the stock price of United healthcare would have to double from his exit date tendering.

UHC did go from being ~26 bucks in 2010 to ~125 now though…. so if it goes 400% his payout could be 4billion

Not sure the insurance companies would be the biggest bullies….

I suspect that others didn't go out on their own, because they wouldn't get "Medicaid and Medicare" dollars from Uncle Sam anymore if they were to buck the system.

Just as highway funds are held hostage to imposing state laws to raise the drinking age.

Nobody will get off the 'government gravy train'

We had that debate here for the county health office, we have some hard core religious folks on the council that didn't want to take government grant money for contraceptive and morning after pills.

The left screamed about how *"Don't they know it's free federal money? How can those idiots say no to a hand-out?"*
http://cjonline.com/news/2014-05-21/saline-county-rejects-birth-control-grant-after-commissioner-says-iuds-are-murder

Not defending either position… but that you have a group that demands the "free Government Money" you face an uphill battle to set up a 'stand alone' system


----------



## dbray45

DrDirt - O'malley taxed us to ridiculousness. He taxed the rain, he created what he called a millionaire tax (any family that made over $120,000 a year), which in this area is required to live. He taxed the businesses - all of them. He taxed so much that he drove anybody with money that could move out of the state and the businesses that didn't shut down - out. One major property management company sold their properties in Bethesda and moved out without telling anybody. The state under O'malley had an open door policy to illegals (and still does) and a bleed everyone else policy. If he had thought about it, he would have taxed it. He taxed the phones, gas (30-50 cents a gallon), energy, and more.

The problem is that people that do pay their taxes have thinned out so much that the schools have dropped so drastically from being at the top, attracting people to come to the state is hard. By contrast, Virginia has a 100+ million surplus and Maryland is in the hole last year by 1.2 Billion, for this year, they cut the budget by 400 million and in December came back and said the revenues fell short of those projections by another 200 million.

Taxing the rich may be great for a while but when they move out or go out of business, there is no one left to pay for the bills.


----------



## RobS888

...and yet MD still has most millionaires per capita and highest income by state.

http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/02/04/top-10-states-with-most-millionaires-2015?page=11

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/real-estate/millionaire-households/

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/15/top-states-for-millionaires-per-capita.html 
(Virginia may be for lovers, but MD for millionaires)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304603704579324582732899244
MD #1 for 3rd year in a row.

How much was the millionaire tax? .05 increase or less than $500/year. Do you move to save $500/year?

I've never even noticed the extra tax.


----------



## CharlesA

Reminds me a bit of Colin Cowherd who has been saying for years that athletes should go to states where there is low or no income tax because they get paid more money. "Why would you play in California, with high taxes, when you could play in Florida or Texas? It's a no brainer." Cowherd is leaving ESPN for Fox Sports, but both deals on the table had him moving to LA . . . complete with high taxes.

Folks will say that higher tax rates will cause them to not seek higher compensation or work more hours, but it just isn't backed up by the facts. Folks will go for the next $100, even if $40 goes to the state.


----------



## RobS888

I did some reading last night and found that Canada still has health insurance companies, but they are sort of on the periphery. Medicare (Canadian healthcare) pays for medically necessitated items, so vision, dental, cosmetic surgery, & prescriptions are not covered. Private insurance covers those. Apparently, the provincial governments buy prescription drugs and get a huge benefit in cost from economies of scale. Seems like a smart thing to me, when a government can help its citizens like that it should.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> a billion in Stock options is not the same as a billion dollars. they are just holding the rights for him to BUY at a certain price.
> He would receive the "appreciation" in value for his billion in options when he chooses to Excercise them.
> 
> Still a buttload of money - - But to get a billion in appreciation… the stock price of United healthcare would have to double from his exit date tendering.
> 
> UHC did go from being ~26 bucks in 2010 to ~125 now though…. so if it goes 400% his payout could be 4billion
> 
> - DrDirt


Doesn't matter how you count it, it still erodes the share holder value. The larger issue is how the changes under Reaganomics has moved the financial sector from business servicing to business controlling for short term gains and generating upper management bonuses all to the detriment of of us, US.

Its been several years and I do not recall the stock or details, but the CEO bonus for the year affected my dividend 25% +/-. I know you guys love to harvest to you facts from statistics; I get mine from my bank and brokerage statements ;-((


----------



## DrDirt

People are being MOBILE….

Sure Maryland has highest number of people that have a million in *assets* per capita.

UNLIKE some wealth tax proposals in France… your income drives taxation, not your net worth - I pay money on what I earn each year, not what I have in teh bank (just the interest on it).
ANd Assets include your house… The MEDIAN home price according to trulia, in Bethesda Md is 850K.
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Bethesda-Maryland/
Doesn't take much in your 401K to be a "millionaire"

If you are just the Holder/inheritor of property and accounts…. it doesn't "Cost" you to live in a high tax state.

But those that are high EARNERS, are moving.

Sure if you are a pitcher for teh Baltimore orioles…. you are stuck… however I recall the flack about Tiger Woods and Phil Mikelson about moving out of California because of Taxes.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-02-06/mickelsonian-reality-has-top-earners-weighing-relocation

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-12-04/business/bs-bz-hancock-maryland-millionaires-20111203_1_income-tax-millionaire-surcharge-million-dollar-incomes

WHile it is good to question impact…. it is still happening.

Some are locked in (like Wall Streeters, and Pro Athletes) based on what they do. But the folks that are mobile…. bail.
Like the Facebook Co-founder that expatriated to Singapore. You can log onto the server and work from Anywhere…. so he easily bailed
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-11/facebook-co-founder-saverin-gives-up-u-s-citizenship-before-ipo


----------



## CharlesA

There are lots of anecdotes, but not really happening that much.


----------



## DrDirt

> There are lots of anecdotes, but not really happening that much.
> 
> - CharlesA


There is also just a straight 'cultural' aspect….
WHo doesn't know that Manhattan is really expensive?

Suddenly it is Vogue to have an apartment in Central Park West, and wanting to "live in NYC" 
But there are only a handful of places with a Cachet like that.

If Minneapolis had imposed Manhattan taxation - - people would bail from Minnesota - 3M would be looking around along with Target and Best Buy who are all headquartered there.


----------



## RobS888

I guess you didn't read MD has the highest income as well. Are you doing this on purpose?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/09/19/americas-richest-and-poorest-states/2/

Splitting hairs that only you perceive doesn't change the fact that the economy probably had more to do with the reduction of the number of millionaires filling than migration. Seriously, if you made that much you wouldn't leave over a couple of thousand dollars.

Average home sale price in MD $235k, Median sales price $260K.

Stop pulling out those vivid examples that really don't make your point.

Who cares where a Brazilian billionaire chooses to live? His story is just an anecdote as well.


----------



## CharlesA

Your argument makes some sense, the question is, "is it really happening in enough numbers to count?"


----------



## RobS888

Dr. Dirt:

From your link… didn't you read it? It positively attributes any changes to the ECONOMY.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-12-04/business/bs-bz-hancock-maryland-millionaires-20111203_1_income-tax-millionaire-surcharge-million-dollar-incomes

The number of million-dollar taxpayers fell again in 2009 and rebounded in 2010 along with the stock market, according to the latest analysis completed last week by the staff of Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot. The millionaire surcharge raised between $50 million and $70 million per year during its three-year run.

*Now that all the numbers are in, the emerging picture suggests that the rise and fall of Maryland millionaires has more to do with the economy than the tax rate. *But that doesn't mean the tax climate is irrelevant.

Over the last decade, *in any given year, between 5 percent and 7 percent of million-dollar Maryland households have failed to file a Maryland tax return the next year, the new figures from the comptroller show.*

EDIT:

I wonder how many rich Marylanders retire and move to some warm climate like FL or AZ? I guess it is just lying with statistics to say X number of millionaires are leaving because they didn't file a state tax return, instead of saying how many there actually are.

It is like that Republican canard about 300,000 people/month leaving the workforce! OMG! How can that be? The economy must be in ruins! When 10,000 baby boomer were retiring each day it is perfectly reasonable.


----------



## DrDirt

Rob - 
Wow - - talk about selective….



> Dr. Dirt:
> 
> From your link… didn t you read it? It positively attributes any changes to the ECONOMY.
> http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-12-04/business/bs-bz-hancock-maryland-millionaires-20111203_1_income-tax-millionaire-surcharge-million-dollar-incomes
> 
> (Changing what was selected for Bold)
> Now that all the numbers are in, the emerging picture suggests that the rise and fall of Maryland millionaires has *more to do with the economy *than the tax rate. *But that doesn t mean the tax climate is irrelevant*.
> 
> - RobS888


Yet you argue still:
From your link… didn't you read it? It positively attributes *any changes *to the ECONOMY.

Um no, no it doesn't!

I never argued that teh SOLE reason for mobility is taxation But that it plays a role, and that people are mobile.

Yet you argue tax rates are irrelevant… nobody leaves due to high taxes, is just wrong. Please prove your assertion.
--------------Suppose you just skipped the details?-------------
_ Thanks to better software, state number-crunchers now track million-dollar filers from one year to the next and get a better idea of what's causing the change. In 2010, 209 households with million-dollar incomes the year before - *6.4 percent of all the million-dollar filers - submitted no Maryland tax return, suggesting that they fled the state.*

True, they could have maintained Maryland residency but failed to file any tax return. Or they could have died. *But the most likely explanation is that they moved to Virginia, Florida or some other lower-tax jurisdiction, perhaps upon retirement.*


----------



## RobS888

Wow, could you miss more if you tried?

*Over the last decade, in any given year, between 5 percent and 7 percent of million-dollar Maryland households have failed to file a Maryland tax return the next year, the new figures from the comptroller show.*

The 6.4% is in-line with any surrounding years with or without the tax. The fact that the number tracked with the stock-market, shows it was changing values of assets more so than any supposed migration.

I'm not and have not said taxes have nothing to do with migration, (although, I think weather is far more of an incentive). I'm saying the supposed millionaire tax effect was illusory. And tax opponents picked up and ran with that one number, like how you say no warming for 17 years. It is lying by omission.

MD #1 in income. 
MD #1 in millionaires.

Extra taxes had no effect on totals.


----------



## RobS888

Dr. Dirt,

Did you post this:

*But those that are high EARNERS, are moving.* in regards to taxes? If you aren't arguing taxes cause people to move then I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Also, where did I say anything close to this:

*Yet you argue tax rates are irrelevant… nobody leaves due to high taxes, is just wrong. Please prove your assertion.*


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

A good place to compare gov't policy and taxes is Michigan and Wisconsin. A business executive has Michigan flourishing while the right wing authoritarian Scott Walker is destroying Wisconsin. This is consistent with Prof Bob Altemeyer's studies at the U of Manitoba.


----------



## dbray45

I will put this in perspective, I have done the math, between the property tax (which is higher than my property tax in Florida for a much larger house), income tax (which Florida does not have), county piggy-back tax (another income tax that Florida doesn't have), sales taxes that are about the same as Florida, higher gas prices because of the additional Maryland taxes on fuel, higher cell phone costs because Maryland puts an additional tax on cell phones, Maryland even taxes newspapers. Reducing my income by 30-40% when I retire, I cannot afford to retire in Maryland. I do not expect any more raises over the next 3 years while the raises in the past 5 years is about 5%, my cost of living for food here has gone up 50% over the last 3 years. I expect to get a 2% increase in October but since I have a "Cadillac health plan," the rumor mill is telling me that this 2% or more will be going to the additional tax that I will get nailed for the health plan.

Maryland is a beautiful state, lots of things going for it but now that the state is a safe haven for illegals, taxing me to be much poorer, the crime rate is up, the school systems are tanking - life will be much more difficult in retirement. My resolve - I have bought a house in Florida and will be retiring there. I will be selling my house here and at this point, I am hoping that the value of my house stays where it is now - 1/3 less than what it was 4 years ago.


----------



## RobS888

> I will put this in perspective, I have done the math, between the property tax (which is higher than my property tax in Florida for a much larger house), income tax (which Florida does not have), county piggy-back tax (another income tax that Florida doesn t have), sales taxes that are about the same as Florida, higher gas prices because of the additional Maryland taxes on fuel, higher cell phone costs because Maryland puts an additional tax on cell phones, Maryland even taxes newspapers. Reducing my income by 30-40% when I retire, I cannot afford to retire in Maryland. I do not expect any more raises over the next 3 years while the raises in the past 5 years is about 5%, my cost of living for food here has gone up 50% over the last 3 years. I expect to get a 2% increase in October but since I have a "Cadillac health plan," the rumor mill is telling me that this 2% or more will be going to the additional tax that I will get nailed for the health plan.
> 
> Maryland is a beautiful state, lots of things going for it but now that the state is a safe haven for illegals, taxing me to be much poorer, the crime rate is up, the school systems are tanking - life will be much more difficult in retirement. My resolve - I have bought a house in Florida and will be retiring there. I will be selling my house here and at this point, I am hoping that the value of my house stays where it is now - 1/3 less than what it was 4 years ago.
> 
> - dbray45


I'm sorry you are having a tough time. I travel lot and don't find MD more expensive than most places for incidentals. Is your bigger house in FL less expensive? Most places tax real estate based on value, not size.

This retirement website says FL has $54.82/gallon tax
http://www.retirementliving.com/taxes-alabama-iowa#FLORIDA

It says MD is $45.8/gallon tax
http://www.retirementliving.com/taxes-kansas-new-mexico#MARYLAND

My mother pays almost $8,000/year for flood insurance on Marco Island, have you left room for that kind of expense? According to this website you will pay, on average $824 in MD and $1,991 in FL for house insurance. Big difference!


----------



## DrDirt

> Also, where did I say anything close to this:
> 
> *Yet you argue tax rates are irrelevant… nobody leaves due to high taxes, is just wrong. Please prove your assertion.*
> 
> - RobS888


WHen you said this….

"From your link… didn't you read it? It positively attributes any changes to the ECONOMY."

I had it bolded for you as well in the prior post…. YOU claim that the reference attributes ANY change to the economy…ergo No other impacts like taxation.
you didn't say Most, or Nearly,.... you chose "ANY"

While the article clearly states that people are MOVING because of Taxation.

Hence the ACTUAL conclusions from that author…
But *the most likely explanation* is that they moved to Virginia, Florida or some other *lower-tax jurisdiction*, perhaps upon retirement.


----------



## RobS888

> WHen you said this….
> 
> "From your link… didn't you read it? It positively attributes any changes to the ECONOMY."
> 
> I had it bolded for you as well in the prior post…. YOU claim that the reference attributes ANY change to the economy…ergo No other impacts like taxation.
> you didn t say Most, or Nearly,.... you chose "ANY"
> 
> While the article clearly states that people are MOVING because of Taxation.
> 
> Hence the ACTUAL conclusions from that author…
> But *the most likely explanation* is that they moved to Virginia, Florida or some other *lower-tax jurisdiction*, perhaps upon retirement.
> 
> - DrDirt


You and the author can draw your own conclusions. The data is pretty clear though, there was no difference with or without the millionaire tax. Not sure how you can misunderstand that, but I bet you will.

From the article:

*But not by a lot. For example, 6.3 percent of million-dollar taxpayers disappeared from the records from 2000 to 2001, when rates didn't change and there was no millionaire surcharge. That's about the same change as from 2009 to 2010, when there was a surcharge.*

*"Despite all these issues that make the numbers a little bit of a moving target, fundamentally we're seeing roughly the same thing each year," *says David Roose, director of the Bureau of Revenue Estimates for the state. "We see a pretty stable pattern of millionaires not filing the following year," *no matter what the income-tax rate is.*

But, as noted, relatively minor changes in income taxes are only a piece of the puzzle. And as the comptroller's new data show, more than 1,400 taxpayers over the last decade have filed million-dollar Maryland returns and then disappeared from the record. Something's making them leave.


----------



## DrDirt

*So 70 Million dollars from (less than) 5000 people is (more than)14K for each of those people.*
by my basic math…. 70/5=14



> How much was the millionaire tax? .05 increase or less than $500/year. Do you move to save $500/year?
> 
> I ve never even noticed the extra tax.
> 
> - RobS888


so which is wrong?


----------



## RobS888

Neither, you are confusing two different tax measures.

The one I commented on is the one on income over $120,000 that dbray45 mentioned. I'm in that bracket and never noticed it. You may have misunderstood, but I was definitely commenting on a tax that affected me. You jumped in with stuff about 1 million in assets or something like that.

The article you linked to was for people that made over 1 million/year and was only around for 3 years and even though idiots ran around screaming about it, it had little effect, then or since. That is why I called the argument lying by omission.

I don't think you even know what your argument is at this point. I certainly don't know what you think you are arguing for, it seems to be wrong in all regards. Oh! You were right about the average house price in Bethesda. Other than that not so much.


----------



## DrDirt

You mean when you refer to "THe MILLIONAIRE" tax you mean income over 120K… that you said was less than 500/year. (since we were talking about and referencing MILLIONAIRE taxes and Millionaire Relocation and # of Millionaires in Maryland) you are saying you meant 120K??

Nice freakin try!!


> How much was the* millionaire tax? .05 increase or less than $500/year. *Do you move to save $500/year?
> 
> I ve never even noticed the extra tax.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> - DrDirt


----------



## RobS888

> You mean when you refer to "THe MILLIONAIRE" tax you mean income over 120K… that you said was less than 500/year. (since we were talking about and referencing MILLIONAIRE taxes and Millionaire Relocation and # of Millionaires in Maryland) you are saying you meant 120K??
> 
> Nice freakin try!!
> 
> - DrDirt


And yet you found a way to be/act confused. If you don't like the term talk to dbray45. Read post 2816 carefully. I'll help with the big words if you need it. Then my response to it. You brought up millionaires moving, not me.

Stop trying to rephrase what someone says. Ask if you are confused.

EDIT:

I heard a phrase once that applies to you "jumping to a concussion."


----------



## dbray45

Rob - If I remember correctly, when they did the millionaire tax, they also revamped the "other" income tax. Filing joint, for example - 
If your income is -
$2,000 - $3,000 - then you would pay $50 plus 4.00% of the excess over $2,000
$3,000 - $150,000 - then you would pay $90 plus 4.75% of the excess over $3,000

When they changed the code they increased the amount a bit
Now for:
$150,000 - $175,000 - you pay $7,072.50 plus 5.00% of the excess over $150,000
$175,000 - $225,000 - you pay $8,322.50 plus 5.25% of the excess over $175,000
$225,000 - $300,000 - you pay $10,947.50 plus 5.50% of the excess over $225,000
Over $300,000 - you pay $15,072.50 plus 5.75% of the excess over $300,000

Before the millionaire tax the primary $7,000 - 15,000 was significantly less. Going from $90 +%tax to $7,000 is a pretty good hit. I know I can do a lot with it.

Then you have a county piggy-back income tax in addition to the state income tax - which in my county is 3.2 % of taxable income.

In this area, making less than $60,000 per household is troublesome, between the housing, taxes and food, you will be challenged. I found it troublesome that making what I am working with computers, I could make more if I had stayed in commercial HVAC.

Unlike the 'Millionaire' Tax, this did not go away. In the news, when it became effective, it was billed as part of the 'millionaire' tax.


----------



## RobS888

I think my county is 50% piggy back. I usually get federal back and pay MD taxes.

About 20 years ago I took an H&R Block tax course and we used to double the example values (Iowa, IIRC) to make them closer to MD, so it isn't a new thing.

I hope everything works out well for you. Based on the number of houses for sale around here, I thought the real estate market was back.


----------



## dbray45

If you notice, the state tax % up to $150,000 is 4.75%, in Montgomery County, the piggy-back tax is 3.2% of taxable income, that is almost 75% of the Maryland income tax added to the mix - almost 8% in total.

There was a wave of foreclosures (from the real estate crash) not long ago - per an agent that I keep in contact with. Per the county, there is a tremendous amount of delinquent property taxes not being paid and the banks do not pay the taxes on many of the foreclosures, they pass it on with the sale price or passed to the new buyer. Some of these taxes have not been paid in 4+ years. Then you have the new assessed values, at one time, this was based upon 70% on the market value. Several years ago, it was changed to the sales/market value, with the devaluation in real estate, the assessed value could be more than the purchased price.


----------



## patcollins

Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill for $15 Minimum Wage, Pays Staff Only $12

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-15-minimum-wage-only-pays-staff-12#.alwwfp:mECK


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill for $15 Minimum Wage, Pays Staff Only $12
> 
> http://www.mrctv.org/blog/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-15-minimum-wage-only-pays-staff-12#.alwwfp:mECK
> 
> - patcollins


He is trying to lift their wages any way he can ;-) I'm sure Bernie would never put a personal exemption in his law like most everyone else in Congress would have done.


----------



## Ghidrah

> Not unlike the USA… what did the elderly do before Medicare in 1965 in the USA?
> - DrDirt


I believe it was called the extended family, a concept where 2 and 3 generations lived and or worked on and or for the continuation of the same property and each others welfare. Generations were born, lived, cared for and died in the same house on the same property; an artifact of an agrarian/industrial society. The extended family fell to the wayside when the concept of the nuclear family supplanted it. Social and economic progress, an increasingly better educated populace, job security, increased life spans due to improving medicine and more free time. An electronic/information based society.

So now with all the smarter goal and material oriented people pushing for more and looking for better ways to pump up stock holder portfolios got the brilliant idea to close shop, factory and move it overseas where overhead was at a minimum and labor rights not an issue. Now more and more Americans are being downsized, prematurely retired and becoming janitors if they're lucky enough.


----------



## RobS888

> Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill for $15 Minimum Wage, Pays Staff Only $12
> 
> http://www.mrctv.org/blog/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-15-minimum-wage-only-pays-staff-12#.alwwfp:mECK
> 
> - patcollins


Pays interns $12/hour.


----------



## RobS888

> I believe it was called the extended family, a concept where 2 and 3 generations lived and or worked on and or for the continuation of the same property and each others welfare. Generations were born, lived, cared for and died in the same house on the same property; an artifact of an agrarian/industrial society. The extended family fell to the wayside when the concept of the nuclear family supplanted it. Social and economic progress, an increasingly better educated populace, job security, increased life spans due to improving medicine and more free time. An electronic/information based society.
> 
> So now with all the smarter goal and material oriented people pushing for more and looking for better ways to pump up stock holder portfolios got the brilliant idea to close shop, factory and move it overseas where overhead was at a minimum and labor rights not an issue. Now more and more Americans are being downsized, prematurely retired and becoming janitors if they re lucky enough.
> 
> - Ghidrah


Sir!
This an ego driven monologue type argument based on personal feelings.
There is no room for logical, well thought out comments. Where do you get off bringing actual historical perspective into this? Are you not watching how we provide carefully weeded out links that totally support OUR perspective?

Logic, history, and brevity! That is not how it is done here! You will see when it is proven that only 68% of families in the US were multi generational in 1964. I bet dr dirt is preparing a massively long refutation of your comment, you and your woodworking!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Not unlike the USA… what did the elderly do before Medicare in 1965 in the USA?
> - DrDirt
> 
> I believe it was called the extended family, a concept where 2 and 3 generations lived and or worked on and or for the continuation of the same property and each others welfare. Generations were born, lived, cared for and died in the same house on the same property; an artifact of an agrarian/industrial society. The extended family fell to the wayside when the concept of the nuclear family supplanted it. Social and economic progress, an increasingly better educated populace, job security, increased life spans due to improving medicine and more free time. An electronic/information based society.
> 
> So now with all the smarter goal and material oriented people pushing for more and looking for better ways to pump up stock holder portfolios got the brilliant idea to close shop, factory and move it overseas where overhead was at a minimum and labor rights not an issue. Now more and more Americans are being downsized, prematurely retired and becoming janitors if they re lucky enough.
> 
> - Ghidrah


I remember those days and that is the way it was. Within a couple generations, everyone is the country side was related ;-) Plus, one could afford to go to a doctor then.


----------



## patcollins

> Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill for $15 Minimum Wage, Pays Staff Only $12
> 
> http://www.mrctv.org/blog/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-15-minimum-wage-only-pays-staff-12#.alwwfp:mECK
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Pays interns $12/hour.
> 
> - RobS888


So if fastfood places called their workers interns would you agree with paying them less?

Are they not people that have the same basic needs as everyone else?


----------



## patcollins

> Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill for $15 Minimum Wage, Pays Staff Only $12
> 
> http://www.mrctv.org/blog/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-15-minimum-wage-only-pays-staff-12#.alwwfp:mECK
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Pays interns $12/hour.
> 
> - RobS888


So if fastfood places called their workers interns would you agree with paying them less?

Are they not people that have the same basic needs as everyone else?

Point is a just about everyone will excuse "their team" for doing things that they would be all over the other side for doing.


----------



## RobS888

> Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill for $15 Minimum Wage, Pays Staff Only $12
> 
> http://www.mrctv.org/blog/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-15-minimum-wage-only-pays-staff-12#.alwwfp:mECK
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Pays interns $12/hour.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So if fastfood places called their workers interns would you agree with paying them less?
> 
> Are they not people that have the same basic needs as everyone else?
> 
> - patcollins


Pat,
I'm surprised you would post crap like this!

I suppose if there weren't programs controlling internships then you might call anyone an intern so you could pay them less.

However, these are for students or recent grads to get some experience. I've worked places that didn't pay their interns at all. I'm not sure interns are even employees.

From your link clicked through to the next president's website and found this:

Legislative Internship

Legislative interns in the senator's Washington office may assist legislative staff by handling constituent phone calls and requests, processing mail and voice mail, attending briefings and committee hearings, providing research memos, leading U.S. Capitol tours and drafting responses to constituent letters and inquiries.

Press Internship

Press interns in the senator's Washington office may assist communications staff with tracking news coverage, compiling daily press clips, editing statements and releases, updating Senate website and social media pages and taking photos at events. Previous experience with basic graphic design, web development and/or video editing is a plus, but not required.


----------



## patcollins

> Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill for $15 Minimum Wage, Pays Staff Only $12
> 
> http://www.mrctv.org/blog/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-15-minimum-wage-only-pays-staff-12#.alwwfp:mECK
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Pays interns $12/hour.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So if fastfood places called their workers interns would you agree with paying them less?
> 
> Are they not people that have the same basic needs as everyone else?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Pat,
> I m surprised you would post crap like this!
> 
> I suppose if there weren t programs controlling internships then you might call anyone an intern so you could pay them less.
> 
> However, these are for students or recent grads to get some experience. I ve worked places that didn t pay their interns at all. I m not sure interns are even employees.
> 
> From your link clicked through to the next president s website and found this:
> 
> Legislative Internship
> 
> Legislative interns in the senator s Washington office may assist legislative staff by handling constituent phone calls and requests, processing mail and voice mail, attending briefings and committee hearings, providing research memos, leading U.S. Capitol tours and drafting responses to constituent letters and inquiries.
> 
> Press Internship
> 
> Press interns in the senator s Washington office may assist communications staff with tracking news coverage, compiling daily press clips, editing statements and releases, updating Senate website and social media pages and taking photos at events. Previous experience with basic graphic design, web development and/or video editing is a plus, but not required.
> 
> - RobS888


So you don't consider them full people?

I just think it is very hypocritical to call for a higher wage while paying people less than that wage.

I also think unpaid internships should not be legal.


----------



## Redoak49

There are a lot of people who would work a job without pay to gain experience so the have a resume with relevant experience.

It is very difficult to tell the difference between a real internship and one where some is just trying to get free labor.

The other part of an internship is that interns take a significant amount of supervision if done properly.by


----------



## RobS888

> Pat,
> I m surprised you would post crap like this!
> 
> I suppose if there weren t programs controlling internships then you might call anyone an intern so you could pay them less.
> 
> However, these are for students or recent grads to get some experience. I ve worked places that didn t pay their interns at all. I m not sure interns are even employees.
> 
> From your link clicked through to the next president s website and found this:
> 
> Legislative Internship
> 
> Legislative interns in the senator s Washington office may assist legislative staff by handling constituent phone calls and requests, processing mail and voice mail, attending briefings and committee hearings, providing research memos, leading U.S. Capitol tours and drafting responses to constituent letters and inquiries.
> 
> Press Internship
> 
> Press interns in the senator s Washington office may assist communications staff with tracking news coverage, compiling daily press clips, editing statements and releases, updating Senate website and social media pages and taking photos at events. Previous experience with basic graphic design, web development and/or video editing is a plus, but not required.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So you don t consider them full people?
> 
> I just think it is very hypocritical to call for a higher wage while paying people less than that wage.
> 
> I also think unpaid internships should not be legal.
> 
> - patcollins


We had interns that came in 4 or 8 hrs per week, they got school credit for coming in and technically they may have paid the university for the class.

*So you don t consider them full people?*
Full people: yes, full time employees: no.

Do you really not understand what an intern is? You should realize you are calling a man a hypocrite for only paying interns 12/hour when he isn't required to pay them anything. Most senators don't pay them at all.

Under any scrutiny this topic is stupid.


----------



## patcollins

> We had interns that came in 4 or 8 hrs per week, they got school credit for coming in and technically they may have paid the university for the class.
> 
> *So you don t consider them full people?*
> Full people: yes, full time employees: no.
> 
> Do you really not understand what an intern is? You should realize you are calling a man a hypocrite for only paying interns 12/hour when he isn t required to pay them anything. Most senators don t pay them at all.
> 
> Under any scrutiny this topic is stupid.
> 
> - RobS888


I realize what interns are, I have had a couple.

Some of my friends from college were interns on capital hill, one even knew Monica Lewinsky.

I say shame on those senators that don't pay them at all. The interns I knew worked over 30 hrs/week, ours even were allowed overtime when we worked it.

Working a few hrs a week when it is associated with a class for credit is a bit different, none of the capital hill interns I knew had their internship associated with any class.


----------



## RobS888

> I realize what interns are, I have had a couple.
> 
> Some of my friends from college were interns on capital hill, one even knew Monica Lewinsky.
> 
> I say shame on those senators that don t pay them at all. The interns I knew worked over 30 hrs/week, ours even were allowed overtime when we worked it.
> 
> Working a few hrs a week when it is associated with a class for credit is a bit different, none of the capital hill interns I knew had their internship associated with any class.
> 
> - patcollins


Our interns were GIS students, so it was for credit. I never said DC interns were for credit. That was pretty clear!

*Shame for the ones that don't pay them at all? *Really, how much worse is that than calling someone a hypocrite who pays almost twice the minimum wage that he doesn't have to pay? The internships are of limited duration, and he has a new session each semester. They are not employees?

You should be embarrassed for promulgating and then defending this type of crap!


----------



## patcollins

> I realize what interns are, I have had a couple.
> 
> Some of my friends from college were interns on capital hill, one even knew Monica Lewinsky.
> 
> I say shame on those senators that don t pay them at all. The interns I knew worked over 30 hrs/week, ours even were allowed overtime when we worked it.
> 
> Working a few hrs a week when it is associated with a class for credit is a bit different, none of the capital hill interns I knew had their internship associated with any class.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Our interns were GIS students, so it was for credit. I never said DC interns were for credit. That was pretty clear!
> 
> *Shame for the ones that don t pay them at all? *Really, how much worse is that than calling someone a hypocrite who pays almost twice the minimum wage that he doesn t have to pay? The internships are of limited duration, and he has a new session each semester. They are not employees?
> 
> You should be embarrassed for promulgating and then defending this type of crap!
> 
> - RobS888


You should be embarrassed for being a hypocrite. They do work, they deserve to be paid.

You just refuse to see the flaws in "your guy".

Sort of ironic that someone that supports Bernie Sanders can justify using someone and not paying them.


----------



## RobS888

My guy? I'm voting for Hillary.

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but not the definition of intern.

He was paying them almost twice minimum wage. You seem to be stuck on this being a hypocritical issue for him so much that you insult me as well. I don't see it as hypocritical at all and I believe I have countered the yellow journalism you presented enough so that any open minded person could make an informed decision.


----------



## patcollins

> My guy? I m voting for Hillary.
> 
> Well you are entitled to your opinion, but not the definition of intern.
> 
> He was paying them almost twice minimum wage. You seem to be stuck on this being a hypocritical issue for him so much that you insult me as well. I don t see it as hypocritical at all and I believe I have countered the yellow journalism you presented enough so that any open minded person could make an informed decision.
> 
> - RobS888


I am using the federal governments definition of an intern.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/general-schedule-qualification-standards/#url=GS-PIP

You can see the Washington DC pay scale here.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/15Tables/html/DCB_h.aspx

Furthermore from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-authorities/students-recent-graduates/#url=intern

*Program Administration
The Internship Program is primarily administered by each hiring agency.
Agencies may hire Interns on a temporary basis for up to one year for an initial period, or for an indefinite period, to complete the educational requirement.
Interns may work either part- or full-time.
Each agency must sign a Participant Agreement with the Intern that sets forth the expectations for the internship.
Intern's job will be related to the Intern's academic career goals or field of study.
Agencies provide OPM with information regarding their internship opportunities and post information publicly on USAJOBS (external link)about how to apply for specific positions.*


----------



## RobS888

Great links,

Not sure what career path internships have to do with this, since the internships in question are of a specific duration, but I suppose a really good intern could be hired to work full time for a senator.

The one problem with your links is that they don't apply to the senate. The senate is excluded from many labor laws.

Really, it comes down to this: is a 4 month intern an employee or a student/recent grad doing OJT? I don't think they are employees, when I was an apprentice I was a special classification. I got about 60% of a machinists (very good) pay and could be asked to leave for any reason or no reason at all. I had no rights an employee had, there were rules that I and the company had to follow. This probably sounds lousy to you, but to me it was a great way to get in the door with no experience.


----------



## patcollins

> Great links,
> 
> Not sure what career path internships have to do with this, since the internships in question are of a specific duration, but I suppose a really good intern could be hired to work full time for a senator.
> 
> The one problem with your links is that they don t apply to the senate. The senate is excluded from many labor laws.
> 
> Really, it comes down to this: is a 4 month intern an employee or a student/recent grad doing OJT? I don t think they are employees, when I was an apprentice I was a special classification. I got about 60% of a machinists (very good) pay and could be asked to leave for any reason or no reason at all. I had no rights an employee had, there were rules that I and the company had to follow. This probably sounds lousy to you, but to me it was a great way to get in the door with no experience.
> 
> - RobS888


That sounds like a great deal to me, especially the 60% of the machinists pay.

In general the Senate internships are taken by those with connections, not paying them excludes the type of student that would need to work a job while in college and therefore reinforce class structures.

Would you have been able to do your internship for no pay?

In lower paying jobs one of the big problems is just getting people to come to work (hell we have that problem at $30/hr), would you support McDonalds or Walmart having a two week unpaid internship to vet their possible employees?


----------



## RobS888

> That sounds like a great deal to me, especially the 60% of the machinists pay.
> 
> In general the Senate internships are taken by those with connections, not paying them excludes the type of student that would need to work a job while in college and therefore reinforce class structures.
> 
> Would you have been able to do your internship for no pay?
> 
> In lower paying jobs one of the big problems is just getting people to come to work (hell we have that problem at $30/hr), would you support McDonalds or Walmart having a two week unpaid internship to vet their possible employees?
> 
> - patcollins


Bernie Sanders paying them so much is unusual in that he is helping break the class structure! Good for him.

I'm ok, if the interns are actually mentored during the two weeks on the fundamentals of being an employee. I would really like to see minimum wage for the internship (since it is entry level), then a bump to $12 for 90 days then up to $15.

I like Costco's approach and give them a lot of my business when I can.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I like Costco s approach and give them a lot of my business when I can.
> 
> - RobS888


+1


----------



## CharlesA

According to Forbes (?), Maryland's effective tax rate for single taxpayer earning $50,000 is just slightly more than average (#19):


----------



## patcollins

> According to Forbes (?), Maryland s effective tax rate for single taxpayer earning $50,000 is just slightly more than average (#19):
> 
> - CharlesA


I don't think the income tax rates are too bad here, but all of the taxes added to utility bills and the fees for things are significantly higher than other places I have lived.

I moved to MD in 2000 from WV and one example is the auto inspection, in WV it was $10, in MD it was $80. Vehicle registration was also significantly higher. MD just seems to nickel and dime you to death.


----------



## RobS888

I have to agree about the utilities. I have to pay $13/month to BGE just to buy $3.00 in gas. And don't get me started on the rate stabilization fee everyone has to pay.


----------



## dbray45

It isn't just the Maryland taxes that get you, almost everything is mirrored in county taxes. In Montgomery County the liquor stores are owned and run by the county as well. Wine can be sold in the stores but are purchased through the county. When I found expired product, over a year out of date, I took it to the manager. He said that it was delivered that week by the county, they do that all the time and it is not returnable to them. They have it both ways.


----------



## RobS888

As shown MD tax loads are close to average.


----------



## TexasTodd

Who is picking this $15 per hour number? That is $2600 per month working 40 hour weeks. Your argument is that a person can support a family of four on $2600 per month? If you live in an urban area, you can't even rent a decent apartment for that. How are you supposed to eat, pay utilities, auto expenses, etc. You would be homeless in Manhattan with that kind of income. 
You want someone with a full time job to be homeless and not provide a decent meal for their family? I don't know what the number should be, but this is not even close to a reasonable wage. What if you are a single parent with 6-8 children? Do you think $15 per hour is going to make that work?
Come on, where is your compassion?


----------



## RobS888

Todd,

As many have pointed out on this thread, minimum wage isn't meant to support a family of 4. $15/hour is a start.


----------



## TexasTodd

Okay Rob, I get that. But why arbitrarily pick $15? It seems that you need to pick a number based on some reasonable scenario. So you say, not family of four. Maybe a family of one. Is this number designed to support a family of one? If yes, then what criteria are we utilizing to determine if this is reasonable? Should we assume that this family of one is living in an urban area where rents are skyrocketing? And what kind of food should this person be able to afford? Transportation based on a daily bus commute or are we including a car payment? 
I suspect even a family of one will find this wage far below what he/she would prefer. If we are picking a number based on compassion, shouldn't that number be more like $25. It seems that is the baseline minimum even one person would need to live a fairly comfortable existence. That would be $52K per year or $4333 per month. This person could probably buy a reasonable home and still pay off their student loans in 20 years.


----------



## CharlesA

The minimum wage has never been effectively $15, but it has been considerably higher than it is now:


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Okay Rob, I get that. But why arbitrarily pick $15?
> - TexasTodd


I totally agree with you. AS to why $15, it is more than twice the current Federal minimum. They'll be lucky to get that in the foreseeable future.


----------



## RobS888

> Okay Rob, I get that. But why arbitrarily pick $15? It seems that you need to pick a number based on some reasonable scenario. So you say, not family of four. Maybe a family of one. Is this number designed to support a family of one? If yes, then what criteria are we utilizing to determine if this is reasonable? Should we assume that this family of one is living in an urban area where rents are skyrocketing? And what kind of food should this person be able to afford? Transportation based on a daily bus commute or are we including a car payment?
> I suspect even a family of one will find this wage far below what he/she would prefer. If we are picking a number based on compassion, shouldn t that number be more like $25. It seems that is the baseline minimum even one person would need to live a fairly comfortable existence. That would be $52K per year or $4333 per month. This person could probably buy a reasonable home and still pay off their student loans in 20 years.
> 
> - TexasTodd


I didn't pick it, Bernie Sanders did in his bill.

Actually, it probably should be set to a percentage of the average wage in a city or state. Say 60% of the average pay by state. That is off the top of my head, no idea what it works out to. Pay what Costco does, they seem to do well.

I've been some places that 15/hour is a joke and others where it would be nice.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I believe it started in SeaTac, WA. There was a local initiative requiring it in the city and all the airlines at the airport claimed they were exempt. Not sure how that worked out or if it has a final resolution. Shana Sawant ran for Seattle city council on $15 minimum wage and won. I can't remember where Seattle's law is in the process, but it passed and requires big business to pay 15 and small business to pay 12 working towards 15 in a few years.


----------



## patcollins

> Actually, it probably should be set to a percentage of the average wage in a city or state. Say 60% of the average pay by state.
> 
> - RobS888


Not a bad idea but if there were no losses of jobs associated with this it would actually create a feedback loop, after the min wage was raised the new average of that state would be raised. Also if a large employer closed up that average could go down. I wonder what people would think of the min wage dropping.


----------



## RobS888

> Actually, it probably should be set to a percentage of the average wage in a city or state. Say 60% of the average pay by state.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Not a bad idea but if there were no losses of jobs associated with this it would actually create a feedback loop, after the min wage was raised the new average of that state would be raised. Also if a large employer closed up that average could go down. I wonder what people would think of the min wage dropping.
> 
> - patcollins


If it is based on something fair it *might* be ok for it to drop… Probably not though.

That would have to be a giant company to swing a state's average though. I wouldn't expect it to be calculated frequently. Valuate it, then set it for a year or two. Save on paperwork. It would still be far more reasonable than what we have now.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Actually, it probably should be set to a percentage of the average wage in a city or state. Say 60% of the average pay by state.
> 
> - RobS888


That is similar to prevailing wage laws; median for the trade in the area. They can go down if there are enough nonunion willing to work for less.


----------



## patcollins

> Actually, it probably should be set to a percentage of the average wage in a city or state. Say 60% of the average pay by state.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Not a bad idea but if there were no losses of jobs associated with this it would actually create a feedback loop, after the min wage was raised the new average of that state would be raised. Also if a large employer closed up that average could go down. I wonder what people would think of the min wage dropping.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> If it is based on something fair it *might* be ok for it to drop… Probably not though.
> 
> That would have to be a giant company to swing a state s average though. I wouldn t expect it to be calculated frequently. Valuate it, then set it for a year or two. Save on paperwork. It would still be far more reasonable than what we have now.
> 
> - RobS888


Or an industry, in WV the average wage raised quite a bit in the last 10 years due to increased coal demand and an explosion in fracking jobs. These jobs pay significantly higher than average also, now because the demand for coal is down and the price of oil fracking is not profitable in many places and those jobs are going away. I expect the average wage to drop by at least 5% there in the next few years or so.


----------



## Mahdeew

I think the minimum wage hike only represent one thing; we are going to have one heck of an inflation. By the time the poor bastards get their wages lifted to $15, a gallon of milk will be $7. Inflation, as always has destroyed the wealth of the savers and made many borrower's wealthy.


----------



## SirIrb

If the interns agree to being paid by experience (i.e. not slavery) then why should you shoot down their opportunity to further themselves? Otherwise the way this would play out is not them getting paid as interns, it would be as them not being interns.



> Bernie Sanders Introduces Bill for $15 Minimum Wage, Pays Staff Only $12
> 
> http://www.mrctv.org/blog/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-15-minimum-wage-only-pays-staff-12#.alwwfp:mECK
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Pays interns $12/hour.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So if fastfood places called their workers interns would you agree with paying them less?
> 
> Are they not people that have the same basic needs as everyone else?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Pat,
> I m surprised you would post crap like this!
> 
> I suppose if there weren t programs controlling internships then you might call anyone an intern so you could pay them less.
> 
> However, these are for students or recent grads to get some experience. I ve worked places that didn t pay their interns at all. I m not sure interns are even employees.
> 
> From your link clicked through to the next president s website and found this:
> 
> Legislative Internship
> 
> Legislative interns in the senator s Washington office may assist legislative staff by handling constituent phone calls and requests, processing mail and voice mail, attending briefings and committee hearings, providing research memos, leading U.S. Capitol tours and drafting responses to constituent letters and inquiries.
> 
> Press Internship
> 
> Press interns in the senator s Washington office may assist communications staff with tracking news coverage, compiling daily press clips, editing statements and releases, updating Senate website and social media pages and taking photos at events. Previous experience with basic graphic design, web development and/or video editing is a plus, but not required.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So you don t consider them full people?
> 
> I just think it is very hypocritical to call for a higher wage while paying people less than that wage.
> 
> I also think unpaid internships should not be legal.
> 
> - patcollins


----------



## RobS888

> I think the minimum wage hike only represent one thing; we are going to have one heck of an inflation. By the time the poor bastards get their wages lifted to $15, a gallon of milk will be $7. Inflation, as always has destroyed the wealth of the savers and made many borrower s wealthy.
> 
> - mrjinx007


You are exaggerating the effect of inflation. 5% inflation reduces the value of savings by 5% and the value of a loan by 5%.


----------



## patcollins

> If the interns agree to being paid by experience (i.e. not slavery) then why should you shoot down their opportunity to further themselves? Otherwise the way this would play out is not them getting paid as interns, it would be as them not being interns.
> - SirIrb


Not really, the whole intern thing for government and congress is for a couple reasons. The first being a PR thing, ie "Look what we give back" the second is as a perk to the parents of those well connected. The program does not exist for the good of the interns, it exists because of what the organization that has the program gets out of it.


----------



## Mahdeew

Well, at this time; for the past 8 or 10 years we have had "no inflation" and at the same time commodities including oil (from $110/BB to $49 today) have taken a major dive but gas, food, appliance, etc have skyrocketed. Cost push inflation has nothing to do with statistical inflation.


----------



## RobS888

> Well, at this time; for the past 8 or 10 years we have had "no inflation" and at the same time commodities including oil (from $110/BB to $49 today) have taken a major dive but gas, food, appliance, etc have skyrocketed. Cost push inflation has nothing to do with statistical inflation.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Gas in MD is down. I can fill my tank for less than $50! Never thought I would see that again.


----------



## Mahdeew

Yes, it is amazing when something goes from $2 to $4 then drops to $3, it becomes a bargain. Meanwhile the whole time it is called "no inflation".


----------



## patcollins

> Gas in MD is down. I can fill my tank for less than $50! Never thought I would see that again.
> 
> - RobS888


Just a few miles across the bridge in VA it is over $0.25/gallon cheaper. Good thing the state charges $6 to cross that bridge. Ten years ago it was only $1.50 to cross.


----------



## Mahdeew

Gas/oil is cheap right now is for 3 reasons, 1- Punishing Russia economically. 2- Iran flooding the market. 3- Economic contraction worldwide. Two of them make sense to me.


----------



## patcollins

> Gas/oil is cheap right now is for 3 reasons, 1- Punishing Russia economically. 2- Iran flooding the market. 3- Economic contraction worldwide. Two of them make sense to me.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Pretty sure OPEC is trying to kill the US oil industry also. In the last few years it has actually become a threat to them.


----------



## RobS888

> Gas in MD is down. I can fill my tank for less than $50! Never thought I would see that again.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Just a few miles across the bridge in VA it is over $0.25/gallon cheaper. Good thing the state charges $6 to cross that bridge. Ten years ago it was only $1.50 to cross.
> 
> - patcollins


It is a use charge correct? I thought the highway system was self supporting in MD. Meaning I don't subsidise people using the bridges or the ICC.


----------



## RobS888

> Gas/oil is cheap right now is for 3 reasons, 1- Punishing Russia economically. 2- Iran flooding the market. 3- Economic contraction worldwide. Two of them make sense to me.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Do you have any *valid* proof of Iran flooding the market?

Relax, don't panic.

http://europe.newsweek.com/fears-iran-will-flood-oil-market-exaggerated-317001


----------



## patcollins

> Gas in MD is down. I can fill my tank for less than $50! Never thought I would see that again.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Just a few miles across the bridge in VA it is over $0.25/gallon cheaper. Good thing the state charges $6 to cross that bridge. Ten years ago it was only $1.50 to cross.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> It is a use charge correct? I thought the highway system was self supporting in MD. Meaning I don t subsidise people using the bridges or the ICC.
> 
> - RobS888


As old as that bridge is I am pretty sure that it helped pay for the ICC. The tolls were raised each time the cigarette tax was raised, cigarettes are also way cheaper on the other side of the bridge. I don't smoke myself but have several coworkers that only buy them in Virginia. Maryland, being such a small state, drives a lot of revenue to Virginia, Delaware, or Pennsylvania and to a lesser extent West Virginia.

Isn't the ICC way below expected revenue?


----------



## RobS888

> Gas in MD is down. I can fill my tank for less than $50! Never thought I would see that again.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Just a few miles across the bridge in VA it is over $0.25/gallon cheaper. Good thing the state charges $6 to cross that bridge. Ten years ago it was only $1.50 to cross.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> It is a use charge correct? I thought the highway system was self supporting in MD. Meaning I don t subsidise people using the bridges or the ICC.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> As old as that bridge is I am pretty sure that it helped pay for the ICC. The tolls were raised each time the cigarette tax was raised, cigarettes are also way cheaper on the other side of the bridge. I don t smoke myself but have several coworkers that only buy them in Virginia. Maryland, being such a small state, drives a lot of revenue to Virginia, Delaware, or Pennsylvania and to a lesser extent West Virginia.
> 
> Isn t the ICC way below expected revenue?
> 
> - patcollins


Any time I use it the volume is pretty light. My point is that, as I understand it, only the people that use the toll roads pay for them. Not sure about the new 95 toll road for APG.


----------



## Mahdeew

Rob, that is one of the 3 that I don't believe in.


----------



## Mahdeew

Yes, yes.


----------



## DanYo

http://www.newser.com/story/210684/only-1-living-person-cracks-list-of-historys-10-richest.html


----------



## DrDirt

> Yes, yes.
> 
> - mrjinx007


It is the liberal lie…. that "if we don't sign the Iran Deal… we are all going to be dead"

The whole all or nothing dealings are bogus… it is "this deal or we declare war!!" Really? How about the current status quo - - - maintain sanctions. Saying 'this deal sucks - ass… is not the same as wanting another war" 
Only *dishonest* libs go to that extreme.

the Hollyweird crowd make the Tea Party sound like a hybrid of Thomas Jefferson and Winston Churchill.

-----------

To Rob - - My Medicare Question pointed to the concept of "What did people do before we decided the Governments role was to "take Care of us".
The US as a dominantly agrarian structure ended around the McKinley presidency certainy by WW 1.
People were moving to the cities, and moving from farms to Steel mills, and Manufacturing and Automobile.

So the question remains… how did we survive the next 60 years before LBJ 'saved us' with medicare?

Today - even middle class individuals work on 'spending down' and gifting money to relatives to escape Medicaid lookbacks, so that they qualify as "impoverished" to get Nursing home care. It used to be that people looked after their parents until the final year of life when they are no longer capable.
Now nursing homes run 5K/month for simple assisted living (here in the midwest) 
I don't recall many gated communities reserved for 55+ folks in the 1970's

Topa is right - - medical treatment was affordable then. 
I would argue that the hyperinflation of medical costs is linked to Medicare, and later Reagan's healthcare mandate in 1986 which effectively started socialized medicine. Before 1986, hospitals could turn away people on ability to pay grounds. Once the Government said "thou shalt treat everyone regardless of ability to pay" things changed.

once Government steps in and decides that you have to "provide something free"... the economics get screwed up.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

Many other countries seem to be able to provide better care for less money. I suspect there is a greed component here that is missing or suppressed by the government in other countries.

Other countries don't provide free healthcare, taxes pay for it of course. Single payer does not need to balloon medical costs. It happens if everyone involved needs to make six figures or more. Greed is what is hurting us, not compassion.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> Many other countries seem to be able to provide better care for less money. I suspect there is a greed component here that is missing or suppressed by the government in other countries.
> 
> Other countries don t provide free healthcare, taxes pay for it of course. Single payer does not need to balloon medical costs. It happens if everyone involved needs to make six figures or more. Greed is what is hurting us, not compassion.
> 
> - RobS888


That is why most saw the 1986 act as an unfunded mandate.

You cannot just go out to the 'private' hospital and say 'Take care of everyone who shows up whether they pay or not'.... and then be surprised by what the bills become when all operational expenses are passed on to those with insurance.
If 10 people get ER care, but only 2 have insurance…the bill to those 2 will be disproportionately higher than what the "man hours" or cost would really dictate…. the bill reflects cost recovery for all the 'free' work to be done.
I rather doubt that the actual cost (if you just took hours that doctors 'earn' not bill + nurses for that 2 hour procedure would really come out to 32K.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/1-million-mistake-becoming-a-doctor/
Across all specialties, physicians see roughly 13 patients per day, work 52 hours per week and earn an average of $270,000.

How do you get a 200K bill for a procedure, when the ANNUAL salary of the doctor is 270K?

Insurance is expensive because Claims are expensive… not the other way around.

-----EDIT-------
it really is a misnomer to call Healthcare "Insurance" 
Unlike Car Insurance - - you are expected to get check-ups, medications, and care… while you are supposed to AVOID having a Auto claim.


----------



## bandit571

They all can share a bit with me….


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

Although, your math is correct your assumption is not. Uncovered/uninsured patients at hospitals on average is 10% or less. So it is 9 procedures covering 1, not 1 covering 4. Big difference there!

Insurance came about when Chinese farmers started dividing their stock amongst different boats, so no one lost entire harvest. If 1 of 100 boats sank then each 100 farmers lost 1%. It was to ensure the survival of the harvest for as many farmers as possible.

I've never understood why car insurance companies get away with punitive rates when your initial rate is based on the likelihood of you having x amount of claims. Health insurance should not be compared to car insurance. That is not a valid comparison.

If you want we can refer to Health Care from now on.


----------



## RobS888

> Yes, yes.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Seems like comedy to me.

Would you like to compare to some of the, ah shall we say amped up, objections to this deal?


----------



## Mahdeew

Every lying lib deserve a lying con. Was it not the axis of evil, invasion of the wrong countries and killing well over a million people that drove them to prepare to self-defend? We gave the nukes to India the minute Pakistan developed theirs. These types of policies are insane.


----------



## RobS888

> Every lying lib deserve a lying con. Was it not the axis of evil, invasion of the wrong countries and killing well over a million people that drove them to prepare to self-defend? We gave the nukes to India the minute Pakistan developed theirs. These types of policies are insane.
> 
> - mrjinx007


We do have a pretty bad history of interference.

On this topic of Iran, have they ever invaded a country first or fought back without really good reasons. (Iran not Persia).

I think they have the right to hate us for what we have done to them. I'm not sure we have screwed with any other country as much.


----------



## DrDirt

Rob the percentave uninsured will vary dramatically by region. From Very High in Houston and SanDiego, to fairly low in Sioux Falls SD.
I also include Medicaid/assistance payments with very low reimbursement as 'uninsured'... not just those without a BC/BS card.

However if you take a place like Denver…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09emergency.html?pagewanted=all (a bit old)

For example, Denver Health, a public hospital system, had a 19 percent increase in emergency visits by uninsured patients in November - to 3,325, up from 2,792 a year earlier.

They include patients like Matthew Armijo, 29, who was laid off from his client services job at a technology company in August and could continue his health insurance only through October. He showed up at Denver Health's urgent care center, a part of the emergency department, suffering from increasing abdominal pain. *Mr. Armijo said he went there because he would not have to pay anything.*

Denver Health expects the amount of care it delivers for which it will never be paid to grow to more than $300 million this year, compared with $276 million in 2007.

If just the one city healtgroup is forced to 'absorb 300 million dollars in lost payment every year" that has a large effect on what everyone else needs to pay.

3300 patients in a MONTH… so 100+ uninsured per day


----------



## Mahdeew

I was born in Iran and left there before the religious freaks took it over. If anyone wish to co-mingle religion and state, go live in Afghanistan and see if it is really something you desire. The people of Iran don't hate us, in fact I would say they love us (us meaning the citizens). The place was fully westernized when I lived there so, the older generation know what that was like. The only reason the freaks are controlling the place right now is because they fear our government more. Should this deal go through, if their government does not spend the frozen money inside, there will be an internally induced revolution- a good thing as far as I am concerned. Destabilizing that region further, is going to have a dire consequence for all involved. The only places there not in total chaos is Some of the gulf Arab nations (lot of beheading), Israel and Iran. I bet Egypt is a powder cage ready to blow as well since the elected brotherhood leaders were killed and the survivors are operating underground. It is concerning to me that it is easier to count the places that are not in turmoil. I just hope the troubles in Yemen does not spill over to Africa AKA Egypt. Everyone here seem to be concerned with a SHF financial event but I think we are pretty close to a worldwide SHF event that could take us back to a Mad Max type of existence.


----------



## RobS888

When I was in basic training at Lackland, there were over 5,000 Iranian troops there ( saw lots, don't know how many) So I got to see how close we were with the Shah's military.

I have concerns about countries that become Westernized too quickly. They seem to always snap back. Egypt has back slid since I was there in the early 00's. I was told that Iran was exporting religious fundamentalism to the other countries.

I blame a lot of what has happened on operation Ajax. No overthrow, no shah, no forced evolution, no fundamentalist takeover.


----------



## RobS888

Dr dirt,

100/day sounds very dramatic! Out of how many is that? How many hospitals?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It would not surprise me if several of the hospitals in Seattle's Pill Hill District get 100 non-payers a day.

Certainly, Medicare was and is a big contributor to medical inflation. I don't remember when it started, not until the late 70s or possibly the early 80s. But by the time Reagan started running the biggest deficits in US history, under funding reimbursement was causing doctors and hospitals to charge the paying patient a higher rate to cover the non-paying patients. I recall Micheal Medved reciting the history of this referring to it as a "hidden tax." Sort of went along with the total tax burden shift away from the high income brackets to the middle class. We "saved" Social Security at the same time, now the [email protected][email protected]$ are telling us, US, we cannot afford it. We can sure afford to give the military industrial complex billions to make sand out of the rocks in Afghanistan. If we are that short on sand, there are better and cheaper ways to make it.

The movement that will bring down the oligarchy and insider's cliques of both parties has been set in motion. Even if the unprecedented turn outs at Bernie Sanders organizing meetings do not get him elected, He will have educated enough of ignorant to set in motion the grass roots movement to bring down the oligarchy.


----------



## DrDirt

> It would not surprise me if several of the hospitals in Seattle s Pill Hill District get 100 non-payers a day.
> 
> The movement that will bring down the oligarchy and insider s cliques of both parties has been set in motion. Even if the unprecedented turn outs at Bernie Sanders organizing meetings do not get him elected, He will have educated enough of ignorant to set in motion the grass roots movement to bring down the oligarchy.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Topa if Reagan "Only" underfunded… we could fix it easier.

He just waved a wand and essentially said "You people must take care of everyone" even without medicare/medicaid cards… Anybody who shows up is "Your Problem" Doesn't work as a national policcy.

Not as though there are not a ton of examples of unfunded mandates through history.

I share your hopes of Bernie and for that matter Trump… forcing the conversation to actually move from talking points (to be shelved after the election and do nothing) to actually talking about where people stand on Trade, Jobs, Immigration and Healthcare.

Remember how the Repubs told us how they would defund Obamacare if they got the Senate? Or how they would stop the amnesty executive order…

All we hear is how IF we get the house and If we get the senate … THEN we will effect change.

The reality is we have protectors of teh status quo that all tell us how they will "Drain the swamp" of DC.
But they get there and decide the Swamp is really a Jacuzzi.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr dirt,
> 
> 100/day sounds very dramatic! Out of how many is that? How many hospitals?
> 
> - RobS888


Appears to be one main campus hospital… then they have some specialist clinics around the city
But this is still ONLY Denver, and they are not the only hospital…. would stand to reason that other hospitals would have similar numbers.
http://www.denverhealth.org/for-patients-and-visitors/our-locations










IF (big if) all 7 hospitals have similar 'losses' then for city of Denver loses 2.1Billion per year


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

I'm assuming you didn't really know that this is a charity hospital system.

Denver Health is a comprehensive, integrated organization providing level one care for all, *regardless of ability to pay*. Twenty-five percent of all Denver residents, or approximately 150,000 individuals, receive their health care at Denver Health. One in three children in Denver is cared for by Denver Health physicians as well.

*As Colorado's primary safety net institution, Denver Health has provided billions of dollars in uncompensated care*. Denver Health is an integrated, efficient, high-quality health care system serving as a model for other safety net institutions across the nation.

http://www.denverhealth.org/about-us

Not a typical case in any regard. Extrapolating a hospital that provides free services number's to other for profit hospitals is foolish at best and disingenuous at worst.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> I m assuming you didn t really know that this is a charity hospital system.
> 
> Denver Health is a comprehensive, integrated organization providing level one care for all, *regardless of ability to pay*. Twenty-five percent of all Denver residents, or approximately 150,000 individuals, receive their health care at Denver Health. One in three children in Denver is cared for by Denver Health physicians as well.
> 
> *As Colorado s primary safety net institution, Denver Health has provided billions of dollars in uncompensated care*. Denver Health is an integrated, efficient, high-quality health care system serving as a model for other safety net institutions across the nation.
> 
> http://www.denverhealth.org/about-us
> 
> Not a typical case in any regard. Extrapolating a hospital that provides free services number s to other for profit hospitals is foolish at best and disingenuous at worst.
> 
> - RobS888


I am assuming you are unfamiliar with the 1986 law…
the 
I m assuming you didn t really know that this is a charity hospital system.

_ providing level one care for all, *regardless of ability to pay*.

Is actually the legal standard for hospitals.
You MUST take anyone that shows up regardless of ability to pay.

And you cannot "Half-ass" the care…. so you have to do your best for every customer.

but I suppose " Meets Federal Requirements" isn't as catchy for a slogan.

However what about the hospital in any way contradicts the fact that the "billions in care" provided free, is not "made up for" by other patients?
I don't think the doctors there are just volunteering.

Denver Childrens Hospital is a "non-profit" 
Presbyterian St Lukes - has a area devoted to 'charity care'
the University Hospital is also state unwritten…

Is there an argument you are trying to make?


----------



## RobS888

Hospitals need to treat emergencies that show up.

They don't need to: *Provide access to the highest quality health care, whether for prevention, or acute and chronic diseases, regardless of ability to pay; *

Your example doesn't prove what you thought it did.

EDIT:
That NYT article was from the Great Recession. Many people were freshly unemployed (650,000 that month) and had no health care. Perhaps you could find a vivid example from the past few years. The ACA and the economy improving would affect those numbers.


----------



## Mahdeew

I guess the whole idea is either to be poor or pretend to be one. The entire welfare system is to keep you trapped in it and this is a good example of it. If you do have money, job, collateral, then the hospital has no problem collecting their money via collector agencies. I was sitting in the health department where a mexican lady was telling the receptionist she made $85 grand a year but could not afford a $5 fee. Crazy. Nursing homes are similar to hospitals. If the money, collateral are there, all of that becomes nursing home's once the person is gone. Off course there are loopholes in everything if you can afford a lawyer.


----------



## Mahdeew

This does not jive right.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

DRDirt, My comment about under funding Medicare by the time the Reagan deficits began is addressing Medicare as cause of medical inflation. Free care for anyone unable to pay is another totally separate inflation factor. I'm not sure under funding was not a factor earlier than that, but it certainly was by then and continues to be.


----------



## DrDirt

> DRDirt, My comment about under funding Medicare by the time the Reagan deficits began is addressing Medicare as cause of medical inflation. Free care for anyone unable to pay is another totally separate inflation factor. I m not sure under funding was not a factor earlier than that, but it certainly was by then and continues to be.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I agree completely - - however I think once you had a mandate to treat regardless of ability to pay (though I agree with the principle of not denying care to the dying person at the doorstep).... subsequent "prices" went up.

*Cost* of doing any individual treatment really didn't change, but the procedure codes and billing now took into account how to balance the books, taking in the money needed to keep running, and getting all the perks to administrators, when you have a several hundred million dollar hole in accounts receivable every year.

I think the medicare inflation remains high because I would expect that at least since the 30s or 40's when industrial accidents were common…people have continued to need more healthcare at age 65 than they did at 25.
ANd even if you are working full time with company insurance…. you are Medicare Primary, and your company BC/BS or Aetna policy is only secondary insurance.


----------



## Mahdeew

Not sure if you have read "One Social Security Act", HR 3150 which aims to combine the totally broke segment of Di social security with old age and survivor segment. The DI segment will be depleted in 2016 mainly because apparently 45% of disability insurance is fraudulent.


----------



## DrDirt

> Hospitals need to treat emergencies that show up.
> 
> They don t need to: *Provide access to the highest quality health care, whether for prevention, or acute and chronic diseases, regardless of ability to pay; *
> 
> Your example doesn t prove what you thought it did.
> 
> EDIT:
> That NYT article was from the Great Recession. Many people were freshly unemployed (650,000 that month) and had no health care. Perhaps you could find a vivid example from the past few years. The ACA and the economy improving would affect those numbers.
> 
> - RobS888


Whatever Rob - 
What about any of your rant changes the fact that covering everyone regardless of ability to pay drives up cost?

Here since you like Wiki so much:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
*Cost pressures on hospitals*

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, *55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated.*[14] When medical bills go unpaid, *health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay or go uncompensated*. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost-shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.[15] For example, it has been estimated that this cost shifting amounted to $455 per individual or $1,186 per family in California each year.[15]

However, because of the recent influence of managed care and other cost control initiatives by insurance companies, hospitals are less able to shift costs, and end up writing off more in uncompensated care. The amount of uncompensated care delivered by non-federal community hospitals grew from $6.1 billion in 1983 to $40.7 billion in 2004, according to a 2004 report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured,[14] but it is unclear what percentage of this was emergency care and therefore attributable to EMTALA.

You can pick nits…. ..Whether a hospital is community based…. a non-profit… or completely private.

or you can actually try to make a point or try to refute facts presented…
Fact remains:
Providing Free care… increases everyone elses bill.


----------



## DrDirt

> Not sure if you have read "One Social Security Act", HR 3150 which aims to combine the totally broke segment of Di social security with old age and survivor segment. The DI segment will be depleted in 2016 mainly because apparently 45% of disability insurance is fraudulent.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Yep - - Apparently the trend is to use up your 99 weeks unemployment, then be declared 'disabled'


----------



## RobS888

Dr. dirt,

Of course, free emergency care costs us all a lot of money. That is why single payer is nice. The ACA sucks, but it is better than what we had before. millions more can see a doctor before becoming really sick.

I was just pointing out your links didn't prove your case at all. Denver Health is providing non emergency free care. I'm not arguing against you, just your weak outdated data.

*or you can actually try to make a point or try to refute facts presented…*
I showed your facts were bogus: 7 years old, during a recession and for a hospital that would get far more un-insured patients than others. so what is the problem?


----------



## RobS888

> Not sure if you have read "One Social Security Act", HR 3150 which aims to combine the totally broke segment of Di social security with old age and survivor segment. The DI segment will be depleted in 2016 mainly because apparently 45% of disability insurance is fraudulent.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> Yep - - Apparently the trend is to use up your 99 weeks unemployment, then be declared disabled
> 
> - DrDirt


Why would a doctor do that? Declare someone disabled if they are fit?


----------



## patcollins

> Not sure if you have read "One Social Security Act", HR 3150 which aims to combine the totally broke segment of Di social security with old age and survivor segment. The DI segment will be depleted in 2016 mainly because apparently 45% of disability insurance is fraudulent.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> Yep - - Apparently the trend is to use up your 99 weeks unemployment, then be declared disabled
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Why would a doctor do that? Declare someone disabled if they are fit?
> 
> - RobS888


I grew up right down the street from a guy that was declared disabled because of a "bad back". His bad back didn't prevent him from playing basketball in the street, digging in his yard, pushing a wheelbarrow around, working on his roof, stealing a wheelbarrow of gravel from the neighbor across the street in the middle of the night (he got caught), etc. He also tried to talk others on the street into applying for it, I recall him telling my dad that he deserved it when my dad was perfectly healthy.


----------



## DrDirt

> Not sure if you have read "One Social Security Act", HR 3150 which aims to combine the totally broke segment of Di social security with old age and survivor segment. The DI segment will be depleted in 2016 mainly because apparently 45% of disability insurance is fraudulent.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> Yep - - Apparently the trend is to use up your 99 weeks unemployment, then be declared disabled
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Why would a doctor do that? Declare someone disabled if they are fit?
> 
> - RobS888


Pssst… there are unscrupulous people in the world… their are even ambulance chasing lawyers out there that have you wear a cervical collar to trials

there is a cadre of shady physicains that go along with it, and there are WAAAAAY to many people with doctors notes to police effectively.

Some people even lie on their taxes (the horrors!!)


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr. dirt,
> 
> Of course, free emergency care costs us all a lot of money. That is why single payer is nice. The ACA sucks, but it is better than what we had before. millions more can see a doctor before becoming really sick.
> 
> I was just pointing out your links didn t prove your case at all. Denver Health is providing non emergency free care. I m not arguing against you, just your weak outdated data.
> 
> *or you can actually try to make a point or try to refute facts presented…*
> I showed your facts were bogus: 7 years old, during a recession and for a hospital that would get far more un-insured patients than others. so what is the problem?
> 
> - RobS888


Facts don't change because of age.

there are 7 hospitals (some are small or 'specialty' like the Childrens hospital ) so that Denver health has 1/4 of the market changed nothing.
For timing.
The "loss" was 276 million for 2007… (which is before the crash cupcake.) then it went to 300 (~10% increase) in 2009.

Simple fact is they 'write off/pass along' ~300 million per year.
10 years later I doubt there are fewer illegals in Colorado. I defer to your expertise to prove that unreimbursed expenses are now somehow lower than the pre-crash levels. (recession was December 2007 and those immediate job losses most likelyl had COBRA for ~90 days) just like the NYT article mentions.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Yep - - Apparently the trend is to use up your 99 weeks unemployment, then be declared disabled
> 
> - DrDirt


About a year ago or maybe longer, CBS's 60 Minutes did a story about that in Appalachia. People there have little other choice and most qualify under the definitions caused by the stress of being destitute. There should be a better way, but that is the way it is ;-((


----------



## patcollins

> About a year ago or maybe longer, CBS s 60 Minutes did a story about that in Appalachia. People there have little other choice and most qualify under the definitions caused by the stress of being destitute. There should be a better way, but that is the way it is ;-((
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I am from WV, that is a load of crap. There is work for someone that is willing to work, it may not be what you want to do, it may not be right across the street but there is enough going on to have a job if you shower regularly and have a neat appearance.


----------



## RobS888

Dr. dirt,

Your link refers to Denver health having a huge increase the month before. (Nov 2008) 19% I believe and you jumped all over that and incorrectly extrapolated it to all hospitals to be 100/day! Also, you claimed that only 2 out of 10 paid and then a few posts later it was 45% paid.

I fail to see what it was at the beginning of the recession 8-10 years ago means to us now. Get some current data to make your point or give it up.


----------



## RobS888

Leave WV alone! They are my new civil war heroes.


----------



## MOONKNIGHT

Shocking


----------



## Mahdeew

The reason we have so many people on disability is because it makes the employment numbers good. We have been in a depression not a great recession. The only reason we don't see the soup lines is because so many are on food stamp. This is one big perception that a lot of people are waking up to and as the result are saving their money instead of spending it. The banks have to report you if you withdraw more than $2000 in the name of national security. The Greeks learned a really bad lesson by not having some cash on hand before SHF. Once you deposit your money in the bank, the bank is the owner of the money and you are given a promissory note. The problem is that the money itself is a promissory note. So, it is all about how much confidence you have in a promissory, promissory note especially since the bail-in legislation are in place all over the western world.


----------



## patcollins

> Leave WV alone! They are my new civil war heroes.
> 
> - RobS888


I have nothing but love for my home. There are more opportunities there than outsiders think there are.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> About a year ago or maybe longer, CBS s 60 Minutes did a story about that in Appalachia. People there have little other choice and most qualify under the definitions caused by the stress of being destitute. There should be a better way, but that is the way it is ;-((
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> I am from WV, that is a load of crap. There is work for someone that is willing to work, it may not be what you want to do, it may not be right across the street but there is enough going on to have a job if you shower regularly and have a neat appearance.
> 
> - patcollins


It may be longer ago than I thought. Retired minds become foggy ;-) 2013 I don't think it centered on WV. WV has been cleared.



> The reason we have so many people on disability is because it makes the employment numbers good. We have been in a depression not a great recession. The only reason we don t see the soup lines is because so many are on food stamp. This is one big perception that a lot of people are waking up to and as the result are saving their money instead of spending it. The banks have to report you if you withdraw more than $2000 in the name of national security. The Greeks learned a really bad lesson by not having some cash on hand before SHF. Once you deposit your money in the bank, the bank is the owner of the money and you are given a promissory note. The problem is that the money itself is a promissory note. So, it is all about how much confidence you have in a promissory, promissory note especially since the bail-in legislation are in place all over the western world.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I picked up a brochure in WA Mutual the early 80s about a recently passed banking act. It said your money is secure, but they may require a year's written notice to withdraw. I don't suppose it would be worth much under those circumstances.


----------



## RobS888

> The reason we have so many people on disability is because it makes the employment numbers good. We have been in a depression not a great recession. The only reason we don t see the soup lines is because so many are on food stamp. This is one big perception that a lot of people are waking up to and as the result are saving their money instead of spending it. The banks have to report you if you withdraw more than $2000 in the name of national security. The Greeks learned a really bad lesson by not having some cash on hand before SHF. Once you deposit your money in the bank, the bank is the owner of the money and you are given a promissory note. The problem is that the money itself is a promissory note. So, it is all about how much confidence you have in a promissory, promissory note especially since the bail-in legislation are in place all over the western world.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I thought they were on disability because their unemployment insurance ran out. I mean seriously we hit almost 850,000/month lost their jobs in early 2009. What were they to do? They are Wall Street fodder.


----------



## oldnovice

I haven't followed this forum for quite some time and the last few pages seem to be a downer on so many fronts. I know everything is not "peaches and cream" but on the flip side everything is not "piss and vinegar" either.

The national debt has been reduced, unemployment hasn't need this low since April of 2008, housing starts are rampant, and, to show that there is bad news, there are 20+forest fires in California


----------



## Mahdeew

According to St. Louis Federal Reserve, the national debt stand at 18 trillionish as of Q-1 2015. Looking at the chart, one has to find an index to compare any decline. As it relates to deficit, yes, it has been declining but again, we need an index. We ran a total 1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 and due to QE's and somewhat of a recovery, it has been declining since. Nonetheless, we are no where near Clinton years of running a surplus. Deficit is the difference between the taxes government collect and the money it spends each year. If we go back to the way unemployment was figured (total people out of work including the discouraged workers) we are sitting at 23% unemployment. 
The housing recovery seems to be the result of foreign investment not the citizen's ability to buy a house. Good news is that September Y2K-like scare is probably wrong since the majority is almost always wrong. 
Rob, 
I really don't know what the solution is. I am all for taking care of our own first. Not sure placing people on permanent disability is a good solution though.


----------



## DrDirt

> I thought they were on disability because their unemployment insurance ran out. I mean seriously we hit almost 850,000/month lost their jobs in early 2009. What were they to do? They are Wall Street fodder.
> 
> - RobS888


On one hand it is a good question….what do you do when the ******************** hits the fan….

However the answer is not LIE about being permanently disabled.

There are little towns devoid of industry as mills closed and moved to china. But just as people moved from the farm to the city for work. People need to be mobile, not just shrug and go on the dole.


----------



## RobS888

> According to St. Louis Federal Reserve, the national debt stand at 18 trillionish as of Q-1 2015. Looking at the chart, one has to find an index to compare any decline. As it relates to deficit, yes, it has been declining but again, we need an index. We ran a total 1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 and due to QE s and somewhat of a recovery, it has been declining since. Nonetheless, we are no where near Clinton years of running a surplus. Deficit is the difference between the taxes government collect and the money it spends each year. If we go back to the way unemployment was figured (total people out of work including the discouraged workers) we are sitting at 23% unemployment.
> The housing recovery seems to be the result of foreign investment not the citizen s ability to buy a house. Good news is that September Y2K-like scare is probably wrong since the majority is almost always wrong.
> Rob,
> I really don t know what the solution is. I am all for taking care of our own first. Not sure placing people on permanent disability is a good solution though.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I don't think they had many options, there was nowhere to move to for jobs as Dr dirt suggests.

Good news is on the way, some Chinese companies are building plants to make textiles in the US.

http://qz.com/470358/chinese-textile-manufacturers-found-a-cheap-new-place-for-outsourcing-the-us/


----------



## RobS888

> I thought they were on disability because their unemployment insurance ran out. I mean seriously we hit almost 850,000/month lost their jobs in early 2009. What were they to do? They are Wall Street fodder.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> On one hand it is a good question….what do you do when the ******************** hits the fan….
> 
> However the answer is not LIE about being permanently disabled.
> 
> There are little towns devoid of industry as mills closed and moved to china. But just as people moved from the farm to the city for work. People need to be mobile, not just shrug and go on the dole.
> 
> - DrDirt


In general I totally agree, I spend a lot of time going where my work is located! However the losses in 2008 and 2009 were staggering. There weren't really any jobs for them, especially when you look at the people that were being let go, 55 year old managers. What were they going to do? Businesses (and people) went into strict conservation mode. In 2010 my company stopped annual raises and 401K matching until 2 years ago. No one was let go, but still some people grumbled about the measures.


----------



## Mahdeew

Every time these banksters blow themselves up, many people suffer as the result of their greed. Yet up to date, not even 1 person has been jailed for his or her action. They have no problem paying the fines, but when it comes to prosecution as some testified, they are either too big too fail or too big to jail. I wish at least one senator would have asked, "what does it mean too big to jail"? 
Here is the message: Don't steal a piece of gum from Wal-Mart because you will go to jail for 3 months. But if you steal a few billion, then you are too big to jail. 
There were many age 55 or so who had no choice but to go to school just to get unemployment. In one interview on NPR the guy said, "by the time I get my nursing degree, I'll be eligible for social security. But this the only choice I have."


----------



## oldnovice

*Mrjinx*, I guess you are telling me that your sources of data are better than mine! 
Living where I do I do not see the rampant, 23%, unemployment, in fact there are more jobs than people.

I think that just follows; I look at half glass of single malt and it's half full and you say it's half empty, but in either case drnking it can cloud the mind!


----------



## patcollins

> According to St. Louis Federal Reserve, the national debt stand at 18 trillionish as of Q-1 2015. Looking at the chart, one has to find an index to compare any decline. As it relates to deficit, yes, it has been declining but again, we need an index. We ran a total 1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 and due to QE s and somewhat of a recovery, it has been declining since. Nonetheless, we are no where near Clinton years of running a surplus. Deficit is the difference between the taxes government collect and the money it spends each year. If we go back to the way unemployment was figured (total people out of work including the discouraged workers) we are sitting at 23% unemployment.
> The housing recovery seems to be the result of foreign investment not the citizen s ability to buy a house. Good news is that September Y2K-like scare is probably wrong since the majority is almost always wrong.
> Rob,
> I really don t know what the solution is. I am all for taking care of our own first. Not sure placing people on permanent disability is a good solution though.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> I don t think they had many options, there was nowhere to move to for jobs as Dr dirt suggests.
> 
> Good news is on the way, some Chinese companies are building plants to make textiles in the US.
> 
> http://qz.com/470358/chinese-textile-manufacturers-found-a-cheap-new-place-for-outsourcing-the-us/
> 
> - RobS888


There is however much more automation now, believe it or not more textile jobs in the south were shipped overseas than industrial jobs from the north.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/us-textile-factories-return.html?pagewanted=all

Old close up mills litter the area this textile factory is in. The poor people live on the old "mill hills" and mill hill mom/dad/kid is considered a bit of an insult.


----------



## DrDirt

> I thought they were on disability because their unemployment insurance ran out. I mean seriously we hit almost 850,000/month lost their jobs in early 2009. What were they to do? They are Wall Street fodder.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> On one hand it is a good question….what do you do when the ******************** hits the fan….
> 
> However the answer is not LIE about being permanently disabled.
> 
> There are little towns devoid of industry as mills closed and moved to china. But just as people moved from the farm to the city for work. People need to be mobile, not just shrug and go on the dole.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> In general I totally agree, I spend a lot of time going where my work is located! However the losses in 2008 and 2009 were staggering. There weren t really any jobs for them, especially when you look at the people that were being let go, 55 year old managers. What were they going to do? Businesses (and people) went into strict conservation mode. In 2010 my company stopped annual raises and 401K matching until 2 years ago. No one was let go, but still some people grumbled about the measures.
> 
> - RobS888


There are ALWAYS jobs.

There may be cases where you need 2… or to take one that sucks for a while.

Or there is one in a neighboring town.

The idea that there are NO jobs available… flys in the face of the immigration influx coming here looking for work.

I think we have way too many people that have decided that that working hard is beneath them.

Famous quote:

"We often miss opportunity because it's dressed in overalls and looks like work"
― Thomas A. Edison

Things get crappy - - you may need to dip into the 6 month reserve to "regain your footing"

I don't pretend to have all the answers but I fervently believe that:

PERMANENT Social Security Disability is NOT the solution,... and i reject that it was anyone's only choice. rather it was an easy way out of making hard decisions - like giving up smart phone plans, or having upside down loans/leases on new cars.

Way to many people live beyond their means…. if your income prevents you from having savings, you need to evaluate your situation, because there will be more crises…the current stock market is a bubble inflated with newly printed trillions from the reserve… not any organic growth in business..


----------



## RobS888

I believe many people used their 401k after their savings. There may have been jobs, but the competition was fierce. My boss told me he had an increase in applications for openings from dozens to hundreds and in one case thousands of applicants. He had no way to even review them all.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I have seen news reports with video of thousands showing up for a hundred Walmart jobs. Of course, there are the over qualified rejections and those who have been unemployed too long to be considered. I'm not saying there aren't dead beats, but you are living in a dream world Doc Dirt or may thinking of preReagan America. I would like to apologize to America and all future generations for having voted for that …..............


----------



## patcollins

I think a lot of peoples problems are they won't do whatever it takes, In the early 80's when my dad was laid off at the glass plant him and a friend got some supplies together a pack of 3×5 cards and put cards on the doors of houses that looked like they needed painting. They were undercutting professional painters big time and had more people call than they could accommodate. He would get called into work at the factory for the occasional day here and there and had to go because if he didn't he went to the bottom of the list and he made more there than painting.

In the last few years I have offered people I know out of work some cash to help me with some odd jobs that would go much faster with a set of hands and the offer has never been accepted. I have a hard time believeing someone is hurting when they won't work 2 hrs for $50 off the books.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

You will always be able to find the "I know a guy" dead beat stories. The special reports by investigative reporters and on 60 Minutes indicate there is a basic problem with the economy. Corporate tax breaks for corps that move jobs overseas might be a good place to start along with returning to the policies of Adam Smith and Alex. Hamilton that served us so well for the first 200 years of the republic.


----------



## patcollins

I'm not really talking about this "one guy" I made the offer to three different people and nobody wanted anything to do with it. Once was just weeding, putting out mulch and trimming bushes, the other was helping me chainsaw up a couple trees that fell in my yard during a tropical storm, and the third time was to help me lay some new flooring. The flooring offer was $100 for the day, the other two were about 2 hrs worth of work for $50.

When I was in college I would have jumped for that considering I was making $7/hr working for the school.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

did you try the Orange Box or the Blue Box where the cash only, under the table contractors pick up their day laborers every day?

I know people who won't work too, but I know more that do and want to than don't. One brags about getting 2 years of unemployment under Jimmy Carter, but that doesn't mean there aren't genuine unemployment issues out there. I very seldom see the news reporting how many new jobs were created last month any more. Most are minimum wage and the numbers usually do not meet the necessary growth to keep up with the population increase.


----------



## oldnovice

*Mrjinx*, I don't know from where you are getting your numbers for unemployment but if you Google *worst case unemployment* you will not find any numbers over 10%!
Your *23%* is a pure *WAG* as best or *something you prefer to believe*.
Here are three random links you can check for yourslef!

David Stockman
Wikipedia
Business Week
Bureau of Labor Statistics


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> *Mrjinx*, I don t know from where you are getting your numbers for unemployment but if you Google *worst case unemployment* you will not find any numbers over 10%!
> Your *23%* is a pure *WAG* as best or *something you prefer to believe*.
> Here are three random links you can check for yourslef!
> 
> David Stockman
> Wikipedia
> Business Week
> Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> - oldnovice


Those are the official state numbers. They only include those drawing unemployment benefits. Long term unemployed do not count, they are just SOL! ;-(( Bernie Sanders mentioned the total of official unemployed plus the long term unemployed who have run out of benefits at 13%.

Back when the spotted owl shut down logging on the Olympic Peninsula, one of the towns over there put in for a food grant of some kind. It was denied because their unemployment was not high enough. Everyone ran out of benefits and without logging all the mills were down. Real unemployment was over 50%.

The "in clique" of politicians find more and more creative ways to lie every day. Morningstar analysts put the annual inflation rate 1 to 1.5 points higher than the official and the CPI has been modified so many times it is worthless. That keeps the distribution rates for Social Security lower and provides more cash for the corporate insider prostitutes in Congress to distribute to the military industrial complex.


----------



## oldnovice

Bob,

I will give some creditably to the numbers attributed to Bernie Sanders but that is still a *far cry from 23%*.

I haven't looked for a job in six years and neither have eight of my former colleagues who all got laid off at the same time.

*Therefore we must be part of that 23%? *


----------



## rwe2156

The welfare/vote buying/power hungry liberal pols have created an underclass that is in slavery to the government.

Its worse then slavery 150 years ago because at least when they were set free they knew how to do something.
Now there are millions of people with zero job skills and no intention of getting a job. Why?

The problem is not people can't find work, the problem is people don't have to work.

As a business owner and employer, I can tell you the work ethic is not there anymore.
I can also tell you it is very hard to find good workers.

You can cite all the statistics you want but I'll give you an example of the reality:

I have a single girl working part time for me who could go back home and live with her family. But because she wants to party, she wants to live alone. So she has a section 8 apartment she pays $250/mo and she asked me to cut her hours back so she could qualify for food stamps.

I stood in line behind a woman buying $65 worth of cakes and 6 bottles of soda and paid for it with an EBT card. THEN - get this - the clerk asked "do you want cash back?". While her young granddaughter watched with interest and a 30-ish young woman bagged her groceries. This is the kind of nonsense going on and it is dividing our country.

In the meantime, we pay $950/mo for an apartment and utilities for my oldest son in grad school. Pretax, that means I have to make $1300 to cover it.


----------



## Mahdeew

Nearly At 'Full Employment'? 10 Reasons Why The Unemployment Numbers Are A Massive Lie
By Michael Snyder, on March 8th, 2015
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone
What - Public DomainOn Friday, we learned that the official "unemployment rate" has fallen to 5.5 percent. Since an unemployment rate of 5 percent is considered to be "full employment" by many economists, many in the mainstream media took this as a sign that the U.S. economy has almost fully "recovered" since the last recession. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, some Federal Reserve officials believe that "the U.S. economy is already at full employment". But how can this possibly be? It certainly does not square with reality. Personally, I know people that have been struggling with unemployment for years and that still cannot find a decent job. And I get emails from readers all the time that are heartbroken because they are suffering through extended periods of unemployment. So what in the world is going on? How can the government be telling us that we are nearly at "full employment" when so many people can't find work? Could it be possible that the government numbers are misleading?

It is my contention that the official "unemployment rate" has become so politicized and so manipulated that it is essentially meaningless at this point. The following are 10 reasons why…

#1 Since February 2008, the size of the U.S. population has grown by 16.8 million people, but the number of full-time jobs has actually decreased by 140,000.

#2 The percentage of working age Americans that have a job right now is still about the same as it was during the depths of the last recession. Posted below is a chart that shows how the employment-population ratio has changed since the beginning of the decade. Does this look like a full-blown "employment recovery" to you?…









Employment Population Ratio 2015

#3 The primary reason for the decline in the official "unemployment rate" is the fact that the government now considers millions upon millions of long-term unemployed workers to "no longer be in the labor force". Just check out the following numbers…

The number of Americans participating in the labor force has been on a decline for the past few years. Nearly 33 percent of the Americans above age 16 are not part of the workforce, the highest number since 1978. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report issued recently has found 92,898,000 Americans above age 16 not a part of the labor force of the country as on February 2015.

When President Obama took over the office in January 2009, nearly 80,529,000 Americans were not a part of the labor force. The number has increase by nearly 12 million over the last few years.

#4 Over the past couple of years, the labor force participation rate in this country has been hovering near mutli-decade lows…

The labor force participation rate hovered between 62.9 percent and 62.7 percent in the eleven months from April 2014 through February, and has been 62.9 percent or lower in 13 of the 17 months since October 2013.

Prior to that, the last time the rate was below 63 percent was 37 years ago, in March 1978 when it was 62.8 percent, the same rate it was in February.

#5 When you add the number of "officially unemployed" Americans (8.7 million) to the number of Americans "not in the labor force" (92.9 million), you get a grand total of 101.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now. Does that sound like "full employment" to you?

#6 The quality of our jobs continues to decline. Right now, only 44 percent of U.S. adults are employed for 30 or more hours each week.

#7 Millions upon millions of Americans have been forced to take part-time jobs because that is all they can find, and wages for American workers are at depressingly low levels. The following numbers come directly from the Social Security Administration…

-39 percent of American workers make less than $20,000 a year.

-52 percent of American workers make less than $30,000 a year.

-63 percent of American workers make less than $40,000 a year.

-72 percent of American workers make less than $50,000 a year.

#8 The average duration of unemployment for an unemployed worker is still about twice as long as it was just prior to the last recession.

#9 Most Americans feel as though the Obama administration has done little to nothing to help the middle class. Just consider the following poll numbers…

According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center, Americans see government policies under the Obama administration as having mostly benefited wealthy people, large corporations and financial institutions.

Seventy-two percent of respondents said government policies have done little or nothing to help the middle class, and 65 percent said they have done nothing to help the poor. Sixty-eight percent said the policies have done nothing to help small businesses.

Meanwhile, 45 percent said the policies have done a "great deal" to help large banks and financial institutions, 38 percent say they have helped large corporations, and 36 percent say they have helped the wealthy.

#10 If the unemployment rate was calculated honestly, we would all be talking about the horrific "unemployment crisis" that we were currently enduring. According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, the real unemployment rate in the United States right now is above 23 percent.

Our politicians and the mainstream media are attempting to convince us that everything is just fine.

But what they are telling us simply does not match the cold, hard reality on the streets.

And since the talking heads on television are proclaiming that we are nearly at "full employment", that just makes millions upon millions of Americans that can't seem to find work no matter how hard they try feel even worse than they already do.

If jobs are "easy to get", then those that are chronically unemployment must have "something wrong" with them. That is the message that we are being given. If the mainstream media says that unemployment has gone way down, then anyone that is still unemployed must be really "lazy", right?

When you are unemployed for an extended period of time, it can really suck the life right out of you. It can be really tempting to believe that you are viewed as a failure by your family and friends. And for the government to lie to us like this just makes things even harder.

If you are unemployed and can't find a job right now, I want you to understand that you are caught in the midst of a long-term downward economic spiral which is going to get a lot worse.

When the government tells you that we are in a "recovery", they are lying to you.

And when the government tells you that things are about to get a lot better, they are lying to you.

Everyone has times in their lives when they get knocked down.

The key is to always get back up and to never, ever stop fighting.

Yes, we are facing some really hard economic times. But that does not mean that your life is over. Never give up, and never give in to fear. Just do what you can with what you have today, and tomorrow get up and fight with everything that you have got.

The truth is that the best chapters of your life could be just around the corner.

Just don't sit back and wait for the government to save you. If you are waiting for the government to save you, then you are going to be deeply disappointed.
Link


----------



## Mahdeew

If I was going to find facts based on random google search, I may as well turn on Fox or CNN.


----------



## Redoak49

The unemployment numbers that do not include those who have stopped looking are the worst measure measure of employment.

The per cent of adults without a full time job provides a better description of the issues.

The current rules and regulations have forced too many into part time jobs. I have great sympathy for those working several part time jobs to make ends meet.


----------



## Mahdeew

Redoak49, True. It is pitiful that I have to pay $170 a year just to find out what the real numbers are. They changed the title of full-time worker to someone who works 30 hours or more and now you are lucky if companies offer you 25 hours a week; try to live on that with no benefits.


----------



## RobS888

Does this include retired?

The number of Americans participating in the labor force has been on a decline for the past few years. Nearly 33 percent of the Americans above age 16 are not part of the workforce, the highest number since 1978. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report issued recently has found 92,898,000 Americans above age 16 not a part of the labor force of the country as on February 2015.

If you don't remove retired people then these numbers are completely bogus.

It is like in 2012 when republicans said 300,000 people were leaving the workforce every month! Well, duh 10,000 baby boomers/day were and are retiring. *Counting them in these numbers is lying. *


----------



## RobS888

> The unemployment numbers that do not include those who have stopped looking are the worst measure measure of employment.
> 
> The per cent of adults without a full time job provides a better description of the issues.
> 
> The current rules and regulations have forced too many into part time jobs. I have great sympathy for those working several part time jobs to make ends meet.
> 
> - Redoak49


Not if it includes the massive number of baby boomers retiring.


----------



## DrDirt

Thanks for posting mrjinx

That is the challenge - the person that had a 50 or 60K job, was laid off and is working part time at the BORG…

They are no longer counted as 'unemployed'

Those out of work for a long time… don't get counted either

Those that have gone onto disability… not unemployed.

Now those getting the wage increase from moving minimum wage up… are asking for hours to be cut, to MAINTAIN their EBT cards and section 8 housing.
All of that is absent from Bureau Stats on unemployment.


----------



## DrDirt

> Not if it includes the massive number of baby boomers retiring.
> 
> - RobS888


There will be a mix… when BLS talks of the "Labor Participation".... that is 18-65.
So someone who retired before 65 would be included as 'not participating'

But over 65 is not counted.

But similarly - - - the elimination of positions as people retire… makes it hard to get a good picture of 'available' jobs.
We have had a lot of that here. Where we downsize, as people leave the company… so without actual layoffs. But number of FTE in the plant is going down.

EDIT - - 
Labor participation is over 16 not 18.
I don't see the "recovery since 2009










Appears to me the jobs picture would be more accuratly ~3% worse than when Obama took office, and not on the 'Uptick"


----------



## RobS888

Dr dirt,

Even the quote says *some*, yet you say those… are. You present your edited version to make it seem like all low wage earners are doing this. What is your agenda here? Is it to show that all low wage earners are dishonest?

Now those getting the wage increase from moving minimum wage up… are asking for hours to be cut, to MAINTAIN their EBT cards and section 8 housing.
All of that is absent from Bureau Stats on unemployment.

I wouldn't be surprised if some people wanted to work less hours if full time employment is less than the safety net, just shows we need higher wages. I believe many retired people work part time as well, just shy of the amount that affects SS. Are they as guilty?


----------



## Mahdeew

Retired don't count:
To summarize, the employed are:

All those who did any work for pay or profit during the survey reference week.
All those who did at least 15 hours of unpaid work in a business or farm operated by a family member with whom they live.
All those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness, vacation, bad weather, labor dispute, or various personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off.
The unemployed are:

All those who did not have a job at all during the survey reference week, made at least one specific active effort to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work (unless temporarily ill).
All those who were not working and were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off. (They need not be looking for work to be classified as unemployed.)
Link
As you can see all the charts I have provided is from either Federal Reserve or Bureau of Labor and Statistics. It is their own data that tells the tale.


----------



## RobS888

> Not if it includes the massive number of baby boomers retiring.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> There will be a mix… when BLS talks of the "Labor Participation".... that is 18-65.
> So someone who retired before 65 would be included as not participating
> 
> But over 65 is not counted.
> 
> But similarly - - - the elimination of positions as people retire… makes it hard to get a good picture of available jobs.
> We have had a lot of that here. Where we downsize, as people leave the company… so without actual layoffs. But number of FTE in the plant is going down.
> 
> - DrDirt


I can't find the limit of 65 in any of the BLS literature. I can find 16 and over.

http://www.bls.gov/bls/cps_fact_sheets/lfp_mock.htm

Could you point me to an official definition that says 16 to 65?


----------



## DrDirt

Thanks for the English lesson Rob..

But somehow I suspect you are the only person that would think that talking about events and trends… EVER means 100.00% of any population.

By the way… if you are "full retirement age" you can earn as much as you want with no effect on SS benefits.

Are they guilty though … NO! Because Social Security at retirement is not an entitlement program your benefits are paid based on your earnings, and contributions. So whatever you are getting is "YOURS"

This is why I don't agree with "Means testing" for SS benefits.

Any other thoughts rattling around that I can correct for you?

www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10069.pdf
If you were born January 2, 1943, through January 1, 1955, , then your full retirement age for retirement insurance benefits is 66. If you work, and are full retirement age or older, *you may keep all of your benefits, no matter how much you earn.* If you're younger than full retirement age, there is a limit to how much you can earn and still receive full Social Security benefits.


----------



## RobS888

> Retired don t count:
> To summarize, the employed are:
> 
> All those who did any work for pay or profit during the survey reference week.
> All those who did at least 15 hours of unpaid work in a business or farm operated by a family member with whom they live.
> All those who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs because of illness, vacation, bad weather, labor dispute, or various personal reasons, whether or not they were paid for the time off.
> The unemployed are:
> 
> All those who did not have a job at all during the survey reference week, made at least one specific active effort to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work (unless temporarily ill).
> All those who were not working and were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off. (They need not be looking for work to be classified as unemployed.)
> Link
> As you can see all the charts I have provided is from either Federal Reserve or Bureau of Labor and Statistics. It is their own data that tells the tale.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I don't see how the retired are counted in this, so I can't assume they are excluded. To me retired is not part of the workforce.

The number of Americans participating in the labor force has been on a decline for the past few years. Nearly 33 percent of the Americans above age 16 are not part of the workforce, the highest number since 1978. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report issued recently has found 92,898,000 Americans above age 16 not a part of the labor force of the country as on February 2015.


----------



## RobS888

> Thanks for the English lesson Rob..
> 
> But somehow I suspect you are the only person that would think that talking about events and trends… EVER means 100.00% of any population.
> 
> By the way… if you are "full retirement age" you can earn as much as you want with no effect on SS benefits.
> 
> Are they guilty though … NO! Because Social Security at retirement is not an entitlement program your benefits are paid based on your earnings, and contributions. So whatever you are getting is "YOURS"
> 
> This is why I don t agree with "Means testing" for SS benefits.
> 
> Any other thoughts rattling around that I can correct for you?
> 
> www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10069.pdf
> If you were born January 2, 1943, through January 1, 1955, , then your full retirement age for retirement insurance benefits is 66. If you work, and are full retirement age or older, *you may keep all of your benefits, no matter how much you earn.* If you're younger than full retirement age, there is a limit to how much you can earn and still receive full Social Security benefits.
> 
> - DrDirt


I stand corrected on earnings during SS, I thought it was reduced $1 for each $1 you earned.

Events and trends are different and anecdotes are just stories. You present an anecdote as if it was a trend, a form of lying. I'm concerned about you presenting an anecdote and pretending it means 100%.


----------



## Mahdeew

Rob, I don't think Dr.Dirt is saying low wage workers are dishonest. I encounter them all the time and no, they are not dishonest they are just trying to jump through the loopholes so they can survive. When the government tells me for as long as I make $20000/year, I can get food stamp and perhaps additional help (which I need to survive) but, if I make $20001/year, my kids are no longer are eligible for medicaid, and my foodstamp will drop by 80%, I have no choice but to stay in that trap. Yes, people go to their employers and say cut my hours because your extra two hours will make me homeless in the long run; so, thanks but no thanks. That is the problem with our welfare system; you either live in the trap or die. Reminds of the eagle song hotel california except this one is motel california.


----------



## RobS888

> Not if it includes the massive number of baby boomers retiring.
> - RobS888
> 
> There will be a mix… when BLS talks of the "Labor Participation".... that is 18-65.
> So someone who retired before 65 would be included as not participating
> 
> But over 65 is not counted.
> 
> But similarly - - - the elimination of positions as people retire… makes it hard to get a good picture of available jobs.
> We have had a lot of that here. Where we downsize, as people leave the company… so without actual layoffs. But number of FTE in the plant is going down.
> 
> EDIT - -
> Labor participation is over 16 not 18.
> I don t see the "recovery since 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appears to me the jobs picture would be more accuratly ~3% worse than when Obama took office, and not on the Uptick"
> - DrDirt


Even your chart says 16 and over, so of course as people retire it goes down, duh.

EDIT:

Is this just to try and ding Obama?


----------



## RobS888

> Rob, I don t think Dr.Dirt is saying low wage workers are dishonest. I encounter them all the time and no, they are not dishonest they are just trying to jump through the loopholes so they can survive. When the government tells me for as long as I make $20000/year, I can get food stamp and perhaps additional help (which I need to survive) but, if I make $20001/year, my kids are no longer are eligible for medicaid, and my foodstamp will drop by 80%, I have no choice but to stay in that trap. Yes, people go to their employers and say cut my hours because your extra two hours will make me homeless in the long run; so, thanks but no thanks. That is the problem with our welfare system; you either live in the trap or die. Reminds of the eagle song hotel california except this one is motel california.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Sounds like that is donut hole for poverty. I still question his agenda in showing this in this way seeming to paint all low wage earners as doing this if close to the cut off.


----------



## Mahdeew

The unemployed are:

All those who did not have a job at all during the survey reference week, made at least one specific active effort to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work (unless temporarily ill).
All those who were not working and were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off. *(They need not be looking for work to be classified as unemployed.)*
This based on weekly and monthly survey. We will get the next survey tomorrow. The retired are not counted as unemployed.


----------



## Mahdeew

A series of questions is asked each month of persons not in the labor force to obtain information about their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work. These questions include the following (the bolded words are emphasized when read by the interviewers).

Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?
What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the last 4 weeks?
Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months?
Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
These questions form the basis for estimating the number of people who are not in the labor force but who are considered to be marginally attached to the labor force. These are individuals without jobs who are not currently looking for work (and therefore are not counted as unemployed), but who nevertheless have demonstrated some degree of labor force attachment. Specifically, to be counted as marginally attached to the labor force, they must indicate that they currently want a job, have looked for work in the last 12 months (or since they last worked if they worked within the last 12 months), and are available for work. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. Discouraged workers report they are not currently looking for work for one of the following types of reasons:

They believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area.
They had previously been unable to find work.
They lack the necessary schooling, training, skills, or experience.
Employers think they are too young or too old, or
They face some other type of discrimination.


----------



## RobS888

> The unemployed are:
> 
> All those who did not have a job at all during the survey reference week, made at least one specific active effort to find a job during the prior 4 weeks, and were available for work (unless temporarily ill).
> All those who were not working and were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had been laid off. *(They need not be looking for work to be classified as unemployed.)*
> This based on weekly and monthly survey. We will get the next survey tomorrow. The retired are not counted as unemployed.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Correct, however the data you presented doesn't count unemployed, it counts those not in the workforce. Completely different.

The number of Americans participating in the labor force has been on a decline for the past few years. Nearly 33 percent of the Americans above age 16 are not part of the workforce, the highest number since 1978. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report issued recently has found 92,898,000 Americans above age 16 not a part of the labor force of the country as on February 2015.


----------



## RobS888

> A series of questions is asked each month of persons not in the labor force to obtain information about their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work. These questions include the following (the bolded words are emphasized when read by the interviewers).
> 
> Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?
> What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the last 4 weeks?
> Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months?
> Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
> These questions form the basis for estimating the number of people who are not in the labor force but who are considered to be marginally attached to the labor force. These are individuals without jobs who are not currently looking for work (and therefore are not counted as unemployed), but who nevertheless have demonstrated some degree of labor force attachment. Specifically, to be counted as marginally attached to the labor force, they must indicate that they currently want a job, have looked for work in the last 12 months (or since they last worked if they worked within the last 12 months), and are available for work. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. Discouraged workers report they are not currently looking for work for one of the following types of reasons:
> 
> They believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area.
> They had previously been unable to find work.
> They lack the necessary schooling, training, skills, or experience.
> Employers think they are too young or too old, or
> They face some other type of discrimination.
> 
> - mrjinx007


OK, then they probably subtract the employed and looking from the total called and give a ratio.

I don't see that the retired are called out anywhere, so they must be included in "not participating" in workforce.

EDIT:

I found this for you:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf about 1/2 way down.

*Not in the labor force*

Persons who are *neither employed nor unemployed *are not in the labor force. This category includes *retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work*. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.


----------



## DrDirt

> I don t see the "recovery since 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appears to me the jobs picture would be more accuratly ~3% worse than when Obama took office, and not on the Uptick"
> - DrDirt
> 
> Even your chart says 16 and over, so of course as people retire it goes down, duh.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Is this just to try and ding Obama?
> 
> - RobS888


Your argument against the BLS Facts and data would only work if 2009, 10, 11…..were counting retirement differently

Obama CLAIMS that unemployment is below his 2008 level he inherited.

The chart shows "it depends how you count it"

Percent of people in the work force has gone down 3 percent. It looks flat for 2014->15 but certainly NOT trending upwards, nor close to 2008 levels.

One only needs to look around.. go to a McDonalds and notice that ther person making your Big Mac is age 43 not 16 or 17 to know that this "Recovery" and "better than when he took office" is a charade.

Do things at your employer look just as rosy as they did "pre crash"? They sure don't where I live.

So when people tell me about the "recovery".... and low unemployment… I am more than a little skeptical, but I live OUTSIDE the DC Beltway.


----------



## RobS888

> I don t see the "recovery since 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appears to me the jobs picture would be more accuratly ~3% worse than when Obama took office, and not on the Uptick"
> - DrDirt
> 
> Even your chart says 16 and over, so of course as people retire it goes down, duh.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Is this just to try and ding Obama?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Your argument against the BLS Facts and data would only work if 2009, 10, 11…..were counting retirement differently
> 
> Obama CLAIMS that unemployment is below his 2008 level he inherited.
> 
> The chart shows "it depends how you count it"
> 
> Percent of people in the work force has gone down 3 percent. It looks flat for 2014->15 but certainly NOT trending upwards, nor close to 2008 levels.
> 
> One only needs to look around.. go to a McDonalds and notice that ther person making your Big Mac is 43 not 17 to know that this "Recovery" and "better than when he took office" is a charade.
> 
> Do things at your employer look just as rosy as they did "pre crash"? They sure don t where I live.
> 
> So when people tell me about the "recovery".... and low unemployment… I am more than a little skeptical, but I live OUTSIDE the DC Beltway.
> 
> - DrDirt


How can labor force go up if the largest generation is leaving it? It will never surpass the rate during the baby boomers productive years, until after they have passed away. You are showing a complete lack of understanding of history, generational effects, and well, basic statistics.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Bob,
> 
> I will give some creditably to the numbers attributed to Bernie Sanders but that is still a *far cry from 23%*.
> 
> I haven t looked for a job in six years and neither have eight of my former colleagues who all got laid off at the same time.
> 
> *Therefore we must be part of that 23%? *
> 
> - oldnovice


Mrjinx eloquently made an eloquent response, 1/3 of the work force is idle because the points oligarchy's evil agenda.



> As a business owner and employer, I can tell you the work ethic is not there anymore.
> I can also tell you it is very hard to find good workers.
> 
> You can cite all the statistics you want but I ll give you an example of the reality:
> 
> I have a single girl working part time for me who could go back home and live with her family. But because she wants to party, she wants to live alone. So she has a section 8 apartment she pays $250/mo and she asked me to cut her hours back so she could qualify for food stamps.
> 
> I stood in line behind a woman buying $65 worth of cakes and 6 bottles of soda and paid for it with an EBT card. THEN - get this - the clerk asked "do you want cash back?". While her young granddaughter watched with interest and a 30-ish young woman bagged her groceries. This is the kind of nonsense going on and it is dividing our country.
> 
> - rwe2156


These "I know a guy" stories are really quite irrelevant in the over all analysis. Slick Willie started this in his State of the Union Addresses.

I never found that to be the case; however, I was a union contractor and paid good wages and benefits. When I was working a real job, I didn't have any issues with those on my crews. Most others did. Maybe I was just lucky or maybe the employees responded to the way they were treated and having the tools and materials available 
to do a day's work rather than trying scrounge and to make due with what was available on site. I'm not saying dead beats do not exist, I'm saying I doubt they are the dominate attitude in the US work force. Most people want a good job and the forces of evil are denying that to more and more of the US population.

I see people 400 # people in stores to riding the motorized carts buying an all sugar diet too. They would be much better off walking, buying rabbit food and munching a lot of celery. Many of us, US, do make poor choices. I really do not see how those few cases are an indictment of the entire system or society.


----------



## DrDirt

> How can labor force go up if the largest generation is leaving it? It will never surpass the rate during the baby boomers productive years, until after they have passed away. You are showing a complete lack of understanding of history, generational effects, and well, basic statistics.
> 
> - RobS888


Immigration… the Boomers are also sick and dying too. But our population has grown by 16 million people since Obama took office.

And as has been pointed out, retired don't count in the participation.
http://economics.about.com/od/unemploymentrate/f/labor_force.htm
Not a hard concept.
Question: What is the Labor Force Participation Rate?

Answer: The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in an economy who:

Are employed
Are unemployed but looking for a job

*Typically "working-age persons" is defined as people between the ages of 16-64. *People in those age groups who are not counted as participating in the labor force are typically students, homemakers, and persons under the age of 64 who are retired.
In the United States the labor force participation rate is usually around 67-68%.

Or from BLS

*Not in the labor force*
http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf
Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.

Good story/explanation..
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/15/u-s-unemployment-retirees-are-not-the-labor-exodus-problem/


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt, immigration would only offset at most 1/2 of retirement.

During Obama's term 300,000/month retired. That is 3.6 million/year x 7 = 25.2 million, so far. Those are all working age. Immigration will be spread across the age spectrum but assume the same as the normal participation rate gives .68×16 = 11 million working age immigrants.

So, more than 2 times as many retire as working age immigrants join the workforce. So for the statistically challenged the labor force participation will go down by 1.8 million per year. Ignoring factors doesn't make them go away.

Do you realize how many baby boomers there are/were? 76 million! Their effect cannot be over stated.

Seriously is that it? Amy other weak attempts to ding Obama?


----------



## RobS888

> And as has been pointed out, retired don t count in the participation.
> http://economics.about.com/od/unemploymentrate/f/labor_force.htm
> Not a hard concept.
> Question: What is the Labor Force Participation Rate?
> 
> Answer: The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in an economy who:
> 
> Are employed
> Are unemployed but looking for a job
> 
> Or from BLS
> 
> *Not in the labor force*
> http://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#nlf
> Persons who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. This category includes retired persons, students, those taking care of children or other family members, and others who are neither working nor seeking work. Information is collected on their desire for and availability for work, job search activity in the prior year, and reasons for not currently searching. See also Labor force and Discouraged workers.


Thank you for proving my point, that retired are not counted in the labor force.

From Wiki:

The labour force participation rate, LFPR (or economic activity rate, EAR), is the ratio between the labour force and the overall size of their cohort (national population of the same age range).

This means you take all the people over 16 and see how many are working then divide by their cohort or all the people the same age. Retired people aren't excluded from this calculation.

Really it isn't hard to understand. Just accept you are wrong and move on.


----------



## DrDirt

> Really it isn t hard to understand. Just accept you are wrong and move on.
> 
> - RobS888


They have everyone over 16… ok

But you are saying the participation is BECAUSE of retirement….

That doesn't fit. turns out BLS includes breakouts by age.

They graph showed TOTAL…
But every age group is dropping!

So accept you are pursuing a false premise and tell us again about how AWESOME the economy is, and how we have Record low unemployment.

If you want breakdowns by age….

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/labor-force-projections-to-2022-the-labor-force-participation-rate-continues-to-fall-1.htm


----------



## DrDirt

Looks to me that the driver is that there are no jobs for 16-24 year olds… not retirees leaving the work force.. as those age groups % participation is flat to increasing.

Time for a new 'theory' rob although people are retireing… it is not happening nor expected to happen at a greater proportion in the next 6 years.
So what group is driving the decreasing percentage? Young folks… not retirement OLD folks are going to pull the averages UP…
That there are no jobs for new grads, and students is behind this, and driving the low engagement of the young.


----------



## RobS888

> Really it isn t hard to understand. Just accept you are wrong and move on.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Indeed - - recognize that RETIREES are not part of the labor force… thus NOT part of labor force Participation isn t hard to understand…
> 
> So accept you are pursuing a false premise and tell us again about how AWESOME the economy is, and how we have Record low unemployment.
> 
> - DrDirt


Retires not being part of the labor force is correct, however they are part of the calculation to determine the rate. They are in the not employed category. The BLS site says that. I don't know how to make you see that they are counted as not in the labor force, so they affect the rate.

I haven't said anything either way about the economy, just showing how biased the data you guys use is.


----------



## DrDirt

> Retires not being part of the labor force is correct, however they are part of the calculation to determine the rate. They are in the not employed category. The BLS site says that. I don t know how to make you see that they are counted as not in the labor force, so they affect the rate.
> 
> I haven t said anything either way about the economy, just showing how biased the data you guys use is.
> 
> - RobS888


That is true that the old are part of the calculation…. I went back and adjusted that.

But recomment you look at what age group is driving the participation rate…. because the participation RATE for those over 65 is increasing….if they were all retiring… then that rate would be DROPPING, and it isn't.

The Average rate is being pulled down because of the young not having work… not the old leaving the workforce.

But please tell us how to interpret the stats broken out by age.

You say that "there were no jobs and people had no choice but to go on disability" 
Others started in about how jinx's 23% number is not realistic, and how we have low unemployment.

We pointed out that particiaption is down and the "record low rates" are based on not counting people.

You contend that participation rate drop is BECAUSE of retirement.

it isn't


----------



## RobS888

> Looks to me that the driver is that there are no jobs for 16-24 year olds… not retirees leaving the work force.. as those age groups % participation is flat to increasing.
> 
> Time for a new theory rob although people are retireing… it is not happening nor expected to happen at a greater proportion in the next 6 years.
> So what group is driving the decreasing percentage? Young folks… not retirement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt


So take out the retired and tell me what the rate is? That was and is my question.

Also, as the retirement age increases (the end of the baby boomers need 70 years) there would appear to be an increase in the 62+ age group. Again not hard to understand here.


----------



## Mahdeew

Not only the retired are not counted (they are not considered employed or unemployed), those who were forced to retirement are not counted as well as the homeless. The U3 is primarily based on what states report (how many people are getting unemployment) - that survey is only a very small part of the actual equation.


----------



## Mahdeew

Rob,
Those are the walmart greeters you see on that chart. They are participating in the labor market, i.e., at retirement age but can not afford to retire.


----------



## DrDirt

> - DrDirt
> 
> So take out the retired and tell me what the rate is? That was and is my question.
> 
> Also, as the retirement age increases (the end of the baby boomers need 70 years) there would appear to be an increase in the 62+ age group. Again not hard to understand here.
> 
> - RobS888


Do your own math… it is simple that if the participation RATE is increaseing to flat for everyone over 25
But taking a NOSEDIVE… for age 16-24..

25-54 stays flat at ~80-81% as it has for decades.

That the decrease in the TOTAL PARTICIPATION (RATE as a %).... must be due to the 16-24 demographic

look at 16-19 year olds… participation (not having to be full time… just working) will drop to 27%


----------



## RobS888

> Retires not being part of the labor force is correct, however they are part of the calculation to determine the rate. They are in the not employed category. The BLS site says that. I don t know how to make you see that they are counted as not in the labor force, so they affect the rate.
> 
> I haven t said anything either way about the economy, just showing how biased the data you guys use is.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> That is true that the old are part of the calculation…. I went back and adjusted that.
> 
> But recomment you look at what age group is driving the participation rate…. because the participation RATE for those over 65 is increasing….if they were all retiring… then that rate would be DROPPING, and it isn t.
> 
> The Average rate is being pulled down because of the young not having work… not the old leaving the workforce.
> 
> But please tell us how to interpret the stats broken out by age.
> 
> - DrDirt


They all aren't retiring, but huge numbers are. If the age to retire goes up, the number working in the age groups go up as well. lets say that the rate of boomers retiring is slowing because they need to work longer to get full SS. If that is their main retirement income.

My main point is that this statistic doesn't tell us anything useful.

What happens if 2% more kids go to college? BOOM they are in the non participation category.


----------



## RobS888

> Not only the retired are not counted (they are not considered employed or unemployed), those who were forced to retirement are not counted as well as the homeless. The U3 is primarily based on what states report (how many people are getting unemployment) - that survey is only a very small part of the actual equation.
> 
> - mrjinx007


They are counted in the total, so they affect the rate.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob,
> Those are the walmart greeters you see on that chart. They are participating in the labor market, i.e., at retirement age but can not afford to retire.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I suspect that is correct that many may seek part time employment to make ends meet until SS kicks in.


----------



## RobS888

Don't forget RMoney's 47% included the retired, students, stay at home moms, and injured vets. It was lying and many saw it as such.


----------



## DrDirt

> They all aren t retiring, but huge numbers are. If the age to retire goes up, the number working in the age groups go up as well. lets say that the rate of boomers retiring is slowing because they need to work longer to get full SS. If that is their main retirement income.
> 
> My main point is that this statistic doesn t tell us anything useful.
> 
> What happens if 2% more kids go to college? BOOM they are in the non participation category.
> 
> - RobS888


So what group do you propose is dragging down the AVERAGE? the 4 age groups that are INCREASING… or the one age group that is decreasing dramatically?

How many kids going to college don't have a summer job? So it isn't enrollment… but there are no jobs.
(kids attending college at a higher rate, but taking a summer job/working on/off campus wouldn't add to unemployment or NON particiaption rate in your example)

There is no shortage of information on the "boomerang" kids moving home after college because there is no work
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/magazine/its-official-the-boomerang-kids-wont-leave.html?_r=0

85% of 2011 college graduates moved back home after graduation
http://www.collegeparents.org/members/resources/articles/your-college-graduate-moving-back-home

etc

The problem is 2 fold….
The boomers cannot afford to retire… as Mr jinx points to the Walmart greeters and food testers in Costco

As people retire, companies are eliminating positions…. so there are no jobs for the young.

But hey the new Pacific Trade deal will fix that up…. right?


----------



## DrDirt

> Don t forget RMoney s 47% included the retired, students, stay at home moms, and injured vets. It was lying and many saw it as such.
> 
> - RobS888


No it wasn't.

Sure it included all forms of support, but pointed to the overall populace, that you essentially have 1/2 the people working to support the other half. Historically it was more like 65/35 makers to receivers. so we are at a tipping point economically… where the economics cannot work and the balance needs to be shifted more towards those paying in, than those receiving payment..

Others just parsed the language to say "oh god he is picking on grandma or Vets"

With a large DEPENDANT population… we can count on people to continue to vote for Santa Claus… to promise them easy living, Bread and Circuses.


----------



## Mahdeew

Dr. Dirt, 
the chart you posted clearly shows an increase in the 65+ population while a decrease in 16-24 since 1992. The sad part is that according to the projections, 10 1/2% of the workforce will be 75 and older. 
It is called the bionic elderly. Japan's population at the current trend will decline by 20 million as they reach 2040. This is causing huge problems for they need workers to work longer in life to keep up production. Cyberdyne is coming to the rescue by creating the scaled down version of their full-body robotic suit HAL introduced in 2013.


----------



## RobS888

> Do your own math… it is simple that if the participation RATE is increaseing to flat for everyone over 25
> But taking a NOSEDIVE… for age 16-24..
> 
> 25-54 stays flat at ~80-81% as it has for decades.
> 
> That the decrease in the TOTAL PARTICIPATION (RATE as a %).... must be due to the 16-24 demographic
> 
> look at 16-19 year olds… participation (not having to be full time… just working) will drop to 27%
> 
> - DrDirt


College participation is at an all time high, so of course the 16 to 24 labor participation is going down, especially if they finished HS during the recession. Again the statistic doesn't tell you why they are/aren't participating. Do more kids going to college mean the economy is bad? I suspect for older students it would point that way, but not for 16-24.


----------



## RobS888

> Don t forget RMoney s 47% included the retired, students, stay at home moms, and injured vets. It was lying and many saw it as such.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> No it wasn t.
> 
> Sure it included all forms of support, but pointed to the overall populace, that you essentially have 1/2 the people working to support the other half. Historically it was more like 65/35 makers to receivers. so we are at a tipping point economically… where the economics cannot work and the balance needs to be shifted more towards those paying in, than those receiving payment..
> 
> Others just parsed the language to say "oh god he is picking on grandma or Vets"
> 
> With a large DEPENDANT population… we can count on people to continue to vote for Santa Claus… to promise them easy living, Bread and Circuses.
> 
> - DrDirt


Do the math, it can't include the retirees. You showed that only 62% of the population have jobs, so where is the 47%. Based on 62% that leaves 38% to include retirees, students, vets, stay at home moms.

It was a lie to make rich people feel good about themselves. Should be lie of the decade.

EDIT:
SS says they pay out to 64 million people (granted you think part of the 8.8 million disabled are takers). If the population is 320 million, 64/320 = 20%, 62%+20% =82% (there may be some overlap, so lets round to 80%) So 80% work/are retired.

You already said SS is an earned right, so they can't be counted in RMoney's 47%... correct? I suspect he considered anyone getting a check from the government in the 47% regardless of if they worked for it, earned it from SS, or were actually destitute.

Are retired people takers in your mind as they are in RMoney's?


----------



## oldnovice

*"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"* is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.


----------



## RobS888

> Dr. Dirt,
> the chart you posted clearly shows an increase in the 65+ population while a decrease in 16-24 since 1992. The sad part is that according to the projections, 10 1/2% of the workforce will be 75 and older.
> It is called the bionic elderly. Japan's population at the current trend will decline by 20 million as they reach 2040. This is causing huge problems for they need workers to work longer in life to keep up production. Cyberdyne is coming to the rescue by creating the scaled down version of their full-body robotic suit HAL introduced in 2013.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I think you may have read the chart wrong. In 2022 10.5 % of people 75 and older will be working, they will be 3.3% of the total projected workforce in 2022.


----------



## RobS888

> *"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"* is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent s point.
> 
> - oldnovice


Absolutely!


----------



## RobS888

> They all aren t retiring, but huge numbers are. If the age to retire goes up, the number working in the age groups go up as well. lets say that the rate of boomers retiring is slowing because they need to work longer to get full SS. If that is their main retirement income.
> 
> My main point is that this statistic doesn t tell us anything useful.
> 
> What happens if 2% more kids go to college? BOOM they are in the non participation category.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So what group do you propose is dragging down the AVERAGE? the 4 age groups that are INCREASING… or the one age group that is decreasing dramatically?
> 
> How many kids going to college don t have a summer job? So it isn t enrollment… but there are no jobs.
> (kids attending college at a higher rate, but taking a summer job/working on/off campus wouldn t add to unemployment or NON particiaption rate in your example)
> 
> There is no shortage of information on the "boomerang" kids moving home after college because there is no work
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/magazine/its-official-the-boomerang-kids-wont-leave.html?_r=0
> 
> 85% of 2011 college graduates moved back home after graduation
> http://www.collegeparents.org/members/resources/articles/your-college-graduate-moving-back-home
> 
> etc
> 
> The problem is 2 fold….
> The boomers cannot afford to retire… as Mr jinx points to the Walmart greeters and food testers in Costco
> 
> As people retire, companies are eliminating positions…. so there are no jobs for the young.
> 
> But hey the new Pacific Trade deal will fix that up…. right?
> - DrDirt


I fail to see what a summer job has to do with this? Unless they call during the summer it wouldn't be counted. and we know they call each week, so it would show the participation rate bumping up in the summer, but dropping for the 8 other months.

Those food tasters in Costco make $17/hour! Not too shabby.


----------



## RobS888

I suspect I'll be drunk by 9:15!

https://reverbpress.com/politics/reverb-press-2016-gop-presidential-debate-drinking-game/


----------



## Mahdeew

Nope, it says that the annual growth rate will go from 1.3 to 4.1 to 3.3


----------



## Mahdeew

Pretty soon we will all will agree on the same subject and there will be no conflict and we will all live happily everafter.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> *"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"* is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent s point.
> 
> - oldnovice


+1 ;-)) My career would not be possible in today's economy. Self analysis and critical thinking will prove more to you than all the stats on the www.


----------



## RobS888

> Nope, it says that the annual growth rate will go from 1.3 to 4.1 to 3.3
> 
> - mrjinx007


You are correct, it is the growth rate.

If you look at the column you got the 10.5 % from, you will see that they add up to far more than 100, so the rate is based on the left most column. 10.5% of people 75+ will be working in 2022.

2 data points from the same column:

16 to 24 50% (50% of them will be working)
25 to 54 81% (81% of them will be working)

They equal 131% add your 10.5 gives 141.5% not meaningful. So you need to read the row heading.


----------



## Mahdeew

Let me wrap this around my feeble mind. If the population is 1000, and 500 of them are between the age of 16-24, then 80% of that population is 400 people which is about 40% of the overall population with the remaining of 600 people which is the 60%. Now, if there are 100 people age 75+, and 50% of them are working then we have 50 people. So, adding 80% + 50% = 130% off course doesn't make sense. But, adding 600 people + 50 People =650 or 65% of the overall population does make sense.


----------



## oldnovice

*Bob*, I do understand that your career would not be possible in today's economy but that is a choice everyone has to make. There are many careers that are not just viable for a decent living and there are others that can provide more money than you can burn. That is a choice we must make and live with the best we can!

I made my career choice at age 15 and retired at 66, no regrets, no self analysis required and if I had to do it over again I would have stayed in school to get a masters or even doctorate degree. Then I could be into some real money. But that's hindsight.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> *Bob*, I do understand that your career would not be possible in today's economy but that is a choice everyone has to make. There are many careers that are not just viable for a decent living and there are others that can provide more money than you can burn. That is a choice we must make and live with the best we can!
> 
> I made my career choice at age 15 and retired at 66, no regrets, no self analysis required and if I had to do it over again I would have stayed in school to get a masters or even doctorate degree. Then I could be into some real money. But that s hindsight.
> 
> - oldnovice


I have no regrets other than trusting the Dr that disabled me with Topamax and trusting Merrill Lynch. But I still retired in comfort. What I meant is the young people today do not have the opportunities we had. My SIL works 2x as hard for 1/2 as much and he is very competent and productive. The [email protected][email protected]$ that destroyed America need to be taken down and I hope Bernie Sanders gets the opportunity to start that process in January 2017.


----------



## RobS888

> Let me wrap this around my feeble mind. If the population is 1000, and 500 of them are between the age of 16-24, then 80% of that population is 400 people which is about 40% of the overall population with the remaining of 600 people which is the 60%. Now, if there are 100 people age 75+, and 50% of them are working then we have 50 people. So, adding 80% + 50% = 130% off course doesn t make sense. But, adding 600 people + 50 People =650 or 65% of the overall population does make sense.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I think you got it.


----------



## RobS888

Clinton/Sanders!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Maybe Sanders/Clinton?? Hilary could bring a lot of the base that might stay home.


----------



## RobS888

OK, Sanders/Clinton!


----------



## RobS888

I have some sad news!

Tonight is Jon Stewart's last night!


----------



## patcollins

Well the July unemployment rate has increased back to 6.2% and layoffs are the highest in 4 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/01/economy-adds-209000-jobs-in-july-unemployment-rate-edges-up-to-6-2-percent/


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I have some sad news!
> 
> Tonight is Jon Stewart s last night!
> 
> - RobS888


I don't know him. Thom Hartmann mentioned Ed Schultz was cut by MSNBC. Thom mentioned he was an avid opponent of the SE Asian trade deal and seemed to indicate there is probably a correlation. One of the reasons the Fairness Doctrine Reagan ended needs to be reinstated and the internet needs to be a public carrier, not a corporate monopoly.

A couple months ago our Congressman Dave Reichert (R-WA) introduced expanding Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of trade deals, using money from Medicare. Obviously they know the trade deal will kill more American jobs. This accomplishes two goals for them, cutting Medicare and shipping more jobs overseas increasing competition at home and ultimately lower wages lining the pockets of the .1%.


----------



## RobS888

> I have some sad news!
> 
> Tonight is Jon Stewart s last night!
> 
> - RobS888
> I don t know him. Thom Hartmann mentioned Ed Schultz was cut by MSNBC. Thom mentioned he was an avid opponent of the SE Asian trade deal and seemed to indicate there is probably a correlation. One of the reasons the Fairness Doctrine Reagan ended needs to be reinstated and the internet needs to be a public carrier, not a corporate monopoly.
> 
> A couple months ago our Congressman Dave Reichert (R-WA) introduced expanding Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of trade deals, using money from Medicare. Obviously they know the trade deal will kill more American jobs. This accomplishes two goals for them, cutting Medicare and shipping more jobs overseas increasing competition at home and ultimately lower wages lining the pockets of the .1%.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Stewart is a comedian/satirist. His "fifty Fox News lies in six seconds" is hysterical.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/jon-stewart-50-fox-news-lies-in-6-seconds_n_6758614.html

Politifact checked into them all…

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/feb/26/fact-checks-behind-daily-shows-50-fox-news-lies/

He is retiring with good numbers.


----------



## RobS888

> Well the July unemployment rate has increased back to 6.2% and layoffs are the highest in 4 years.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/01/economy-adds-209000-jobs-in-july-unemployment-rate-edges-up-to-6-2-percent/
> 
> - patcollins


True, but we added 209,000 jobs, not to shabby.


----------



## oldnovice

*Pat*, thanks, at least the umemployment rate isn't 23% some people claim! I read the article but I saw *nothing about layoffs*, just more people entering the workforce and not having jobs as yet!


----------



## patcollins

> *Pat*, thanks, at least the umemployment rate isn t 23% some people claim! I read the article but I saw *nothing about layoffs*, just more people entering the workforce and not having jobs as yet!
> 
> - oldnovice


Sorry that was a different article

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/us-job-layoffs-reach-highest-level-in-4-years/ar-BBlrXzY

Not sure I believe it is really that low, but it all depends on how you count it and there could probably be a million different ways. I do know we are in better shape than we were in 2009 but worse than we were in 2005.


----------



## Mahdeew

Here is a cool app.


----------



## patcollins

> True, but we added 209,000 jobs, not to shabby.
> 
> - RobS888


Depends on what is being added and what is being removed.


----------



## oldnovice

*Mrjinx*, since you are so particular about everything, the link you provided is *NOT* an app, it is a web site!

*app*
ap/
nounCOMPUTING
a self-contained program or piece of software designed to fulfill a particular purpose; an application, especially as *downloaded* by a user to a mobile device.

You can get the correct definition with Google!


----------



## RobS888

> *Pat*, thanks, at least the umemployment rate isn t 23% some people claim! I read the article but I saw *nothing about layoffs*, just more people entering the workforce and not having jobs as yet!
> 
> - oldnovice
> 
> Sorry that was a different article
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/us-job-layoffs-reach-highest-level-in-4-years/ar-BBlrXzY
> 
> Not sure I believe it is really that low, but it all depends on how you count it and there could probably be a million different ways. I do know we are in better shape than we were in 2009 but worse than we were in 2005.
> - patcollins


I totally agree. We are doing much better, but it is going to take a long time to get over the recession. That shouldn't really be a surprise, it was like we had an economic heart attack.


----------



## oldnovice

What we need is a defibrillator!
If there is one thing common in this forum is that we are all fed up with the lack of performance by our congress.
If we ran a business like the government tries to run this country we would have been bankrupt and out of business quite some time ago!


----------



## Mahdeew

oldnovice, thanks for correcting me. I am not really particular about things. However, as it relates to the economy, I must have the right information in order to manage my business and investments successfully. I am not trying to prove anyone right or wrong; just participating in the conversation by presenting my point of view.


----------



## DrDirt

> You already said SS is an earned right, so they can t be counted in RMoney s 47%... correct? *I suspect he considered anyone getting a check from the government in the 47% regardless of if they worked for it, earned it from SS, or were actually destitute.*
> 
> Are retired people takers in your mind as they are in RMoney s?
> 
> - RobS888


The bold part is the correct portion.
Yes SS is earned (though some want to take it away if you have saved for retirement)

Romney pointed to what fraction of the population is DEPENDANT ON THE GOVERMENT.

There isn't money in the SS fund, yes it was earned, but the trust fund is full of IOU's.

So there is a more general problem that you have ~1/2 the population, living off the other half. that doesn't work economically, and is why we continue to dive deeper in debt.

Obama is on track to add 2X as much to the National debt as Bush did.

Who does more damage… the guy that takes us from 5->10 Trillion (so +5 Trillion in debt) or the guy that takes us fro 10-> 20 Trillion (+10 Trillion)

Or are they 'equal' in that they both Doubled the debt under their two terms?

It is funny to listen to people talk about how Obama "cut the deficit"... the debt tells a different story. All Obama can really claim is that we borrow less per year from China than we did during his first year.

I don't see a single year on the horizon that is equal or lower than Bush's terms, though 2009 is a harder one to judge…. as the bailouts were officially on the fiscal year… so shared.


----------



## RobS888

> You already said SS is an earned right, so they can t be counted in RMoney s 47%... correct? *I suspect he considered anyone getting a check from the government in the 47% regardless of if they worked for it, earned it from SS, or were actually destitute.*
> 
> Are retired people takers in your mind as they are in RMoney s?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> The bold part is the correct portion.
> Yes SS is earned (though some want to take it away if you have saved for retirement)
> 
> Romney pointed to what fraction of the population is DEPENDANT ON THE GOVERMENT.
> 
> There isn t money in the SS fund, yes it was earned, but the trust fund is full of IOU s.
> 
> So there is a more general problem that you have ~1/2 the population, living off the other half. that doesn t work economically, and is why we continue to dive deeper in debt.
> 
> Obama is on track to add 2X as much to the National debt as Bush did.
> 
> Who does more damage… the guy that takes us from 5->10 Trillion (so +5 Trillion in debt) or the guy that takes us fro 10-> 20 Trillion (+10 Trillion)
> 
> Or are they equal in that they both Doubled the debt under their two terms?
> 
> It is funny to listen to people talk about how Obama "cut the deficit"... the debt tells a different story. All Obama can really claim is that we borrow less per year from China than we did during his first year.
> 
> I don t see a single year on the horizon that is equal or lower than Bush s terms, though 2009 is a harder one to judge…. as the bailouts were officially on the fiscal year… so shared.
> 
> - DrDirt


You say Obama like he personally somehow spent the money or created laws that did so, the recession has more to do with the size of the debt than any single person, (except perhaps Bush, he asked to go to war) Obama has reduced the deficit by 1/2 pretty darn fast. There is no way anyone could have reduced the deficit to zero, let alone enough to start paying back the debt. Don't forget 50% of the debt is owed to us. China has 1/16th of our debt. So we borrow from ourself mostly.

Is that your basic agenda, to try to sling anything you can at the president?

The day Obama took office the interest on the debt was a billion dollars/day…365 billion/year.

Blaming Obama is delusional.

EDIT:

You somehow skipped how wrong the 47% is if 60+% work.

Also, where is the link for that really vivid chart? One can't accept a chart without a title and attribution. And since it shows 2009 as projected it is seriously out of date.


----------



## Mahdeew

When borrowing become prohibitive (or impossible) and raising taxes no longer generates more revenues, state and local governments will have to cut expenditures.
Strangely enough, every easily foreseeable financial crisis is presented in the mainstream media as one that "nobody saw coming." No doubt the crisis visible in these three charts will also fall into the "nobody saw it coming" category.
Take a look at this chart of state and local government debt. As we noted yesterday, nominal GDP rose about 77% since 2000. So state and local debt rose at double the rate of GDP. That is the definition of an unsustainable trend.









As noted earlier in the week, state and local taxes have soared 75%. While this would be no big deal if wages and salaries had risen by 75% in the same time frame, but earnigns have barely kept pace with inflation (38% since 2000).
So state and local taxes have risen at a rate twice that of wages/salaries. State and local governments can keep raising taxes, but where's the money going to come from?









State and local government expenditures have risen faster than inflation or GDP.










Here is the context that matters: household income. This is median real income, i.e. adjusted for inflation.










Wages and salaries are barely keeping up with inflation, real household incomes are down 8.5% since 2000 and state and local government taxes and spending are rising at twice the rate of inflation-where does this lead to?
1. The bond market may choke if state and local governments try to "borrow our way to prosperity" as they did in the 2000s.
2. If state and local taxes keep soaring while wages stagnate and household income declines, households will have less cash to spend on consumption.
3. Declining consumer spending = recession.
4. In recessions, sales and income taxes decline as households spending drops. This will crimp state and local tax revenues.
5. This sets up an unvirtuous cycle: state and local governments will have to raise taxes to maintain their trend of higher spending. Higher taxes reduce household spending, which reduces income and sales tax revenues. In response, state and local governments raise taxes again. This further suppresses disposable income and consumption. In other words, raising taxes offers diminishing returns.
At some point, local government revenues will decline despite tax increases and the bond market will raise the premium on local government debt in response to the rising risks.
When borrowing become prohibitive (or impossible) and raising taxes no longer generates more revenues, state and local governments will have to cut expenditures. Given their many contractual obligations, these cuts will slice very quickly into sinews and bone.
If this doesn't strike you a crisis, please check back in a few years. It is easily foreseeable, but very inconvenient. As a result, it too will be a crisis that "nobody saw coming." 
LINK
I think just about everyone has come to the conclusion that it is not jonly republican or democrat fault that we are in this predicament. Rather it the machine that compromise both party that has brought us to where we are.


----------



## oldnovice

*Mrjinx*, the drop and/or stagnant state is to say the least disconcerting!

The U.S. is one of four countries in the world that did not that does not guarantee the right to paid maternity leave, now companies like Facebook, Apple, Google, and Yahoo are offering near world class parental leave.

A nice perk but the family income is not growing!


----------



## DrDirt

> You say Obama like he personally somehow spent the money or created laws that did so, the recession has more to do with the size of the debt than any single person, (except perhaps Bush, he asked to go to war) Obama has reduced the deficit by 1/2 pretty darn fast. There is no way anyone could have reduced the deficit to zero, let alone enough to start paying back the debt. Don t forget 50% of the debt is owed to us. China has 1/16th of our debt. So we borrow from ourself mostly.
> 
> Is that your basic agenda, to try to sling anything you can at the president?
> 
> The day Obama took office the interest on the debt was a billion dollars/day…365 billion/year.
> 
> Blaming Obama is delusional.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> You somehow skipped how wrong the 47% is if 60+% work.
> 
> Also, where is the link for that really vivid chart? One can t accept a chart without a title and attribution. And since it shows 2009 as projected it is seriously out of date.
> 
> - RobS888


So Obama didn't "cut the deficit either" right since the president has nothing to do with spending or passing laws?

*47 vs 62%*

first the numbers… there are people that work… that rely on government assistance. Aren't you one that points out that Wal Mart Employees are a large percentage of EBT card holders?

So you can be part of the "participating" workplace, but still be dependant on receiving assisatance from the government.

The "Projected Pic" above
http://dailysignal.com/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

or here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/


----------



## DrDirt

Nevermind this stat - - that points to challenges in higher education and job participation for those entering the workforce…

Colorful but only through 2013… we crossed the 1 Trillion student debt mark.

So that is a nice inescapable (not erased by bankruptcy) debt on the kids in addition to the mortgaging of the future that has occurred to date.


----------



## Mahdeew

oldnovice, I think I heard one company (netflix I believe) is offering up to year leave with pay.


----------



## Mahdeew

DrDirt, during Bush era, I guess people thought youngsters thought they could be smarter than Bush with just a high school diploma so they didn't pursue advanced education. (just a joke)


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

So for example if I make $20,000, but receive $2,000 in assistance I'm a net taker and part of the 47%?

I received a tax credit when I bought new windows in 2003, for about $2,000 does that make me a taker? I'm using that example, because a credit is money I didn't have to pay in taxes, so I cost the government $2,000. My not paying or them sending me a check is pretty much the same. Am I a taker?

This is a big lie, especially considering 20% of the population earned their SS (broke or not) Almost 1/2 of Rmoney's 47% earned it yet are counted as takers. Complete BS!

The really sad thing is Walmart isn't seen as a taker when the government needs to make up for their deficient pay.

If Obama didn't cut the deficit then he didn't raise it did he? Please make up your mind.


----------



## RobS888

> Nevermind this stat - - that points to challenges in higher education and job participation for those entering the workforce…
> 
> Colorful but only through 2013… we crossed the 1 Trillion student debt mark.
> 
> So that is a nice inescapable (not erased by bankruptcy) debt on the kids in addition to the mortgaging of the future that has occurred to date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt


Completely in-line with less young people in the workforce and my point about tertiary schooling at an all time high.

Are you implying something Obama did causes students to take on more debt or are there more people in school?


----------



## RobS888

> oldnovice, I think I heard one company (netflix I believe) is offering up to year leave with pay.
> 
> - mrjinx007


We make more noise about compassion/generosity and our love of country and how we are the greatest country that ever lived, and yet… we don't really seem to care.

I'm hung-over from the debate last night, and probably had an overdose of chest thumping.

Last night Rubio said we were the most generous country in the world because of all the immigration, yet Canada & Oz have a higher rate of immigration than we do.


----------



## DrDirt

> Completely in-line with less young people in the workforce and my point about tertiary schooling at an all time high.
> 
> Are you implying something Obama did causes students to take on more debt or are there more people in school?
> 
> - RobS888


I wanted to point out your hippocracy about debt/deficit arguments…

You argue that Obama cut the deficit… I point out that his deficits stink on ice… then you switch to "the president has nothing to do with it"

While bills come through the congress… I think p*residents own their numbers*. Just as the wars (oops approved by congress including Hillary) costs can be attributed to the president directly rather than specific laws/bills.

So can Exectuive order amnesty costs are owned by POTUS not congress - - and add to the debt.

Fact is that Obama makes Bush look miserly.
--------
As for the 20K salary getting food stamps. *Yes you would be part of the 47%*. Taker is your term though the point of the argument is not about the specific amount of aid received… but how that 20K PERSON… is *Dependant on government to survive.* As such will make decisions about voting and personal freedoms to be given up to ensure that their "aid" doesn't go away.
SOME like the minimum wage discussion will volunteer to cut hours to maintain benefits.

In the end all of those actions pervert the system, and make it difficult to ever really improve things.
------
On the college front

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/07/2428351/nearly-80-of-students-are-working-while-in-school/

80% of college students are working (similar to the employment rates for the 25-55 block)

So the concept that kids are going to college INSTEAD of working doesn't really fit. I know very few college students that are not working part time. (so are employed)

The problem in college is it has become too expensive (and NOT that the interest rate is just too high). Tuition has skyrocketed, and debt has accelerated as the push (not really Obama) but by progressives, is that the ONLY worthwhile pursuit for a High School Student is 4 years (or 5 or 6 ) of university that they cannot pay for.

Anything trades related (which actually has decent prospects and pay) is considered 'Alternative' and ok for THOSE kinds of kids.
You are right that college enrollment has gone up, has been increasing for decades… but when you finish college there still aren't jobs. But now you have a giant debt!!


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

What is hippocracy, are you saying horse leaders or lead by horses? ;-)









I asked your opinion, either he is responsible for both or neither. If anyone was "*lead by horses*" it was you showing how bad the deficit was and then disputing he had reduced it! That's why I asked you to make up your mind.

You showed how bad the deficit was compared to Bush. If he is responsible for it going up he is responsible for it going down as well. At least you finally used topical data instead of crusty old predictions.

You now say he owns the numbers, therefore he has reduced the deficit in 1/2 after Bush ran it up.

*Thanks.*


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

Do we know if the students working are considered as participating in the workforce?


----------



## Mahdeew

I think as it relates to college, the government agencies, both federal and states, require certain positions that are government funded to have certain amount of education to fulfill jobs in which you don't even need to know how to multiply two one digit numbers in your head to do them. Call it the education lobby. As we become more and more technology based society, the trend is going to be either programming as a "white collar" worker or hardware technician as a "blue collar" worker. The semi's and taxies are going to drive themselves and restaurant chains have already initiated digital ordering while sitting at the table.  Off course hotels will run like this. 
Pets optional. 
So, what will the labor market looks like 150 years from now?


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> Do we know if the students working are considered as participating in the workforce?
> 
> - RobS888


If you are getting a paycheck and having taxes withheld you are participating in the workforce. There is no distinction that it be "full time"


----------



## DrDirt

Well Rob - - I have misatrributed that part of the discussion to you…Hans was the one that started the discussion on how the deficit has been ******************** in half since 2009…. and Unemployment is as good as April 2008…

WHich started the Obama thing, because that was to argue that we are "pre crash" unemployment…. Obama has been some kind of deficit hawk cutting the deficit in half.
(when all he did was take the TARP budget year 2009 as a baseline).
Somehow arguing "we didn't pay out a bank bailout every year in office - - is not the same as fiscal responsibility.
I had to go back to where this thread went this direction:


> I haven t followed this forum for quite some time and the last few pages seem to be a downer on so many fronts. I know everything is not "peaches and cream" but on the flip side everything is not "piss and vinegar" either.
> 
> The national debt has been reduced, unemployment hasn t need this low since April of 2008, housing starts are rampant, and, to show that there is bad news, there are 20+forest fires in California
> 
> - oldnovice


----------



## DrDirt

> I think as it relates to college, the government agencies, both federal and states, require certain positions that are government funded to have certain amount of education to fulfill jobs in which you don t even need to know how to multiply two one digit numbers in your head to do them. Call it the education lobby. As we become more and more technology based society, the trend is going to be either programming as a "white collar" worker or hardware technician as a "blue collar" worker. The semi s and taxies are going to drive themselves and restaurant chains have already initiated digital ordering while sitting at the table.  Off course hotels will run like this.
> Pets optional.
> So, what will the labor market looks like 150 years from now?
> 
> - mrjinx007


This progression is why we need to be more 'selective' on immigration, as we bring in people for jobs that won't exist in the near future.

However at the same time - - I don't envision Automation of wiring a building… or digging up septic lines, or framing homes, or trim carpentry
I like Mike Rowe's take on this when he testified before congress - - 





favorite line "we focus on creating shovel ready jobs for a population that won't pick up a shovel"

WHen I was in high school - - even though I chose the college path. "Industrial Arts" was required of EVERY student. I had wood shop, metal shop, electronics… it was all year in 6 rotations of 6 weeks each.
Wood
Metal
Electronics
Photography
Automotive
wiring (residential)

blocking out that time didn't 'Hinder my education' Quite the opposite! 
WHile in Graduate school in Solid State Chemistry - I had to learn to use the metal lathe and using a non-CNC mill, as we made our own experimental set-ups.

I think we have gotten to where we intentionally move such classes to some 'educational annex' and call it "Alternative Education" or a Booby prize diploma.
I think knowing how to work with your hands isn't just for bumpkins.

I see this when I go to Marc Adams School, and the other students are CPA's and Dentists, and an Airline Pilot, and Cardiologists, and Faculty members in Immunology (this just last week)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I think as it relates to college, the government agencies, both federal and states, require certain positions that are government funded to have certain amount of education to fulfill jobs in which you don t even need to know how to multiply two one digit numbers in your head to do them. Call it the education lobby. As we become more and more technology based society, the trend is going to be either programming as a "white collar" worker or hardware technician as a "blue collar" worker. The semi s and taxies are going to drive themselves and restaurant chains have already initiated digital ordering while sitting at the table.  Off course hotels will run like this.
> Pets optional.
> So, what will the labor market looks like 150 years from now?
> 
> - mrjinx007


Obviously, with total automation, the robots will not need people.



> Nevermind this stat - - that points to challenges in higher education and job participation for those entering the workforce…
> 
> Colorful but only through 2013… we crossed the 1 Trillion student debt mark.
> 
> So that is a nice inescapable (not erased by bankruptcy) debt on the kids in addition to the mortgaging of the future that has occurred to date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Completely in-line with less young people in the workforce and my point about tertiary schooling at an all time high.
> 
> Are you implying something Obama did causes students to take on more debt or are there more people in school?
> 
> - RobS888


Now you are just trying to take advantage of the ignorant who aren't paying any attention. The Republicans know they can totally destroy us, US, and the president will be blamed just because the majority do not have a clue as to how gov't really works. Even the few that attend town hall meetings do not even know the difference between local, county, state and federal issues.


----------



## DrDirt

> Now you are just trying to take advantage of the ignorant who aren t paying any attention. The Republicans know they can totally destroy us, US, and the president will be blamed just because the majority do not have a clue as to how gov t really works. Even the few that attend town hall meetings do not even know the difference between local, county, state and federal issues.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Not buying the PBS spin on this "oppose obama on everything" 
Politics is screwed up, however it is clear that Obama has an entirely different view of America, our role in the world and what is/should be important.

I don't think the Jim deMints ever had a plan to 'create the tea party'

Where does College fall on State/federal/Local scale?

I see it split state and local - - the universities (public) are linked to the state - however they are all doing research funded by NSF, DOE, EPA and a host of other Federal agencies.

Students MUST file a FAFSA as part of their application process….and Student loans, Pell grants, Stafford loans etc, all bring the federal into the state schools.

Then take in Department of Education, Common core, and what is set as curriculum…. which was a state/local issue until carter created the Department of Education federalized it.

So do tell what I am "taking advantage of"

Seems the republicans can't stop traffic….
remember how everything will be "fixed" if we took over the house… 2010 election DONE… and nothing changed.

We were then told how "If we could only unseat Harry Reid… and retake the senate" 2012, DONE… still nothing changes.

We do have a president with "A Pen and a Cellphone" That is doing lots of stuff with impunity though.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Not buying the PBS spin on this "oppose obama on everything"
> 
> - DrDirt


Have you been paying attention to what has been happening in DC for the last 7 years?


----------



## Mahdeew

> I think as it relates to college, the government agencies, both federal and states, require certain positions that are government funded to have certain amount of education to fulfill jobs in which you don t even need to know how to multiply two one digit numbers in your head to do them. Call it the education lobby. As we become more and more technology based society, the trend is going to be either programming as a "white collar" worker or hardware technician as a "blue collar" worker. The semi s and taxies are going to drive themselves and restaurant chains have already initiated digital ordering while sitting at the table.  Off course hotels will run like this.
> Pets optional.
> So, what will the labor market looks like 150 years from now?
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> This progression is why we need to be more selective on immigration, as we bring in people for jobs that won t exist in the near future.
> 
> However at the same time - - I don t envision Automation of wiring a building… or digging up septic lines, or framing homes, or trim carpentry
> I like Mike Rowe s take on this when he testified before congress - -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> favorite line "we focus on creating shovel ready jobs for a population that won t pick up a shovel"
> 
> WHen I was in high school - - even though I chose the college path. "Industrial Arts" was required of EVERY student. I had wood shop, metal shop, electronics… it was all year in 6 rotations of 6 weeks each.
> Wood
> Metal
> Electronics
> Photography
> Automotive
> wiring (residential)
> 
> blocking out that time didn t Hinder my education Quite the opposite!
> WHile in Graduate school in Solid State Chemistry - I had to learn to use the metal lathe and using a non-CNC mill, as we made our own experimental set-ups.
> 
> I think we have gotten to where we intentionally move such classes to some educational annex and call it "Alternative Education" or a Booby prize diploma.
> I think knowing how to work with your hands isn t just for bumpkins.
> 
> I see this when I go to Marc Adams School, and the other students are CPA s and Dentists, and an Airline Pilot, and Cardiologists, and Faculty members in Immunology (this just last week)
> 
> - DrDirt


Amen. Me too. I had to choose my career after 8th or 9th grade and attend every workshop related to construction engineering + the 12 subject we had to study.


----------



## DrDirt

> Not buying the PBS spin on this "oppose obama on everything"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Have you been paying attention to what has been happening in DC for the last 7 years?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Sure - and it looks just like the 8 years before that. All just musical chairs.
Everyone is doing the same political BS… the idea that there was some 'smokey meeting' after teh 2008 election is just more theatrics.

There were the same democratic meetings after 2000 and 2004

Not like 2001-8 were sunshine and unicorns with Pelosi singing Cum bay yah…. or did you 'miss that'?


















But since bush is white these aren't "Microagressions" he deserved it because of White Privelidge??


----------



## oldnovice

*DrDirt*, you wrote below:

Well Rob - - I have misatrributed that part of the discussion to you…Hans was the one that started the discussion on how the deficit has been ********************** in half since 2009…. and Unemployment is as good as April 2008…

Yes, I did write something similar to that, but I said *CUT* in half since 2009! Where was *your* mind at that time?

But if you notice that nowhere in my post did I mention Obama, the president, POTUS or reference to the White House.

I looked for venerable sources and provided links to them as any researcher would do!


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

There is no comparison at all. You were not awake or you are fully vested in the effort to as Mitch said on day 1 of the Obama presidency, we make Obama failing job 1.

You seem to like making these comparisons that really don't make the point you think they do!

Showing someone said Bush is an idiot means nothing as to whether or not the republicans put spite in front of ruling. They had more than twice as many filibusters as any other presidential term. Racism? I think so!


----------



## RobS888

> *DrDirt*, you wrote below:
> 
> Well Rob - - I have misatrributed that part of the discussion to you…Hans was the one that started the discussion on how the deficit has been ********************** in half since 2009…. and Unemployment is as good as April 2008…
> 
> Yes, I did write something similar to that, but I said *CUT* in half since 2009! Where was *your* mind at that time?
> 
> But if you notice that nowhere in my post did I mention Obama, the president, POTUS or reference to the White House.
> 
> I looked for venerable sources and provided links to them as any researcher would do!
> 
> - oldnovice


I'm pretty sure Dr Dirt just wants to put Obama in as negative a light as he can, by lying, misdirecting, using discredited data, changing references, and his favorite, hiding points in lots of vivid, logically fallacious examples.


----------



## patcollins

One reason that the filibuster has become more common is that it is much easier to break than before. It wasn't until WW I that the filibuster even could be broken, if a senator wanted to talk he had the floor for as long as he wanted. Then it was changed so that 2/3's of the votes were required to break the filibuster, then in recent times that number was reduced to 3/5's of the senators in attendance, if all 100 were present 60 votes.

I don't really think it is a bad idea that a bill needs just 9 more votes than majority to come to the floor for a vote, The legislative branch was designed to be a place where bad bills went to die.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> There is no comparison at all. You were not awake or you are fully vested in the effort to as Mitch said on day 1 of the Obama presidency, we make Obama failing job 1.
> 
> You seem to like making these comparisons that really don t make the point you think they do!
> 
> Showing someone said Bush is an idiot means nothing as to whether or not the republicans put spite in front of ruling. They had more than twice as many filibusters as any other presidential term. Racism? I think so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - RobS888


One of the main reasons Obama only has 6 is they don't bother anymore. Rs simply say a bill is dead. Nobody makes them actually go beyond that. Maybe a new count of "dead on arrival" would be more appropriate.


----------



## patcollins

> One of the main reasons Obama only has 6 is they don t bother anymore. Rs simply say a bill is dead. Nobody makes them actually go beyond that. Maybe a new count of "dead on arrival" would be more appropriate.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Um that 6 is years in office, just as the 8 beside Bush and Clinton is how many years they were in office.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Upon closer examination, yes, they are ;-)


----------



## RobS888

> One reason that the filibuster has become more common is that it is much easier to break than before. It wasn t until WW I that the filibuster even could be broken, if a senator wanted to talk he had the floor for as long as he wanted. Then it was changed so that 2/3 s of the votes were required to break the filibuster, then in recent times that number was reduced to 3/5 s of the senators in attendance, if all 100 were present 60 votes.
> 
> I don t really think it is a bad idea that a bill needs just 9 more votes than majority to come to the floor for a vote, The legislative branch was designed to be a place where bad bills went to die.
> 
> - patcollins


I disagree, when the senator doesn't need to hold the floor, but can secretly block something. Then the minority is in charge.

Still the point is: it has been done to Obama twice as much as any other president. And only to make him fail, not out of any actual problem with the bill. They filibustered appointments to positions that have never been deemed worth the trouble before.

They are the party of Nope.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Thom Hartmann reported the Rs filibustered 13 VA spending bills in a row. After the scandal broke last year, they finally let one pass rather than expose themselves for what they are. Of course the corporate owned press never mentioned what their lap dogs were doing while vets died waiting to see a dr.


----------



## patcollins

You have to ask yourself when was the last time the Senate passed a bill that actually made things better for you? Now ask yourself when was the last time the Senate passed a bill that made things worse for you?

Now, do you really want it easier for them to pass bills? Personally even when they try to make things better for me they end up making things worse.


----------



## RobS888

This fighting my be why we have these continuing resolutions on things with earmarks continuing in perpetuity.

I like the way it used to be, you could hold up things to make your point as long as you could go on. But you had to do it. None of this passive anonymous crap

Did you know Mitch got 3billion for Kentucky to end the shtdown? Just ridiculous.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## oldnovice

*Dan*, I never saw the distribution as well as the chart in your #2677 post depicts.
I wonder how this breaks down on a by country basis?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> - Dan um Style


The 1% has cut the boot straps ;-((


----------



## patcollins

> - Dan um Style


This makes no sense because if a person is born wealthy they are already wealthy and cant become wealthy.

Just like Bruce Jenner couldn't become a man because he was already one, but he could become a woman because he wasn't. (Lets assume what he did makes him a "woman" ok)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> - Dan um Style
> 
> This makes no sense because if a person is born wealthy they are already wealthy and cant become wealthy.
> 
> Just like Bruce Jenner couldn t become a man because he was already one, but he could become a woman because he wasn t. (Lets assume what he did makes him a "woman" ok)
> 
> - patcollins


I think the point is those born to wealth get a big boost from daddy if they try to make it on their own vs those who start with nothing but determination. I worked for two who took over daddy's electrical business, neither made it, One lost everything his dad spent a lifetime building. He and his college buddies knew more than his dad's key personnel. They would have been better off just waiting for the inheritance. Romney certainly did well with his start in life and did so Trump. Wonder how they would have done starting at "0"?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Now you are just trying to take advantage of the ignorant who aren t paying any attention. The Republicans know they can totally destroy us, US, and the president will be blamed just because the majority do not have a clue as to how gov t really works. Even the few that attend town hall meetings do not even know the difference between local, county, state and federal issues.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Not buying the PBS spin on this "oppose obama on everything"
> 
> - DrDirt


How about Time ?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/photos/a.517901514969574.1073741825.346937065399354/881855105240878/?type=1


----------



## DrDirt

> Now you are just trying to take advantage of the ignorant who aren t paying any attention. The Republicans know they can totally destroy us, US, and the president will be blamed just because the majority do not have a clue as to how gov t really works. Even the few that attend town hall meetings do not even know the difference between local, county, state and federal issues.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Not buying the PBS spin on this "oppose obama on everything"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> How about Time ?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


The reason I say I am not buying it - is that while we can count filibusters, and nuclear options…

Other than Obamacare - there are precious few bills that ONLY passed with Democrat support.

Similarly - - how many Obama Nominees have actually been completely stopped?
So in the oppose everything plan… how much actually was stopped?

Government was shut down 8 times under Reagan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States

I seem to recall in the prior presidency the Speaker of the House visiting Assad of Syria.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/

I think there is no shortage of history of opposition party vs the president.

Maybe his predecessors just had fewer positions that were as divisive?? Republicans work better with the other side?


----------



## DrDirt

Suppose that when Obama spoke at 
Even for President Obama, it was an outrageous statement, and he needs to apologize to the nation for it.

On Wednesday, at American University, *Obama said the genocidal fascist freaks in Iran who chant "death to America" are "making common cause with the Republican caucus" for opposing the deal.*

I guess now Chuck Schumer is now a Republican?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/us/politics/opposing-iran-nuclear-deal-chuck-schumer-rattles-democratic-firewall.html
If only Obama would actually work with others, instead of a My way of the Highway "I have a pen and a phone" plan.
Maybe he could be more like Tea Party Senator Mike Lee?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/us/politics/senator-mike-lee-republican-utah.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

So former Ohio Senator George Voinovich is a liar and none of the sources you cite, even though none of them deny the meeting by top Rs on inauguration day 2009, are all credible?


----------



## DrDirt

> So former Ohio Senator George Voinovich is a liar and none of the sources you cite, even though none of them deny the meeting by top Rs on inauguration day 2009, are all credible?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


No I am CERTAIN there were meetings after this election… like EVERY other one in history.

So No I don't doubt the meetings… nor that an Out of Office Senator made such a statement.

But show me where this really has happened? And that it is somehow different than every other president.
YOU show the quotes that are saying OPPOSE Everything… but it seems Obama gets everything he wants… so I don't see that ACTUALLY HAPPENING….versus talked about

I bet if someone decided to dig, I am sure there were Democrat meetings after the whole Bush/Gore election debacle about how they would be against Georgie Junior on everything… until 9/11 happened

Or in Round 2 Bush/Kerry I am certain that there were a bunch of *DNC (Super Secret Plot)* meetings about how Kerry was 'Swift boated' and what they can/will/should do about it and handle legislation and campaigns in the future.

So at one level… OF COURSE the minority party… especially when Obama's first 2 years were filibuster proof in the senate until Scott Brown…. the opposition party ALWAYS opposes the initiatives of the other side.

It is the position/contention that the party leadership meeting to do a post-mortem on an election and strategize… is somehow some EVIL top Secret plot, that ONLY the Satanic Republicans would ever consider…. is just Straight up BS and a typical one sided argument.

Sure - - Newsflash… Dems and republicans try to take eachother down, and could give a rats-ass about "we the people" 
Stop fluffing the Dem line that this is Unique to Republicans.

I recall the government shutdown 8 times when Reagan was in office…. was that a Democratic "Plot" or 'Racism".... or just typical Party Bull********************. Yet the narrative is that Obama is somehow uniquely singled out.

Obama has NEVEr compromised any position… he is straight "My way or you are a traitor" 
http://nypost.com/2015/08/09/obama-my-way-or-youre-a-traitor/
At American University Last Week…On Wednesday, at American University, Obama said the genocidal fascist freaks in Iran who chant "Death to America" are "making common cause with the Republican caucus" for opposing the deal.

Seems there are only a handful of politicians that even try to pretend to care about people.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

When in the history of us, US, has the strategy been opposing everything even if it hurts the country the way they continue to devastate the middle class?


----------



## DrDirt

> When in the history of us, US, has the strategy been opposing everything even if it hurts the country the way they continue to devastate the middle class?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I would say ever Since Truman/Eisenhower… once elections became "made for TV with Kennedy"... just a technology advancement, not that Kennedy invented TV… it became more about power, persuasion and "appearances" 
When Eisenhower left office the country began running as a 'cult of personality' Hookers, Marilyn Monroe etc.
For women it was all about fashion and Jackie O…

that whole Bay of Pigs business…. and Taking us to war in SE Asia, was all by Kennedy (not better than George W and a lot more US soldiers were drafted and killed)... how did that help the middle class?

Maybe the underhanded ******************** was just HIDDEN BETTER before that time??
In the days before cable news and working to fill a 24hour news cycle… so we have round the clock OJ trials and Casey Anthony… and the Duggars… you just had Walter Cronkite for a half an hour to tell you "And thats the way it is…."

All this crap has happened througout history…What you are pointing at is NOT new.

But I would say turn it around… *when has US politics NOT been about increasing power over the peasants?*
That would get you til ~before the Andrew Jackson days, and the Trail of Tears…

Why did the EVIL *Democrats shut down the government 8 times under Reagan*.... didn't they "care about the US population and the devastation of the middle class?

Like most of my arguments with you… I am not saying the situation is remotely good. But I don't believe it is reallyl different than other times at least in the past 50 years… and that Underhanded BS is NOT somehow the sole property of the RNC, while the DNC is pissing unicorn tears.

The Fine Democrats in Des Moines have decided that Thomas Jefferson, was just a rich white Slave owning POS, and renamed their event to strip his name from their Dinner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/us/jefferson-jackson-dinner-will-be-renamed.html
So maybe even the founding fathers were "against us"?? We will scrub our history books of any mention of slavery, so that we appear more diverse and inclusive.
I find the liberals are on the rampage and the initiatives they are taking on border on lunacy.


----------



## patcollins

> When in the history of us, US, has the strategy been opposing everything even if it hurts the country the way they continue to devastate the middle class?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I remember a certain side that seemed down right gleeful every time a US service member was killed in Iraq. As soon as Obama took office the Iraq death-o-meter was much less prominent and was relegated to a "in other news".


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

William F Buckley denounced the John Birch Society as a radical fringe element of the conservative movement. I am absolutely sure he would have the same view of the Tea Baggers who have taken control of the party today.

Certainly you would have to agree that the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the world has occurred in the last 40 years?


----------



## RobS888

THERE WAS NEVER a filibuster proof majority, Ted Kennedy wasn't able to vote , so technically they had 60, but could only muster 58 or 59 so they couldn't break the filibuster as some claim. Kennedy had a problem during an Obama inaugural lunch and never voted again and Al Frankin wasn't seated until July 09.

So tell me again how they had a filibuster proof congress? Now the rules say they need 40 votes to continue the heel dragging, anti democratic, & obstructionist racist crap.

If they had a filibuster proof majority we would have a public option, hand gun controls, assault rifle bans for 500 years, and real equality.


----------



## RobS888

> When in the history of us, US, has the strategy been opposing everything even if it hurts the country the way they continue to devastate the middle class?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> I remember a certain side that seemed down right gleeful every time a US service member was killed in Iraq. As soon as Obama took office the Iraq death-o-meter was much less prominent and was relegated to a "in other news".
> 
> - patcollins


I think you are misrepresenting the feeling. It was more like: "Look what you idiots have done!"


----------



## RobS888

> When in the history of us, US, has the strategy been opposing everything even if it hurts the country the way they continue to devastate the middle class?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Never like this. Lucky for them the Dems aren't as spiteful or organized.


----------



## RobS888

> The reason I say I am not buying it - is that while we can count filibusters, and nuclear options…
> 
> Other than Obamacare - there are precious few bills that ONLY passed with Democrat support.
> 
> Similarly - - how many Obama Nominees have actually been completely stopped?
> So in the oppose everything plan… how much actually was stopped?
> 
> Government was shut down 8 times under Reagan.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States
> 
> I seem to recall in the prior presidency the Speaker of the House visiting Assad of Syria.
> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/
> 
> I think there is no shortage of history of opposition party vs the president.
> 
> Maybe his predecessors just had fewer positions that were as divisive?? Republicans work better with the other side?
> 
> - DrDirt


There have been precious few bills passed. A record of do nothering to be proud of for sure.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> When in the history of us, US, has the strategy been opposing everything even if it hurts the country the way they continue to devastate the middle class?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Never like this. Lucky for them the Dems aren t as spiteful or organized.
> 
> - RobS888


It is much easier to get a few billionaires together to buy Congress than to organize the masses especially when the billionaires spend a lot of money on wedge issues to keep the fools at the polls voting against their own best interests.

It will be interesting to see how Bernie Sander's program of asking for votes instead of money works out nationally. He won that way in Vermont against a multi-million dollar campaign. Last weekend nearly 15,000 turned out to hear him speak. The Rs are coming to town charging a few people few thousand dollars each to hear them.

Looks to me like America is starting an extraction process ;-))


----------



## RobS888

> When in the history of us, US, has the strategy been opposing everything even if it hurts the country the way they continue to devastate the middle class?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Never like this. Lucky for them the Dems aren t as spiteful or organized.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> It is much easier to get a few billionaires together to buy Congress than to organize the masses especially when the billionaires spend a lot of money on wedge issues to keep the fools at the polls voting against their own best interests.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how Bernie Sander s program of asking for votes instead of money works out nationally. He won that way in Vermont against a multi-million dollar campaign. Last weekend nearly 15,000 turned out to hear him speak. The Rs are coming to town charging a few people few thousand dollars each to hear them.
> 
> Looks to me like America is starting an extraction process ;-))
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Hmmm, seems to me the later Roman emperors purchased the position, literally the dude willing to spend the most could buy it. Perhaps the billionaires could just purchase the position of president for themselves or their proxies directly and not even involve us. They have airwave auctions, why not President auctions? It's not like it is that democratic anymore. Will we be the first democracy to have sold itself?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Hmmm, seems to me the later Roman emperors purchased the position, literally the dude willing to spend the most could buy it. Perhaps the billionaires could just purchase the position of president for themselves or their proxies directly and not even involve us. They have airwave auctions, why not President auctions? It s not like it is that democratic anymore. Will we be the first democracy to have sold itself?
> 
> - RobS888


The money boys put Teddy Roosevelt in at VP to get him out of the NY governor's office and silence his attacks on the oligarchy. The robber barons definitely tried to buy the office before, but it backfired.

One family, the Kochs will most likely spend more on this presidential election than has been spent on one to date. If Bernie wins the D nomination, it will be interesting to see if money wins. The corporate media is gearing up to totally ignore the populist movement. MSNBC is making a dramatic shift to the right. I think we will probably see Faux News on all the networks before Nov 1016. I think the Oligarchy is getting worried about Sander's organizing meetings turning out unprecedented numbers at this stage of the election. So many of the traditional R base are beginning to hurt in the pocket book, keeping minorities and the poor from the polls will not work the way it did in 2000.


----------



## oldnovice

*Bernie* is making a lot of headway, *more power to him*!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

DocDirt, Here are some stats on Fox vs NPR spin ;-)


----------



## DrDirt

> THERE WAS NEVER a filibuster proof majority, Ted Kennedy wasn t able to vote , so technically they had 60, but could only muster 58 or 59 so they couldn t break the filibuster as some claim. Kennedy had a problem during an Obama inaugural lunch and never voted again and Al Frankin wasn t seated until July 09.
> 
> So tell me again how they had a filibuster proof congress? Now the rules say they need 40 votes to continue the heel dragging, anti democratic, & obstructionist racist crap.
> 
> If they had a filibuster proof majority we would have a public option, *hand gun controls, assault rifle bans for 500 years, and real equality.
> *
> - RobS888


Ha Ha Ha ha…. really - 
If they had 100 seats on the senate, they would get their "marching orders" from the special Interests.

You really tryuing to Claim that Joe Manchin from WV would have pushed an assault ban?

Real equality… you poor sap…. you actually think the parties give a crap about equality? The democrats like to play santa claus and encourage dependance.

Tell me about how Hillary is just an Open and honest grandmother who would like to give the world a hug….bwa ha ha ha h a

Rob you made my morning.

Cum Bay Yah!!


----------



## DrDirt

> DocDirt, Here are some stats on Fox vs NPR spin ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Pretty interesting stuff - - -

On one hand sad that even the "best" news listener NPR answers fewer than 2/5 so less than 40% of questions on issues correctly.
Sort of validates the "man on the street" interviews that Jesse Waters and Jimmy Kimmel and others do, where people cannot tell why the 4th of July is celebrated.

looks to me like all cable news stinks… though the article want you to think that a random sample of 1100 people in the US, that were willing to take the survey gives much value to the differences between networks. I think I would do pretty well with the questions but I watch more than one news source… and I think many people are not "cast" that way.
I have listened to NPR on long road trips sometimes. But never at home… as NPR is only on radio there isn't a Cable news version of NPR (at least where i live).

Suppose in total the graphs show that american voters are idiots… with little knowledge of current events.
Sort of explains the past few election cycles.


----------



## RobS888

Dr dirt,

I feel sorry for you.

You were just proven wrong and all you can do is attack the joke part of the post.

The point is if they had 60 votes a more democratic agenda would have been followed.

I believe and recent history has shown that democrats are more concerned about others than republicans. If they weren't, republicans couldn't manipulate them as much as they do.

So mock on, I consider it your concession speech.


----------



## RobS888

> DocDirt, Here are some stats on Fox vs NPR spin ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Daily Show #2? How strange that comedy is actually more informative than real news.


----------



## RobS888

> DocDirt, Here are some stats on Fox vs NPR spin ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Pretty interesting stuff - - -
> 
> On one hand sad that even the "best" news listener NPR answers fewer than 2/5 so less than 40% of questions on issues correctly.
> Sort of validates the "man on the street" interviews that Jesse Waters and Jimmy Kimmel and others do, where people cannot tell why the 4th of July is celebrated.
> 
> looks to me like all cable news stinks… though the article want you to think that a random sample of 1100 people in the US, that were willing to take the survey gives much value to the differences between networks. I think I would do pretty well with the questions but I watch more than one news source… and I think many people are not "cast" that way.
> I have listened to NPR on long road trips sometimes. But never at home… it is just a radio deal there isn t a Cable news version of NPR where i live.
> 
> - DrDirt


lol, those "men on the street" thought they knew what they were talking about as well.
I haven't seen you surpass 40% either.


----------



## RobS888

> *Bernie* is making a lot of headway, *more power to him*!
> 
> - oldnovice


I would vote for him, but the zealots select the nominee, or at least winnow them down.


----------



## DrDirt

> Never like this. Lucky for them the Dems aren t as spiteful or organized.
> 
> - RobS888


Really?? 
Which party used the IRS as their tool to affect election politics

which party closed the open air WW2 memorial in DC?

Who had their own server for official e-mail in thier basement safe from FOIA requests?

Who was it that ordered the shutdown to be made as painful as possible?

The Washington Examiner's Ron Arnold also saw through the press statements from the White House.

"For anyone who doubts that President Obama and his minions are choosing to make the government shutdown as painful as possible, be informed that it's a decades-old White House play. ... It works like this: Turn visitors away from our great national memorials to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, point on the Mall at Capitol Hill, and yell 'Congress made me do it.'

"Then hope the public falls for it."

The history is long and amusing….
Thomas Jefferson once paid a writer to imply John Adams was a hermaphrodite.

Davy Crockett accused Martin Van Buren of wearing women's underwear, writing he was "laced up in corsets such as women in town wear."

James Buchanan, who suffered from a congenital palsy that made his head tilt to the left, endured opponents accusations that he had tried to hang himself.


----------



## DrDirt

> lol, those "men on the street" thought they knew what they were talking about as well.
> I haven t seen you surpass 40% either.
> 
> - RobS888


As soon as you hit double digits let me know, and I can order you a happy meal with a minion toy.

Here is a fine example of the brilliance of the "NON- Fox News watcher" 




http://video.foxnews.com/v/4341050883001/watters-world-4th-of-july-quiz-edition-/?#sp=show-clips

It shows how poor our education is, and how easy it is to get all the rubes to vote for Hope and Change. because it is catchy… like "have it your way" or "a Coke and a Smile"


----------



## Bonka

How many times did the brain dead lady use "Like"? Then there is the sartorial splendor with the cap on backwards.
I cannot imagine anyone hiring people with these "assests."


----------



## DrDirt

> *Bernie* is making a lot of headway, *more power to him*!
> 
> - oldnovice
> 
> I would vote for him, but the zealots select the nominee, or at least winnow them down.
> 
> - RobS888


Unfortunately the big money on the democrat side… uses other "grass roots organizations" to prevent this.

e.g. George Soros - funds Black Lives Matter… to shut down Bernie Sanders events.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-bernie-sanders-rally/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-pakman2/are-anti-bernie-sanders-b_b_7967780.html

Your money men democrats like Soros, and Tom Steyer will make sure only the establishment Candidate sees the light of day at the Democratic Convention.


----------



## Mahdeew

I think it was pretty much established that our two party system is really a one party system when Ross Pratt and now, Donald is proving that aside from those two parties, no one else is allowed. So the pendulum keeps swinging to the right and left, but it is the clock that is broken. Both parties have managed to screw up the democracy we briefly enjoyed and prospered under.


----------



## oldnovice

> I think it was pretty much established that our two party system is really a one party system when Ross *Pratt* and now, Donald is proving that aside from those two parties, no one else is allowed.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I believe you meant Ross Perot, the $35 billionaire, from Texas!


----------



## Mahdeew

oldnovice, yes… Thanks


----------



## Mahdeew

This is such an amature brainwashing tactic; who could fall for it?


----------



## oldnovice

*Mrjinx*, I am not picking on you! 
It just proves that I read what you wrote as I believe many just skim long texts!


----------



## Mahdeew

oldnovice,
I know. I didn't take it as picking. I should have checked the spelling of his name. My lazyness. 
I have read in a few places that three of the republicans are contemplating to refuse participation in the next republican debate if Trump is going to attend and thus forcing him to shift to Independent. The more they try to push him out of the party, the more people will gravitate toward him. I am not sure if he will be as successful running as a third party candidate.


----------



## DrDirt

> oldnovice,
> I know. I didn t take it as picking. I should have checked the spelling of his name. My lazyness.
> I have read in a few places that three of the republicans are contemplating to refuse participation in the next republican debate if Trump is going to attend and thus forcing him to shift to Independent. The more they try to push him out of the party, the more people will gravitate toward him. I am not sure if he will be as successful running as a third party candidate.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Issue is (and the RNC knows it - - hence the debate questions) if Trump ran as third party - - he would take ENOUGH votes away from the Republican to guarantee a democrat win.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> DocDirt, Here are some stats on Fox vs NPR spin ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Daily Show #2? How strange that comedy is actually more informative than real news.
> 
> - RobS888


That is truly strange indeed and demonstrates how asinine, ignorant and complacent the American public is and why we have the pathetic mess for a government we have today. . I can't remember if it was Micheal Medved or the late, great Paul Harvey that reported the majority of the public got its political information from the late night comedy; Lenol, Letterman, et al. That was 20 years ago or maybe longer. businessinsider.com study certainly verifies that pathetic fact ;-((


----------



## DrDirt

kind of interesting to look at INCOME distribution… versus wealth distribution.


> - Dan um Style


With wealth, you have some key folks accumulating wealth - - that doesn't ever get addressed by minimum wage hikes nor income redistribution

There is just no real way to redistribute the Accumulated wealth. while one could assume increasing pay would level the distribution of wealth, I suspect inflation would serve to screw them over and everyone ends in the same position. Like trying to take water out of the deep end of the pool and pour it into the shallow end to make the shallow end deeper….

How far off is it that the 1% is around 12% of the take home pay?

The gap between distribution for pre vs After tax shows the impact of a progressive tax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States


----------



## Mahdeew

DrDirt, I think citizens are sick and tired of both parties as they represent the same clown in a different costume. And they truly represent people like Donald Trumps of the world not us. So, why wouldn't that take the votes from both parties and make him a winner (long shot…,I know). Wasn't Lieberman that pulled something like a few election back and won?


----------



## DrDirt

> DocDirt, Here are some stats on Fox vs NPR spin ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Daily Show #2? How strange that comedy is actually more informative than real news.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> That is truly strange indeed and demonstrates how asinine, ignorant and complacent the American public is and why we have the pathetic mess for a government we have today. . I can t remember if it was Micheal Medved or the late, great Paul Harvey that reported the majority of the public got its political information from the late night comedy; Lenol, Letterman, et al. That was 20 years ago or maybe longer. businessinsider.com study certainly verifies that pathetic fact ;-((
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


On this we agree - - stunning that people do better "just guessing" than taking their "informed" opinion whether left or right (Fox/MSNBC) and do so poorly.

Towards Robs point - - I don't really think the poll evaluates the accuracy/quality of the information but more about the demographic of the general audience. e.g. the person that spends time listening to NPR is likely more 'well read' and educated in general… rather than their "news" being more accurate

The Cynic in me looks at education programs/initiatives like common core, no child left behind and it seems we are 'intentionally' dumbing people down…. 2+2=5 style

Suppose we can all be Happy Happy - - as Nancy Reagan has decided on who participates in a field of 16 candidates for the next debate… wonder who her astrologist picked…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/nancy-reagan-sends-out-16-invites-for-the-sept-16-/
I know they are using polling like FOX… but really who cares what Nancy Reagan has to say about anything. This political dynasty stuff sucks.

Similarly I can't stand listening to Megan McCain any more than her dad.
I dread another Bush candidate.

Suppose that is better than Bobby Jindal or Lindsay Graham


----------



## oldnovice

In the words of Strother Martin (as the Captain, a prison warden in Cool Hand Luke),
*"What we've got here is failure to communicate" is a failure to cummunicate"* speaking our congress as they should all be put into a chain gang!


----------



## Mahdeew

Never talk to a Bush or you may end up wandering the desert for 40 years. Maybe that is our fade with Iraq.


----------



## DrDirt

> Never talk to a Bush or you may end up wandering the desert for 40 years. Maybe that is our fade with Iraq.
> 
> - mrjinx007


LOL … now that there is funny!!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> There is just no real way to redistribute the Accumulated wealth. while one could assume increasing pay would level the distribution of wealth, I suspect inflation would serve to screw them over and everyone ends in the same position. Like trying to take water out of the deep end of the pool and pour it into the shallow end to make the shallow end deeper….


The way you redistribute wealth is taxation to accomplish to things; reduce the the accumulation of excess capital used for speculation in the capital markets creating boom/ bust cycles and the creation of infrastructure like the interstate highway system that supports all of us, US.


----------



## DrDirt

> The way you redistribute wealth is taxation to accomplish to things; reduce the the accumulation of excess capital used for speculation in the capital markets creating boom/ bust cycles and the creation of infrastructure like the interstate highway system that supports all of us, US.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


But taxation only really works on *income*... one can certainly crank up property taxes, but that doesn't affect someone like George Clooney would still have a 100 million dollar Villa at lake Como in Italy…









There is really little that can be done to "confiscate accumulated wealth" in a realistic way without it being more like 1938 Germany.
The "Wealthy" would move to Geneva - and the USA would be in a worse position.

The Uber Rich don't really *need* the USA.
I make the top 10%... So the "fascism" it would take really creates what 'opportunity' for everyone else?

(I would like to be as Poor/Broke as the Clintons when they left the WHite House.. LOL)

http://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/
Based on the Internal Revenue Service's 2010-2014 database below, here's how much the top Americans make:
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280

We can point and say it is really the top 0.1% that is the problem… but what laws do you pursue to "go after" 0.1%?


----------



## RobS888

> lol, those "men on the street" thought they knew what they were talking about as well.
> I haven t seen you surpass 40% either.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> As soon as you hit double digits let me know, and I can order you a happy meal with a minion toy.
> 
> Here is a fine example of the brilliance of the "NON- Fox News watcher"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/4341050883001/watters-world-4th-of-july-quiz-edition-/?#sp=show-clips
> 
> It shows how poor our education is, and how easy it is to get all the rubes to vote for Hope and Change. because it is catchy… like "have it your way" or "a Coke and a Smile"
> 
> - DrDirt


Wow, more anecdotal "evidence".


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> But taxation only really works on income… one can certainly crank up property taxes, but that doesn't affect someone like George Clooney would still have a 100 million dollar Villa at lake Como in Italy…


Income and inheritance to the extent required to stabilize the capital markets; certainly nor for the purpose of redistributing to the masses. In a vibrant economy, they will b e able to provide for themselves, again.



> The Uber Rich don t really *need* the USA.
> I make the top 10%... So the "fascism" it would take really creates what opportunity for everyone else?
> 
> - DrDirt


They don't need it any more, they have milked us, US, pretty much dry.

I doubt I would today. The monopolies and corporate pigs pretty much have destroyed those opportunities. The youngsters attending Bernie Sanders meetings will reignite the US economy. They have nothing to lose; unemployed with a college degree and crippling debt on their backs. Bernie is right; the 1% can't have it all. Turn out at this point in the campaign is 10x what Obama turned out in 2007.

Fascism does not create opportunity for anyone. That is where corporate interests control the gov't for their own purposes and to the detriment of the masses.


----------



## RobS888

> Really??
> Which party used the IRS as their tool to affect election politics
> 
> which party closed the open air WW2 memorial in DC?
> 
> - DrDirt


Interesting question, which party was violating IRS rules?

Which party shutdown the government? Dems shut down a monument, republicans shut down the government, more than an order of magnitude difference there. Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## RobS888

> As soon as you hit double digits let me know, and I can order you a happy meal with a minion toy.
> 
> Here is a fine example of the brilliance of the "NON- Fox News watcher"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/4341050883001/watters-world-4th-of-july-quiz-edition-/?#sp=show-clips
> 
> It shows how poor our education is, and how easy it is to get all the rubes to vote for Hope and Change. because it is catchy… like "have it your way" or "a Coke and a Smile"
> 
> - DrDirt


I think they learned what you did, they just don't care. And really, some of them did better than you.


----------



## RobS888

> The way you redistribute wealth is taxation to accomplish to things; reduce the the accumulation of excess capital used for speculation in the capital markets creating boom/ bust cycles and the creation of infrastructure like the interstate highway system that supports all of us, US.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> But taxation only really works on *income*... one can certainly crank up property taxes, but that doesn t affect someone like George Clooney would still have a 100 million dollar Villa at lake Como in Italy…
> There is really little that can be done to "confiscate accumulated wealth" in a realistic way without it being more like 1938 Germany.
> The "Wealthy" would move to Geneva - and the USA would be in a worse position.
> 
> The Uber Rich don t really *need* the USA.
> I make the top 10%... So the "fascism" it would take really creates what  opportunity for everyone else?
> 
> (I would like to be as Poor/Broke as the Clintons when they left the WHite House.. LOL)
> Based on the Internal Revenue Service's 2010-2014 database below, here's how much the top Americans make:
> Top 1%: $380,354
> Top 5%: $159,619
> Top 10%: $113,799
> Top 25%: $67,280
> 
> We can point and say it is really the top 0.1% that is the problem… but what laws do you pursue to "go after" 0.1%?
> - DrDirt


Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Meaning, don't get stuck on exceptions, do what can be done.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> We can point and say it is really the top 0.1% that is the problem… but what laws do you pursue to "go after" 0.1%?
> 
> - DrDirt


Antitrust, end monopoly control of markets and reinstate competition. Half a dozen corps controlling pretty much every consumer product is not a free market.


----------



## oldnovice

I believe that redistribution of wealth can ONLY happen if the IRS tax rules are rolled back before Regan, or further, in incremental steps!

This would cause some moaning and crying at first but it would be almost inaudible as it would only be from 1%!

The catch would be to get this by our do nothing congress … maybe later, after the election ….?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Hans, The only way that will ever happen is if Bernie Sanders gets enough outsiders elected to Congress to support the agenda of the American people. Unfortunately, the majority seem to be totally ignorant and fooled into voting against their own best interests by the wedge issues that get all the publicity.

The Rs have at least 4 under indictment or close to it on their debate stage; Perry, Walker, Christie and ??( can't think of him right now). They don't talk about anything of substance. How much more of this BS will the American people put up with?


----------



## DrDirt

> But taxation only really works on income… one can certainly crank up property taxes, but that doesn't affect someone like George Clooney would still have a 100 million dollar Villa at lake Como in Italy…
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Income and inheritance to the extent required to stabilize the capital markets; certainly nor for the purpose of redistributing to the masses. In a vibrant economy, they will b e able to provide for themselves, again.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Your proposal is like stapling jello to a wall though…. nothing 'is static' and every move affects other parts of the machine of our economy.

The rich generally don't worry about inheritance limitations anyway, because everything of value is in a Trust, making it nearly untouchable by the government. As soon as you propose a change (and it appears to gain any traction) in legislation/regulation - - the rich just move it.

If the Rich go to Singapore (like the Facebook Exec)... what will our IRS 'confiscate from him' upon his demise?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/05/11/facebook-billionaire-gives-up-citizenship-to-escape-bad-american-tax-policy/

it is one thing to point to inequality and want to address it.
It is another to think that the government (1) has the will to go after them and (2) that the rich would stick around to be voluntarily screwed over.

So Bernie can pass some strict laws, and go back to Kennedy era taxes (that nobody actually paid) and people being targeted will just bail. So the net effect is to make the country more facist, and watch the exodus while those that cannot afford to move watch the rest of the country become detroit or Baltimore..

Facts about taxes - look to the effective rate not the "top marginal rate" regarding the Fanciful look back to the 50's
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare
*Effective Rates*

Unfortunately, the tax situation wasn't what it seemed. The illusion commences with that famous 1950s top rate of 91 percent.

Marc Linder, a law professor at the University of Iowa, has shown that a more comprehensive interpretation of income that includes capital gains suggests the *real effective tax rate for millionaires was 49 percent in 1953.* The effective rate dropped throughout the decade, *reaching 31 percent by 1960*.

A second fantasy about the 1950s is that government soaked the rich. Joseph Thorndike and Martin Sullivan in Tax Notes magazine took a look at the tax distribution of the decade. *They found that those earning more than $100,000 paid less than 5 percent of the taxes collected in the U.S., a far smaller share than the wealthiest shoulder today. *

So are we going for 31% for millionaires like the 50's? (before Kennedy took us from 91->~70%) versus the 39% today as the Solution to our societies ills?


----------



## Mahdeew

They need to do away with federal and income tax, limit fed spending to percentage of GDP and just print the money they need instead of milking the citizens. Flat tax would at least make every illegal, prostitute and drug dealer pay their taxes. Taxation without representation was why we departed from UK. According to Trump, we are taxed but he, Romney and alike are the one who reap the benefit.


----------



## DrDirt

Indeed mrjinx - - the reason we don't hav a flat or 'fair tax' is that it would no longer be possible to gain advantage with your senator to create 'special carvouts' to help one group and screw another.

Taxation is a powerful weapon.


----------



## Mahdeew

DrDirt,
Even if they print the money for federal expenditures, it would be considered an indirect tax (Annual inflation) and there would be no room for legal bribery by the special interest groups and their lobbyists. That is why it will never happen unless there is a reset.


----------



## oldnovice

*FYI*, Property tax cannot be "cranked up" in California due to prop 13!
But with the recent house buying frenzy and the increase in home prices the tax revenue isn't too bad.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Taxation without representation was why we departed from UK.
> - mrjinx007


We have taxation without representation now. Nobody in DC represents those of us, US, who still pay taxes.


----------



## Mahdeew

oldnovice, Property tax sucks. I even have to pay timber tax and if the timber gets logged, I have to pay capital gains on top of the timber tax. We also have a used car tax. Basically, we rent our property. Miss a few payments and it gets auctioned off right from under you.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Your proposal is like stapling jello to a wall though…. nothing is static and every move affects other parts of the machine of our economy.
> 
> The rich generally don t worry about inheritance limitations anyway, because everything of value is in a Trust, making it nearly untouchable by the government. As soon as you propose a change (and it appears to gain any traction) in legislation/regulation - - the rich just move it.
> 
> If the Rich go to Singapore (like the Facebook Exec)... what will our IRS confiscate from him upon his demise?
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/05/11/facebook-billionaire-gives-up-citizenship-to-escape-bad-american-tax-policy/
> 
> it is one thing to point to inequality and want to address it.
> It is another to think that the government (1) has the will to go after them and (2) that the rich would stick around to be voluntarily screwed over.
> 
> So Bernie can pass some strict laws, and go back to Kennedy era taxes (that nobody actually paid) and people being targeted will just bail. So the net effect is to make the country more facist, and watch the exodus while those that cannot afford to move watch the rest of the country become detroit or Baltimore..
> 
> Facts about taxes - look to the effective rate not the "top marginal rate" regarding the Fanciful look back to the 50 s
> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare
> *Effective Rates*
> 
> Unfortunately, the tax situation wasn't what it seemed. The illusion commences with that famous 1950s top rate of 91 percent.
> 
> Marc Linder, a law professor at the University of Iowa, has shown that a more comprehensive interpretation of income that includes capital gains suggests the *real effective tax rate for millionaires was 49 percent in 1953.* The effective rate dropped throughout the decade, *reaching 31 percent by 1960*.
> 
> A second fantasy about the 1950s is that government soaked the rich. Joseph Thorndike and Martin Sullivan in Tax Notes magazine took a look at the tax distribution of the decade. *They found that those earning more than $100,000 paid less than 5 percent of the taxes collected in the U.S., a far smaller share than the wealthiest shoulder today. *
> 
> So are we going for 31% for millionaires like the 50 s? (before Kennedy took us from 91->~70%) versus the 39% today as the Solution to our societies ills?
> 
> - DrDirt


Too bad you are too young to remember the country I grew up in when we still had patriotic Americans instead of a bunch of spoiled brat [email protected][email protected]$ that think they can run rough shod over everyone and everything.

If The Bernie Movement is unsuccessful, the spoiled brat [email protected][email protected]$ could very well find themselves in great jeopardy. The 80 year cycle is nearing its climax. Bob Altemeyer's research shows a full third of the population is authoritarian without the ability to associate causes and effects. Last time, in the 30s there was a genuine concern the people would vote to put communists in power; they would nationalize everything. Ask the Cubans how that works for the elite. It appears the structure we call civilization is quite fragile. All the money in the world will have no value in event of chaos; either, man made or natural disaster.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> oldnovice, Property tax sucks. I even have to pay timber tax and if the timber gets logged, I have to pay capital gains on top of the timber tax. We also have a used car tax. Basically, we rent our property. Miss a few payments and it gets auctioned off right from under you.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Should all the benefits associated with living in America be tax free?


----------



## Mahdeew

Bob, yes. It is the tax burden that has moved businesses overseas and it is the tax burden that always decelerate the economic activities. Just look at where the taxes are going. Military industrial complex, Egypt, Pakistan, Israel to name a few. Military bases in a few hundred countries, government workers who require a engineering degree to check exit light, health workers with a $70G salary who ticket kids with koolaid stands and so on. On the other hand, look at the infrastructure of the country; the roads are horrible, bridges need repair, homeless population. We have more people in (for profit prisons) than most of the western world combined.
I can see being taxed and reaping the benefits of being taxed, but I don't see it (taxation without representation).


----------



## DrDirt

> Too bad you are too young to remember the country I grew up in when we still had patriotic Americans instead of a bunch of spoiled brat [email protected][email protected]$ that think they can run rough shod over everyone and everything.
> 
> If The Bernie Movement is unsuccessful, the spoiled brat [email protected][email protected]$ could very well find themselves in great jeopardy. The 80 year cycle is nearing its climax. Bob Altemeyer s research shows a full third of the population is authoritarian without the ability to associate causes and effects. Last time, in the 30s there was a genuine concern the people would vote to put communists in power; they would nationalize everything. Ask the Cubans how that works for the elite. It appears the structure we call civilization is quite fragile. All the money in the world will have no value in event of chaos; either, man made or natural disaster.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Sure my history starts in the 60's but I also had parents, so there is a knoweldge of the past

I recall in lowering taxes… it was about "simplifying the tax code" under Reagan…. we said lets have a simple lower rate and "Get rid of all the exemptions and receipts"

Now people just look back and say "lets go back to the old tax rates because everything was peachy then".

They also scream about reagan even though the 1986 tax cut was sponsored by ….. DEMOCRATS!
The U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted October 22, 1986) to simplify the income tax code, broaden the tax base and eliminate many tax shelters. Referred to as the second of the two "Reagan tax cuts" (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981 being the first), the bill was also officially sponsored by* Democrats, Richard Gephardt of Missouri in the House of Representatives and Bill Bradley of New Jersey in the Senate*.

They skip the fact of all the deductions that were taken out.

They also ignore globalization of the past 60 years.

*How many people were driving Hondas and Datsuns in the 1950's outside of japan?* (Or Kia or Hyundai from Korea for that matter)
All of our great strides under Eisenhower were made while the world still was rebuilding their economy/infrastructure after WW2 and the "Military Industrial Complex" in Korea

The idea that we can go back to the 50's and "pull the same economic levers" and have them work today like it did when we actually were a net exporter of goods and services…Pan Am until TWA broke it was the ONLY US International airline.

The rest of the world caught up…. The The Koreans are dominant in electronics now (Samsung) as well as Cars with kia and Hyundai.
Kia is building a 2 Billion dollar factory in Monterrey Mexico to supply North America with cars.

No GM Bailout is stopping that at all.

I use the Jello analogy because se not longer have a lock on our markets, nor supplies of raw materials. The work in the 50's was unique based on us not being smoldering rubble and unexploded ordinance

The idea that we can get that back is just not feasible.
Not saying the Norman Rockwell picture is not nice or desireable, but it is just not attainable in a global society.

Maybe instead of "dismissing my half century or youth".... tell me how the 1950's policies would *actually work* in todays world.


----------



## patcollins

> Bob, yes. It is the tax burden that has moved businesses overseas and it is the tax burden that always decelerate the economic activities.
> - mrjinx007


Taxes are only a portion. Wages, environmental regulations (third world doesn't care), other personnel related costs etc.


----------



## oldnovice

> oldnovice, Property tax sucks. I even have to pay timber tax and if the timber gets logged, I have to pay capital gains on top of the timber tax. We also have a used car tax. Basically, we rent our property. Miss a few payments and it gets auctioned off right from under you.
> 
> - mrjinx007


*Mrjinx*, Are those state or federal taxes on the timber? In either case that sounds like double taxation on the timber.

OK, let's get rid of personal income tax and replace it with a federal sales tax while increasing the luxury tax!


----------



## Bonka

The luxury tax caused a lot of job loss when it was tried. Yachts, jets and such take workers to make them, pilot them and maintain them.
I remember when it was enacted and it did not last long. Class envy at its finest.


----------



## patcollins

> tell me how the 1950 s policies would *actually work* in todays world.
> 
> - DrDirt


Well you would have to eliminate any minorities from consideration for good jobs, also eliminate women from consideration and your worker pool shrinks by a whole lot. This leaves all us white guys with the good jobs and we can demand more money.

That is simply what happens when you add more viable workers to the mix, the supply goes up therefore the demand goes down.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Bob, yes. It is the tax burden that has moved businesses overseas and it is the tax burden that always decelerate the economic activities. Just look at where the taxes are going. Military industrial complex, Egypt, Pakistan, Israel to name a few. Military bases in a few hundred countries, government workers who require a engineering degree to check exit light, health workers with a $70G salary who ticket kids with koolaid stands and so on. On the other hand, look at the infrastructure of the country; the roads are horrible, bridges need repair, homeless population. We have more people in (for profit prisons) than most of the western world combined.
> I can see being taxed and reaping the benefits of being taxed, but I don't see it (taxation without representation).


The tax structure has moved business overseas without a doubt; tax breaks for moving jobs out of the USA without any restriction to the US market are never mentioned. Some of the most profitable corps pay nothing in the US yet take billions in tax rebates; another of Bernie's points. It is a lack of any reasonable trade policy more than taxes. They really don't pay much of anything. The burden has been shifted to the middle class starting with Reagan.

During Slick Willie's administration, Micheal Medved had a business owner on the air that told how the US gov't (State Dept I think, but not sure) was recruiting businesses to move to the Yucatan Peninsula. They were guaranteeing them cheap labor, protection from unionization of the labor force in violation of US law and no environmental standards. He was one of the few Americans left that were outraged by the acts of treason against us, US, being committed by our own damn government!

It is too bad Bush the dumbest spent a trillion dollars creating a few million refugees in the middle east, totally destroying their economy, bringing unprecedented levels of violence to the region, sending 4,000 US service personnel to their deaths and causing the terrorist threat at home to be higher than ever. Meanwhile, at home the mother's of school kids have bake sales to buy books and school supplies.

If we had any representation for how our tax dollars are spent, this crap would not be happening. I would refer to Congress as corporate prostitutes, but that would be an insult to the prostitutes. They only sell themselves, not the whole country down the tube.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

BTW, look how Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) feels about being duped by Bush.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/08/12/3690847/walter-jones-iraq-war-regret/


----------



## RobS888

> They need to do away with federal and income tax, limit fed spending to percentage of GDP and just print the money they need instead of milking the citizens. Flat tax would at least make every illegal, prostitute and drug dealer pay their taxes. Taxation without representation was why we departed from UK. According to Trump, we are taxed but he, Romney and alike are the one who reap the benefit.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Sorry, not quite true, we left, so we could take over the continent. The no taxation without representation solution was offered well before the rebellion started.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conciliatory_Resolution


----------



## patcollins

> The burden has been shifted to the middle class starting with Reagan.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


This chart says differently.










As does this one










They both show an increase under Reagan. Your hate for Reagan has blinded you to what the data actually shows.


----------



## Mahdeew

I guess I should have been more clear, we departed from British rule because of taxation without representation. 
oldnovice, It is a state tax that I pay annually just to have trees. Everyone around me have pastures and cows and get a lot of tax break because of it. I just can't bring myself to cut all the trees.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

We need to depart oligarchy rule for the same reason.

Geez, here in WA I had to file a timber management plan when we bought acreage with trees attached ;-) WE have penalty for not having them. That does sound a bit strange.


----------



## RobS888

> Sure my history starts in the 60 s but I also had parents, so there is a knoweldge of the past
> 
> I recall in lowering taxes… it was about "simplifying the tax code" under Reagan…. we said lets have a simple lower rate and "Get rid of all the exemptions and receipts"
> 
> Now people just look back and say "lets go back to the old tax rates because everything was peachy then".
> 
> They also scream about reagan even though the 1986 tax cut was sponsored by ….. DEMOCRATS!
> The U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted October 22, 1986) to simplify the income tax code, broaden the tax base and eliminate many tax shelters. Referred to as the second of the two "Reagan tax cuts" (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981 being the first), the bill was also officially sponsored by* Democrats, Richard Gephardt of Missouri in the House of Representatives and Bill Bradley of New Jersey in the Senate*.
> 
> - DrDirt


Still lying by omission I see. The 86 "tax cuts" were reforms that raised 54 billion! The first year.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was given impetus by a detailed tax-simplification proposal from President Reagan's Treasury Department, and was designed to be tax-revenue neutral because Reagan stated that he would veto any bill that was not. Revenue neutrality was targeted by decreasing individual income tax rates, eliminating $30 billion annually in loopholes, while increasing corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and miscellaneous excises.[1] The act raised overall revenue by $54.9 billion in the first fiscal year after enactment [2] As of 2014, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the most recent major simplification of the tax code, drastically reducing the number of deductions and the number of tax brackets (for the individual income tax) to three.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986


----------



## RobS888

> I guess I should have been more clear, we departed from British rule because of taxation without representation.
> oldnovice, It is a state tax that I pay annually just to have trees. Everyone around me have pastures and cows and get a lot of tax break because of it. I just can t bring myself to cut all the trees.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Perhaps, but they did repeal the taxes.


----------



## RobS888

> The burden has been shifted to the middle class starting with Reagan.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> This chart says differently.
> 
> As does this one
> 
> They both show an increase under Reagan. Your hate for Reagan has blinded you to what the data actually shows.
> 
> - patcollins


They went low and then bounced back, perhaps they saw how bad that approach was. He did cause a recession at first.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The burden has been shifted to the middle class starting with Reagan.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> This chart says differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As does this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both show an increase under Reagan. Your hate for Reagan has blinded you to what the data actually shows.
> 
> - patcollins


My hate for Reagan? I voted for the [email protected][email protected] twice. However, I do wish I would have known what he really had in mind and was doing behind the scenes that was never reported. Al Gore hadn't invented the WWW yet, so info was a bit harder to come by than now, plus I was busy starting my business. I'm sure you know how that works starting from "0" with nothing; 7/16s most weeks.

That chart shows corporate taxes dropping does it not?

Another fact that the chart misses is FICA taxes were doubled under the guise if saving Social Security. When Ronnie's gang started running big deficits, FICA income and Social Security payments were moved to the general fund and the limits were raised. The middle class was saddled with the biggest tax burden and the fat cats began benefited with lower income taxes and even less with capital gains tax instead of regular income tax.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Sure my history starts in the 60 s but I also had parents, so there is a knowledge of the past


My parents told me about the Great Depression too, but that does not mean I really comprehend or understand living through it. Hattmann points out the reason for the 80 year cycle is as soon as those who experienced an event have passed from Congress, the newbies, even with knowledge, set the stage to repeat. Reaganomics set the stage, but the real damage for the Second Great Depression has been assured at the end of Clinton and in the Bush years when all the people with Depression experience vs. knowledge had passed into retirement.



> Now people just look back and say "lets go back to the old tax rates because everything was peachy then".
> 
> They also scream about reagan even though the 1986 tax cut was sponsored by ….. DEMOCRATS!
> The U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted October 22, 1986) to simplify the income tax code, broaden the tax base and eliminate many tax shelters. Referred to as the second of the two "Reagan tax cuts" (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981 being the first), the bill was also officially sponsored by* Democrats, Richard Gephardt of Missouri in the House of Representatives and Bill Bradley of New Jersey in the Senate*.


In those days, the president set the agenda. He might not get everything, but there was none of the vicious, destroy the US if necessary to win type of behavior in DC. Newt introduced it in Clinton's tenure, it wasn't until Obama that they adopted a policy of "Not only NO! But, Hell NO!" to everything; good, bad or indifferent.



> *How many people were driving Hondas and Datsuns in the 1950 s outside of japan?* (Or Kia or Hyundai from Korea for that matter)
> All of our great strides under Eisenhower were made while the world still was rebuilding their economy/infrastructure after WW2 and the "Military Industrial Complex" in Korea


It was the Marshall Plan that brought those countries back and American investment and access to our markets that made it possible. First time in the history of the world the conqueror did not make them suffer. Reasonable trade policies deal with those issues.



> The idea that we can go back to the 50 s and "pull the same economic levers" and have them work today like it did when we actually were a net exporter of goods and services…Pan Am until TWA broke it was the ONLY US International airline.
> 
> The rest of the world caught up…. The The Koreans are dominant in electronics now (Samsung) as well as Cars with kia and Hyundai.
> Kia is building a 2 Billion dollar factory in Monterrey Mexico to supply North America with cars.


They caught up because we gave it to them with most favored nations trade status. China would not be threatening our GPS satellites today if Clinton's contributors had not illegally given them the technology to reliably launch a missile. Slick Willie, being the peach of a guy he is, with a stroke of a pen, made the treasonous act legal thereby ending the investigation that would have certainly resulted in some serious time in Federal penitentiaries.



> No GM Bailout is stopping that at all.
> 
> I use the Jello analogy because se not longer have a lock on our markets, nor supplies of raw materials. The work in the 50 s was unique based on us not being smoldering rubble and unexploded ordinance
> 
> The idea that we can get that back is just not feasible.
> Not saying the Norman Rockwell picture is not nice or desireable, but it is just not attainable in a global society.
> 
> Maybe instead of "dismissing my half century or youth".... tell me how the 1950 s policies would *actually work* in todays world.
> 
> - DrDirt


We should control our markets, everyone else does. If it were not for corporate greed, we would be controlling them. European countries control their markets.

The point is WE GAVE it to them because of the Reagan Revolution based on the ideology the rich were chosen by God to rule the peons because they are rich. The oligarchy has taken monopoly control. They own the gov't.

Norman Rockwell will not paint his version of America again. But, the reasonable trade policies that keep Americans employed, tax policies that promote a stable economy like we had from WWII to 1980 will go a long way to returning us, US, to what we were; a time when the majority had a reasonable expectation of a home, food, educated children, occasional vacation and retirement from ONE income! Didn't your parents pass those expectations down to you?

The latest issue of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Journal carried a story about Southern California Edison illegally bringing in 500 Indian workers on H1b visas to replace American workers. The Americans were told the would not receive their severance packages if they did not train their replacements.

I worked on a customer service facility of a major manufacturer that was established in the Seattle area in the early 20th century. It would take a very naive fool to not be able to see this same thing was happening there.

BE sure you really want what you will get before you call for no government or regulation.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me."

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> They went low and then bounced back, perhaps they saw how bad that approach was. He did cause a recession at first.
> 
> - RobS888


Those blips on the charts probably show economic activity as the result of the inflation of the 70s and the Reagan Recession with its recovery more than any policies set.


----------



## Mahdeew

*Al Gore hadn't invented the WWW yet,* ha,ha…Good one.
For 6 ½ long years, we have been bombarded with the mythology known as "the U.S. economic recovery" by the mainstream media. Exposing this fantasy is simple, since the gulf between myth and reality has grown to such absurd proportions.

There is no better starting point than the farcical claim by Barack Obama that "10 million new jobs" have been created during this non-existent recovery. In fact, the U.S. government's own numbers show that the total number of employed Americans has fallen by more than 3 million over that span, in spite of the population growth over those past 6 ½ years.









LINK


----------



## Mahdeew

In 1950, the Federal minimum wage in the United States was set at 75-cents per hour. This meant that no matter what a person did for a living, according to national productivity standards for workers, their work was worth a minimum of 75 pennies for an hour worked, $30 for an average work week, or a little over $1560 a year. At that time, this was a bit more than the average cost of a brand new automobile.A worker could work all year, save every penny, and buy a brand new mid-grade car without taking out a loan.

In 2012, the average cost for an automobile was $30,748, slightly more than double what a minimum wage worker would be paid, before taxes, working full time.  LINK

According to this site, purchasing power of $10 in the 50's is equivalent to $100 today or $1=$10. So, if the minimum wage in the 50's was $.75, the inflation adjusted minimum wage today should be $7.50. Why is it that a person could at least support himself and be debt free in the 50's but not today?
Bob, you are right about our taxes are being spend foolishly and more likely is being squandered by the few. I can compare it to interest rates. If I can borrow money at a 10% interest and make 12%, I would be foolish not to do it. However, if I am paying 35% in taxes and am seeing a 15% improvement in overall benefits collectively, then obviously, the one managing my investment is doing a lousy job.


----------



## DrDirt

> BTW, look how Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) feels about being duped by Bush.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/08/12/3690847/walter-jones-iraq-war-regret/
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Yep - - he was a "blindly follow the party guy" and still is. He just knows 13 years later that Iraq was a mistake, and is tryin to distance himself from having been a blind partisan.

I would bet he would "follow the president" again if the same situation arose.

When you look at his ideology - - you see he is in the middle…. of the PARTY, not a centrist.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/walter_jones/400209


----------



## DrDirt

> In those days, the president set the agenda. He might not get everything, but there was none of the vicious, destroy the US if necessary to win type of behavior in DC. Newt introduced it in Clinton s tenure, it wasn t until Obama that they adopted a policy of "Not only NO! But, Hell NO!" to everything; good, bad or indifferent.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


The president still sets the agenda… 
Even Barry - - Healthcare reform, middle east policy, and Race wars….
Those ideals are not coming from The Oompa Loompa John Boehner….



> *How many people were driving Hondas and Datsuns in the 1950 s outside of japan?* (Or Kia or Hyundai from Korea for that matter)
> All of our great strides under Eisenhower were made while the world still was rebuilding their economy/infrastructure after WW2 and the "Military Industrial Complex" in Korea
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> It was the Marshall Plan that brought those countries back and American investment and access to our markets that made it possible. First time in the history of the world the conqueror did not make them suffer. Reasonable trade policies deal with those issues.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Yes it was - - not so much for Korea's entrance into Automaking - we need better trade policies.. The Fact is that we have little control over our markets - as goods are available from everywhere.

We certainly could follow India's model and have 30% import duties, to level the playing field from third world suppliers. However there is a lot of industry like mining and Steel that our government actively pushed away in order to clean up cities like Pittsburgh, and Allentown.

More in my wheel house has been the dependance on China for Rare Earth minierals.. California's Mountain Pass mine dominated the tech revolution into the early 80's - - - then the environmental movement demanded China control our future - because mining is ugly.

Now China has 93% of all Rare Earth production, and controls the world supply.



> We should control our markets, everyone else does. If it were not for corporate greed, we would be controlling them. European countries control their markets.
> 
> The point is WE GAVE it to them because of the Reagan Revolution based on the ideology the rich were chosen by God to rule the peons because they are rich. The oligarchy has taken monopoly control. They own the gov t.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Not following you down the Reagan rabbit Hole… I see more problems with the money spent on social engineering, creating "the projects" and the Great Society + Vietnam doing a lot more damage as it frankly set Carter up to be a failure.

Just as Obama's mid-east floundering, has screwed whoever inherits his mess in Iran/Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Congo Come January 2017.



> Norman Rockwell will not paint his version of America again. But, the reasonable trade policies that keep Americans employed, tax policies that promote a stable economy like we had from WWII to 1980 will go a long way to returning us, US, to what we were; a time when the majority had a reasonable expectation of a home, food, educated children, occasional vacation and retirement from ONE income! Didn t your parents pass those expectations down to you?
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Sure they did - and I am living it. But it gets Harder every day - - and that has a lot more to do with Bush and Obama than Reagan.



> The latest issue of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Journal carried a story about Southern California Edison illegally bringing in 500 Indian workers on H1b visas to replace American workers. The Americans were told the would not receive their severance packages if they did not train their replacements.
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Bill Gates has done this for 30 years.



> BE sure you really want what you will get before you call for no government or regulation.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Come on - - you are a better person than this "All or Nothing" bull******************** argument. 
There is a middle ground available. But the partisans will have nothing to do with it.

People are focused on the "Expansion of government" not the idea that there shouldn't be government at all.
Thought by the above you were putting in serious thought.

You still don't really posit - how the 1950's POLICIES and LAWS - - would solve anything in the Global marketplace.
Better Union Wages at GM or Ford - - will just finish off GM and Ford - as the Asians are building better cars for far less money…. even when they build them here!
The entire rise of Honda/Toyota/Datsun was during the period of a strong UAW.

Sure we could have had our government block imports or make duties incredibly high. Then we could still be driving a Plymouth Volare - - maybe a K-car?
Don't forget the Pinto and Mustang II

However we ask to compete head to head… we lose on quality and cost. No regulation from uncle sam takes care of that.

I would posit - - *"Be sure what you really want before you Demand that Congress solve technology and trade problems…. as they are too F-ing stupid"*


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I didn't say all or nothing. You really need to study capital markets and stability. WE do not need a banking crissi every decade.

Bush is in the center of right wing extremism and fascism. The US has moved so far right, Reagan would be a D today!

There is little doubt the recovery has creaated more than 10 million jobs, too bad they are all in China.


----------



## DrDirt

> *I didn t say all or nothing. * You really need to study capital markets and stability. WE do not need a banking crissi every decade.
> 
> Bush is in the center of right wing extremism and fascism. The US has moved so far right, Reagan would be a D today!
> 
> There is little doubt the recovery has created more than 10 million jobs, too bad they are all in China.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


hmmmm How SHOULD I have read:


> BE sure you really want what you will get before you call for *no* government or regulation.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Because who is calling for "No Government" or No Regulation at all?

No rational person is an Anarchist - - and even the tea party are not in that category

Seems to me the country has moved left. they want MORE entitlement spending… Open Borders…mandatory White priveledge training, and Gay Marraige is passed. Anyone opposed to Gay Marraige is not fit to be CEO of the company they started (Mozilla), and Bernie Sanders is leading Hillary 44:37 in New Hampshire.

How do you take that and say we have moved to the Right?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

That is pretty much where the oligarchy you are defending wants to go. We are not talking about social issues, this is a financial stabilization discussion.

Here's a good discussion on the open market issue ~ Greenspan's Fraud: How Two Decades of His Policies Have Undermined the Global Economy


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

BTW, Thom Hartmann was talking about the only way the Rs will probably defeat Bernie is through voter fraud keeping people from the polls.

He had a good rant about all the socially acceptable socialist programs America has benefited from greatly in the 20th century in the first half of hour 3 yesterday. Anyone interested can probably find his show archived online. 91.3 should have it.


----------



## DrDirt

> That is pretty much where the oligarchy you are defending wants to go. We are not talking about social issues, this is a financial stabilization discussion.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Not sure how Dodd Frank moved us to the Right since you say that you only meant banking….

Bernie is as electable on the left as Trump is on the Right.

The Extremes from each will support the extreme candidate.

The rest of the country will vote for the moderate candidate.

Hillary vs Trump or Rand Paul or Santorum.. would be a Hillary win
Sanders. vs. 'walker or Rubio or kasich' Sanders loses.

I don't see Bernie getting the minorities to go to the polls (High percent of the voters that went… YES, but he won't get the turnout).

Voter ID as Suppression is a big lie - - a Red Herring argument that Democrats use to support the Chicago way in elections of Vote Early and Vote Often. Haven't seen that from Republican areas…Hmmmmm

Gee wouldn't it be a Fascist Hellhole if we held elections like France or Germany or Canada…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws


----------



## Mahdeew

I believe this discussion is a proof how divided the country is over social issues and thus totally distracted as it relates to the state of the union. Divide and conquer as they say. The problem almost resemble the Shiite and Sunni divide. Shiite being the liberals and Sunni the conservatives. I could see this kind of attitude change could be very problematic in a SHF event. This "enmity" has distracted the citizens from their real enemy. It has been an effective strategy which has produced a "desirable" outcome in a short period of time so far. Started with Reagan maybe?


----------



## DrDirt

> I believe this discussion is a proof how divided the country is over social issues and thus totally distracted as it relates to the state of the union. Divide and conquer as they say. The problem almost resemble the Shiite and Sunni divide. Shiite being the liberals and Sunni the conservatives. I could see this kind of attitude change could be very problematic in a SHF event. This "enmity" has distracted the citizens from their real enemy. It has been an effective strategy which has produced a "desirable" outcome in a short period of time so far. Started with Reagan maybe?
> 
> - mrjinx007


You are right - - I suspect it is more of an offshoot of how politics changed during/following Vietnam.

Anybody remember violent protests - - - campus shootings like Kent State, during FDR and WW2??... or Truman when he started the "police Action" in Korea?? or even kennedy and Cuba/bay of pigs?

I see the confluence - of draft dodging + Protests+social engineering + civil rights movement + womens movement+ Roe-v-Wade type social issues from say 1965-75…. all coming together to create a social climate that those who were protesters then…. are the ones running the show now! (Like Kerry and Clinton and Bushes)


----------



## DrDirt

I look forward to hearing what our President's position will be on Fidel Castro's demand for Reparations. SInce teh Cuba Embargo was initiated by an evil Republican (Eisenhower)... yep the embargo predates Kennedy.

So will Obama cave just so that he can claim to "undo the work of the Dr. Evil republicans"?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/13/432068588/on-eve-of-embassy-reopening-fidel-castro-says-u-s-owes-cuba-millions


----------



## Mahdeew

That is nuts. I'll give him $2 for a cigar.


----------



## patcollins

> Bush is in the center of right wing extremism and fascism. The US has moved so far right, Reagan would be a D today!
> - TopamaxSurvivor


LOL

Bush presided over one of the largest expansions of government to date, Medicare Part D. Bush was a democrat in republican clothing.


----------



## DanYo

> Never talk to a Bush or you may end up wandering the desert for 40 years. Maybe that is our fade with Iraq.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> LOL … now that there is funny!!
> 
> - DrDirt


ha


----------



## DanYo

> Never talk to a Bush or you may end up wandering the desert for 40 years. Maybe that is our fade with Iraq.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> LOL … now that there is funny!!
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> ha
> 
> - Dan um Style


I knew it!









http://jokes.cc.com/funny-god/lg2ry4/the-jewish-vote


----------



## Mahdeew

Another one is:
Bush was jugging and saw a man who looked like Moshe and while Bush kept asking him if he was Moshe, the old man kept ignored him. Finally at the last request from Bush he said,.....


----------



## RobS888

> *Al Gore hadn't invented the WWW yet,* ha,ha…Good one.
> For 6 ½ long years, we have been bombarded with the mythology known as "the U.S. economic recovery" by the mainstream media. Exposing this fantasy is simple, since the gulf between myth and reality has grown to such absurd proportions.
> 
> There is no better starting point than the farcical claim by Barack Obama that "10 million new jobs" have been created during this non-existent recovery. In fact, the U.S. government's own numbers show that the total number of employed Americans has fallen by more than 3 million over that span, in spite of the population growth over those past 6 ½ years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> - mrjinx007


Easily explained by retirement.

EDIT:

Actually, isn't that rise from the mid 60s boomers entering the workforce. In 2011 the the oldest hit 65 and started retiring, 10,000/day are retiring. The decline is them leaving the workforce. This should not be a surprise to anyone.


----------



## RobS888

> I look forward to hearing what our President s position will be on Fidel Castro s demand for Reparations. SInce teh Cuba Embargo was initiated by an evil Republican (Eisenhower)... yep the embargo predates Kennedy.
> 
> So will Obama cave just so that he can claim to "undo the work of the Dr. Evil republicans"?
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/13/432068588/on-eve-of-embassy-reopening-fidel-castro-says-u-s-owes-cuba-millions
> 
> - DrDirt


I see… another shot at the President. Must really get under your skin that he is our Commander in Chief!


----------



## oldnovice

Does anyone honestly believe that we owe Cuba anything?

Cuba should be glad to get the goods and services they missing for so long, plus all of the U.S. tourism.
They are going to benefit more than they know!

IMO, they should pay us for opening the door!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The big stumbling block for many years has been the nationalized assets that Americans lost when Cuba went commie.


----------



## patcollins

> *Al Gore hadn't invented the WWW yet,* ha,ha…Good one.
> For 6 ½ long years, we have been bombarded with the mythology known as "the U.S. economic recovery" by the mainstream media. Exposing this fantasy is simple, since the gulf between myth and reality has grown to such absurd proportions.
> 
> There is no better starting point than the farcical claim by Barack Obama that "10 million new jobs" have been created during this non-existent recovery. In fact, the U.S. government's own numbers show that the total number of employed Americans has fallen by more than 3 million over that span, in spite of the population growth over those past 6 ½ years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> Easily explained by retirement.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Actually, isn t that rise from the mid 60s boomers entering the workforce. In 2011 the the oldest hit 65 and started retiring, 10,000/day are retiring. The decline is them leaving the workforce. This should not be a surprise to anyone.
> 
> - RobS888


Since it is a percentage of adult aged people I would say the huge rise from the 60's to the 80's is women entering the workforce.


----------



## patcollins

> The burden has been shifted to the middle class starting with Reagan.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> This chart says differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As does this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They both show an increase under Reagan. Your hate for Reagan has blinded you to what the data actually shows.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> My hate for Reagan? I voted for the [email protected][email protected] twice. However, I do wish I would have known what he really had in mind and was doing behind the scenes that was never reported. Al Gore hadn t invented the WWW yet, so info was a bit harder to come by than now, plus I was busy starting my business. I m sure you know how that works starting from "0" with nothing; 7/16s most weeks.
> 
> That chart shows corporate taxes dropping does it not?
> 
> Another fact that the chart misses is FICA taxes were doubled under the guise if saving Social Security. When Ronnie s gang started running big deficits, FICA income and Social Security payments were moved to the general fund and the limits were raised. The middle class was saddled with the biggest tax burden and the fat cats began benefited with lower income taxes and even less with capital gains tax instead of regular income tax.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


If you can read a chart you can clearly see that the decline in corporate taxes started dropping like a rock far before Reagan in the time you consider "the golden age" and actually have the largest uptick in that time frame under Reagan. You stated that Reagan started all of that, clearly not true.

You can hate somebody that you use to like, by constantly referring to him as a bastard you demonstrate this quite well. I voted for Clinton, doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Mahdeew

> *Al Gore hadn't invented the WWW yet,* ha,ha…Good one.
> For 6 ½ long years, we have been bombarded with the mythology known as "the U.S. economic recovery" by the mainstream media. Exposing this fantasy is simple, since the gulf between myth and reality has grown to such absurd proportions.
> 
> There is no better starting point than the farcical claim by Barack Obama that "10 million new jobs" have been created during this non-existent recovery. In fact, the U.S. government's own numbers show that the total number of employed Americans has fallen by more than 3 million over that span, in spite of the population growth over those past 6 ½ years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> Easily explained by retirement.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Actually, isn t that rise from the mid 60s boomers entering the workforce. In 2011 the the oldest hit 65 and started retiring, 10,000/day are retiring. The decline is them leaving the workforce. This should not be a surprise to anyone.
> 
> - RobS888


The retired are not counted as unemployed (they are not actively looking for a job) or employed (their pension/retirement/income does not count them as employed).


----------



## Mahdeew

Rob, by your logic, if 10,000 boomers are retiring every day (which is correct) unless their jobs are retiring with them, the employment numbers should at least show 300,000 new jobs created every month to fill those positions.


----------



## patcollins

> Rob, by your logic, if 10,000 boomers are retiring every day (which is correct) unless their jobs are retiring with them, the employment numbers should at least show 300,000 new jobs created every month to fill those positions.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I don't think that is a created job, that is a vacant job. It should not be counted the same.

For example you own a business that employs 10 people, one retires and you hire someone to replace them, you have not created a new job. Vs you hav3 10 employees and decide you need 11, so you hire someone, there you have created a job.


----------



## RobS888

> *Al Gore hadn't invented the WWW yet,* ha,ha…Good one.
> For 6 ½ long years, we have been bombarded with the mythology known as "the U.S. economic recovery" by the mainstream media. Exposing this fantasy is simple, since the gulf between myth and reality has grown to such absurd proportions.
> 
> There is no better starting point than the farcical claim by Barack Obama that "10 million new jobs" have been created during this non-existent recovery. In fact, the U.S. government's own numbers show that the total number of employed Americans has fallen by more than 3 million over that span, in spite of the population growth over those past 6 ½ years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> Easily explained by retirement.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Actually, isn t that rise from the mid 60s boomers entering the workforce. In 2011 the the oldest hit 65 and started retiring, 10,000/day are retiring. The decline is them leaving the workforce. This should not be a surprise to anyone.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> The retired are not counted as unemployed (they are not actively looking for a job) or employed (their pension/retirement/income does not count them as employed).
> 
> - mrjinx007


We've been over this before! The participation rate is number of people employed / over 16 year olds.

Look at the number of people with jobs, it is relatively constant.

EDIT:

Should anyone want the truth about Al Gore and the start of the internet, the history is laid out here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology


----------



## RobS888

> *Al Gore hadn't invented the WWW yet,* ha,ha…Good one.
> For 6 ½ long years, we have been bombarded with the mythology known as "the U.S. economic recovery" by the mainstream media. Exposing this fantasy is simple, since the gulf between myth and reality has grown to such absurd proportions.
> 
> There is no better starting point than the farcical claim by Barack Obama that "10 million new jobs" have been created during this non-existent recovery. In fact, the U.S. government's own numbers show that the total number of employed Americans has fallen by more than 3 million over that span, in spite of the population growth over those past 6 ½ years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINK
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> Easily explained by retirement.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Actually, isn t that rise from the mid 60s boomers entering the workforce. In 2011 the the oldest hit 65 and started retiring, 10,000/day are retiring. The decline is them leaving the workforce. This should not be a surprise to anyone.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Since it is a percentage of adult aged people I would say the huge rise from the 60 s to the 80 s is women entering the workforce.
> 
> - patcollins


Boomer women… that have started retiring.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob, by your logic, if 10,000 boomers are retiring every day (which is correct) unless their jobs are retiring with them, the employment numbers should at least show 300,000 new jobs created every month to fill those positions.
> 
> - mrjinx007


You aren't looking at number of employed. You are looking at % of all adults working. Not the same at all.

EDIT:
You mentioned you were born overseas, so I have no idea when you came to the states. I wanted to tell you that the baby boomers were described, population wise, as a snake eating a bowling ball. There was expansion to accommodation them and there will be contraction after them. This is a simple fact of so many being born in one generation, then not having as many kids themselves.

As you can see below there was a 29 million increase followed by a 21 million decrease. Unless immigration fills the difference (it didn't) then of course, the number of adults working must decrease.


----------



## DrDirt

Looks like a portion of the full time jobs have been replaced by the spike in part time jobs.

And that the "new" job position, doesn't bring in as much money (median income continues to drop)


----------



## RobS888

> Looks like a portion of the full time jobs have been replaced by the spike in part time jobs.
> 
> And that the "new" job position, doesn t bring in as much money (median income continues to drop)
> 
> - DrDirt


Raise the minimum wage.


----------



## DrDirt

> Raise the minimum wage.
> 
> - RobS888


Inflation would off set that.

We need more "good Jobs" 
not 'better pay at McDonalds" 
Why don't you look around your area and see if a minimum wage job even exists?

- - - EDIT - - -

I am in the center of kansas in a 47K population city.
Subway starts people at 9 dollars an hour according to the help wanted sign on the door.

I suspect that you would have to search a long time to find someone only being paid 7.25

Junior started working part time after school at the bar-b-que place that just opened as a dishwasher - and it pays over 8 to my 16 year old.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/

Miniumum wage workers (which includes "tipped" employees like waitresses) make up only 4.3% of the 76 million hourly employees.
So adjustments here would not dent the household income numbers


----------



## RobS888

> Raise the minimum wage.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Inflation would off set that.
> 
> We need more "good Jobs"
> not better pay at McDonalds"
> Why don t you look around your area and see if a minimum wage job even exists?
> 
> - - - EDIT - - -
> 
> I am in the center of kansas in a 47K population city.
> Subway starts people at 9 dollars an hour according to the help wanted sign on the door.
> 
> I suspect that you would have to search a long time to find someone only being paid 7.25
> 
> Junior started working part time after school at the bar-b-que place that just opened as a dishwasher - and it pays over 8 to my 16 year old.
> 
> http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-wage/
> 
> Miniumum wage workers (which includes "tipped" employees like waitresses) make up only 4.3% of the 76 million hourly employees.
> So adjustments here would not dent the household income numbers
> 
> - DrDirt


Your IP showed you in San Jose, how strange?

EDIT:
MD minimum is $8, so no I can't find $7.25.

$8 or $9 is barely above the minimum. Do you do 10% above the minimum at work?

$14, $15, that's a good starting wage.


----------



## Mahdeew

> Rob, by your logic, if 10,000 boomers are retiring every day (which is correct) unless their jobs are retiring with them, the employment numbers should at least show 300,000 new jobs created every month to fill those positions.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> You aren t looking at number of employed. You are looking at % of all adults working. Not the same at all.
> 
> EDIT:
> You mentioned you were born overseas, so I have no idea when you came to the states. I wanted to tell you that the baby boomers were described, population wise, as a snake eating a bowling ball. There was expansion to accommodation them and there will be contraction after them. This is a simple fact of so many being born in one generation, then not having as many kids themselves.
> 
> As you can see below there was a 29 million increase followed by a 21 million decrease. Unless immigration fills the difference (it didn t) then of course, the number of adults working must decrease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - RobS888


Don't you have to have the number of employed and divide it by the total number of eligible workforce to get the percentage of employed?


----------



## DrDirt

> Your IP showed you in San Jose, how strange?
> 
> EDIT:
> MD minimum is $8, so no I can t find $7.25.
> 
> $8 or $9 is barely above the minimum. Do you do 10% above the minimum at work?
> 
> $14, $15, that s a good starting wage.
> 
> - RobS888


IP must have to do with our service provider and routing… been here in "central america" since 2001

Inflation is 2% so a 14% increase from 7.25-8.25 is a substantial increase.

But you still cannot make the shallow end of the pool deeper by moving water - - that is how inflation eats at that. In a perverse way it is just the negative idea of a rising tide raises all boats.

If you increase pay and prices increase for food/gas/rent…. your net "improvement in life" is zero.

In the days that jacking the minimum wage helped (JFK) - - was when we were economically more independant of the rest of the world. we made finished goods, AND mined and refined our own raw materials.
In those days you could 'tinker with the economy' because in a sense you could 'work in a vacuum' - - with globalization it doesn't work anymore

If prices went up - people paid them.
Now they get foreign stuff.
That is why people have a Grizzly tablesaw and not the USA Made Delta Unisaw… We jump up and down that US wages shoudl go up, then shop at harbor Freight and WalMart and wonder why the economy doesn't work


----------



## DrDirt

Maybe Al Gore will save us now?
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/13/forget-biden-dems-reaching-back-to-al-gore/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/08/14/are-you-ready-forgore-2016-n2038843?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall


----------



## Mahdeew

I think you are using Keynesian theory that population growth creates demand for goods and services and stimulates the economy and thus it creates jobs and economic boom. However, that is not true if the population is not productive enough or wages are so low that the population has very little discretionary to spend. Just look at China, for years they have been regulating birth ratio by allowing couples one child. Yet, they have managed to make it almost to the #1 economy. I understand that China is a producer economy and we are a consumer economy. So, increasing the population in a consumer economy requires consumer spending to keep it going and consumer spending require discretionary spending and discretionary spending require jobs and good paying jobs. Pouring millions of illegals into the country and giving them citizenship does not guarantee they will have jobs unless they under bid current wages and thus reduce the standard of living for the entire population. And that is exactly what is happening here. During boomer generation we were a producer/consumer economy. We made quality goods that had huge demand all over the world and because of that demand, we got good wages. Those wages allowed us to have enough discretionary income to travel, and buy things that made our lives more comfortable. The question is, which one is a better choice? To bloat the country by increasing its population so you have more consumers in hopes that someone will give them a job, bring wages down and reduce quality life for the rest of the population or reduce taxes so corporates can open shop and create demand which increase wages and quality of life for the existing population who have enough discretionary income to improve the economy?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*You can hate somebody that you use to like, by constantly referring to him as a bastard you demonstrate this quite well. I voted for Clinton, doesn t mean anything.

- patcollins
[/QUOTE]*

I think you may be confusing objective analysis written in the stream of consciousness style with personal feelings. That term in this instance obviously means a mean, debase person who exhibits callus disregard for his fellow citizens fueled by personal greed. He wasn't out of office more than a month when it was reported he was paid a half million for a 30 minute speech in Japan. I wonder how much that really cost us, US?

Sort of a crown on his declaration of war on the middle class, eh?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

That is a speech in Japan. Gotta love the imagination exhibited by the software in the mobile devices ; (


----------



## RobS888

> Rob, by your logic, if 10,000 boomers are retiring every day (which is correct) unless their jobs are retiring with them, the employment numbers should at least show 300,000 new jobs created every month to fill those positions.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> You aren t looking at number of employed. You are looking at % of all adults working. Not the same at all.
> 
> EDIT:
> You mentioned you were born overseas, so I have no idea when you came to the states. I wanted to tell you that the baby boomers were described, population wise, as a snake eating a bowling ball. There was expansion to accommodation them and there will be contraction after them. This is a simple fact of so many being born in one generation, then not having as many kids themselves.
> 
> As you can see below there was a 29 million increase followed by a 21 million decrease. Unless immigration fills the difference (it didn t) then of course, the number of adults working must decrease.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Don t you have to have the number of employed and divide it by the total number of eligible workforce to get the percentage of employed?
> 
> - mrjinx007


You and I might, but they take the adult cohort population and divide into employed.


----------



## Mahdeew

Same thing.


> Rob, by your logic, if 10,000 boomers are retiring every day (which is correct) unless their jobs are retiring with them, the employment numbers should at least show 300,000 new jobs created every month to fill those positions.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> You aren t looking at number of employed. You are looking at % of all adults working. Not the same at all.
> 
> EDIT:
> You mentioned you were born overseas, so I have no idea when you came to the states. I wanted to tell you that the baby boomers were described, population wise, as a snake eating a bowling ball. There was expansion to accommodation them and there will be contraction after them. This is a simple fact of so many being born in one generation, then not having as many kids themselves.
> 
> As you can see below there was a 29 million increase followed by a 21 million decrease. Unless immigration fills the difference (it didn t) then of course, the number of adults working must decrease.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Don t you have to have the number of employed and divide it by the total number of eligible workforce to get the percentage of employed?
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> You and I might, but they take the adult cohort population and divide into employed.
> 
> - RobS888


----------



## RobS888

> Same thing.
> 
> Don t you have to have the number of employed and divide it by the total number of eligible workforce to get the percentage of employed?
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> You and I might, but they take the adult cohort population and divide into employed.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> - mrjinx007


I guess they are the same if you consider every live adult as eligible to work.


----------



## kelvancra

Ratification. Look the word up.

Ratification can be done many ways. It can even be done by doing nothing. For example, there are situations in which, if you do not challenge what someone does, you ratify their acts. Then there is the obvious means - by acting to make clear you condone the act. This can be done by signature, statement or other means.

If you vote for someone, you ratify what they represent. For those of you who prefer a republic over socialism, or central government, consider this fact.

Of course, many have no clue of what a republic is (hint, rather than mob rule, it's about protecting individual liberties).


----------



## RobS888

> IP must have to do with our service provider and routing… been here in "central america" since 2001
> 
> Inflation is 2% so a 14% increase from 7.25-8.25 is a substantial increase.
> 
> But you still cannot make the shallow end of the pool deeper by moving water - - that is how inflation eats at that. In a perverse way it is just the negative idea of a rising tide raises all boats.
> 
> If you increase pay and prices increase for food/gas/rent…. your net "improvement in life" is zero.
> 
> In the days that jacking the minimum wage helped (JFK) - - was when we were economically more independant of the rest of the world. we made finished goods, AND mined and refined our own raw materials.
> In those days you could tinker with the economy because in a sense you could work in a vacuum - - with globalization it doesn t work anymore
> 
> If prices went up - people paid them.
> Now they get foreign stuff.
> That is why people have a Grizzly tablesaw and not the USA Made Delta Unisaw… We jump up and down that US wages shoudl go up, then shop at harbor Freight and WalMart and wonder why the economy doesn t work
> 
> - DrDirt


Someone paying 10% over the minimum (required by law) doesn't seem that big a deal to me. A 14% raise would be great for anyone.

Your swimming pool analogy is all wet, economies aren't pools and water isn't money. You did say something that I think is accurate, we need some tariffs or larger ones to make up for the disparity in pay of different countries. Moving a plant to a cheaper country should get you a hefty import duty, so you product is no cheaper than those made here.

I guess our "patriotism" has a price.


----------



## RobS888

> Ratification. Look the word up.
> 
> Ratification can be done many ways. It can even be done by doing nothing. For example, there are situations in which, if you do not challenge what someone does, you ratify their acts. Then there is the obvious means - by acting to make clear you condone the act. This can be done by signature, statement or other means.
> 
> If you vote for someone, you ratify what they represent. For those of you who prefer a republic over socialism, or central government, consider this fact.
> 
> Of course, many have no clue of what a republic is (hint, rather than mob rule, it s about protecting individual liberties).
> 
> - Kelly


A Republic is a form of government without a Monarch. Socialism is an economic system. A country could be a Republic and Socialistic. Most democratic countries are Republics. Any with a Monarch aren't Republics. One of the FF was confused about democracy and representative democracy. What most of the world calls representative democracy we call Republic to avoid using the word democracy.

From Wiki:

A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a form of government or country [1] in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body2[3] and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. In modern times, the definition of a republic is commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[3][4] Currently, 147 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.

147 of 206 have Republic as part of their names. Any with a monarch are just democracies, but if they drop their Monarch they can be a Republic too.

It means almost nothing to say Republic. We could become socialistic if we want or communistic. Nothing in the constitution guarantees an economic system.


----------



## patcollins

Lets just all stick an extra zero at the end of what we are paid and everything costs etc and you can say minimum wage workers got a raise of 10x, does it really do anything in the end? Back in college I had a job that paid close to the minimum wage, minimum wage went up and I received an equal raise. I was excited until it only took a couple months for everything that I spent my money on to go up. The prices I paid for the things I spent my money on went up far more than the minimum wage also. Blockbuster raised the cost of a video from $3 to $4, McDonalds raised the price of a two cheeseburger meal from $3 to $4, a twelve pack of Schlitz also went up by a couple dollars. In the end it was just a meaningless number but because it was bigger it made people feel better.

That is the point Dr Dirt is trying to make.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo

Sources: Survey of Financial Characteristics of Consumers 1962 (December 31), Survey of Changes in Family Finances 1963, and Survey of Consumer Finances 1983-2013.
Notes: 2013 dollars. No comparable data are available between 1963 and 1983.

Average wealth has increased over the past fifty years, but it has not grown equally for all groups. Between 1963 and 2013:

Families near the bottom of the wealth distribution (those at the tenth percentile) went from having no wealth on average to being about $2,000 in debt;
Those in the middle roughly doubled their wealth-mostly between 1963 and 1983;
Families near the top (at the ninetieth percentile) saw their wealth quadruple; and
The wealth of those at the ninety-ninth percentile-in other words, those wealthier than 99 percent of all families-grew sixfold.

These changes have increased wealth inequality significantly. In 1963, families near the top had six times the wealth (or, six dollars for every one dollar) of families in the middle. By 2013, they had twelve times the wealth of families in the middle.


----------



## DanYo

Sources: Current Population Survey 1963-2014. Calculations provided by Karen Smith, Urban Institute.
Notes: 2013 dollars. Income here is measured as private income (e.g., earnings and dividends) plus cash government benefits. Income differences narrow when all taxes and transfers-such as health insurance and in-kind government benefits-are included, but private wealth does not change.1

Income is money coming into a family, while wealth is a family's assets-things like savings, real estate, businesses-minus debt.2 Both are important sides of families' financial security, but wealth cushions families against emergencies and gives them the means to move up the economic ladder. Also, wealth disparities are much greater than income disparities: three times as much by one measure.

Income inequality can worsen wealth inequality because the income people have available to save and invest matters.3 Focusing on private income, such as earnings and dividends, plus cash government benefits, we see that families near the top had a 70 percent increase in income from 1963 to 2013, while the income of families at the bottom stayed roughly the same.4


----------



## DanYo

Median wealth by race and ethnicity is lower than average wealth, but the trends stay the same (see figure 3). Both measures are important because average wealth indicates how a group is prospering as a whole relative to other groups, while median wealth shows how the "typical" family is doing.








Sources: Survey of Financial Characteristics of Consumers 1962 (December 31), Survey of Changes in Family Finances 1963, and Survey of Consumer Finances 1983-2013.
Notes: 2013 dollars. No comparable data are available between 1963 and 1983. African-American/Hispanic distinction within nonwhite population available only in 1983 and later.

Families of color will soon make up a majority of the population, but most continue to fall behind whites in building wealth. In 1963, the average wealth of white families was $117,000 higher than the average wealth of nonwhite families. By 2013, the average wealth of white families was over $500,000 higher than the average wealth of African-American families ($95,000) and of Hispanic families ($112,000). Put another way, white families on average had seven times the wealth of African-American families and six times the wealth of Hispanic families in 2013. The ratio of white to African-American or Hispanic family wealth remained extremely high over this period and deteriorated in recent years.


----------



## DanYo

White families accumulate more wealth over their lives than African-American or Hispanic families do, widening the wealth gap at older ages (see figure 4). In their thirties, whites have an average of $140,000 more in wealth than African Americans (three times as much). By their sixties, whites have over $1 million more in average wealth than African Americans (eleven times as much).

Median wealth by race is lower. Though the dollar gap grows with age, the ratio doesn't grow in the same way: whites have seven times more median wealth than African Americans in their thirties and in their sixties.









Source: Survey of Consumer Finances 1983-2013.
Notes: 2013 dollars. Hispanic sample size too small to show. Age is defined as the age of the household head. In 2013, these people were ages 62 to 70. In 1983, ages 32 to 40.


----------



## RobS888

> Lets just all stick an extra zero at the end of what we are paid and everything costs etc and you can say minimum wage workers got a raise of 10x, does it really do anything in the end? Back in college I had a job that paid close to the minimum wage, minimum wage went up and I received an equal raise. I was excited until it only took a couple months for everything that I spent my money on to go up. The prices I paid for the things I spent my money on went up far more than the minimum wage also. Blockbuster raised the cost of a video from $3 to $4, McDonalds raised the price of a two cheeseburger meal from $3 to $4, a twelve pack of Schlitz also went up by a couple dollars. In the end it was just a meaningless number but because it was bigger it made people feel better.
> 
> That is the point Dr Dirt is trying to make.
> 
> - patcollins


So let them feel better, if it is meaningless.


----------



## patcollins

> Lets just all stick an extra zero at the end of what we are paid and everything costs etc and you can say minimum wage workers got a raise of 10x, does it really do anything in the end? Back in college I had a job that paid close to the minimum wage, minimum wage went up and I received an equal raise. I was excited until it only took a couple months for everything that I spent my money on to go up. The prices I paid for the things I spent my money on went up far more than the minimum wage also. Blockbuster raised the cost of a video from $3 to $4, McDonalds raised the price of a two cheeseburger meal from $3 to $4, a twelve pack of Schlitz also went up by a couple dollars. In the end it was just a meaningless number but because it was bigger it made people feel better.
> 
> That is the point Dr Dirt is trying to make.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> So let them feel better, if it is meaningless.
> 
> - RobS888


What inflation does is wipes out wealth of people that have saved throughout their lives. Say you have 100k in the bank, congratulations because it is now worth 10k.


----------



## patcollins

> White families accumulate more wealth over their lives than African-American or Hispanic families do, widening the wealth gap at older ages (see figure 4). In their thirties, whites have an average of $140,000 more in wealth than African Americans (three times as much). By their sixties, whites have over $1 million more in average wealth than African Americans (eleven times as much).
> 
> Median wealth by race is lower. Though the dollar gap grows with age, the ratio doesn't grow in the same way: whites have seven times more median wealth than African Americans in their thirties and in their sixties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: Survey of Consumer Finances 1983-2013.
> Notes: 2013 dollars. Hispanic sample size too small to show. Age is defined as the age of the household head. In 2013, these people were ages 62 to 70. In 1983, ages 32 to 40.
> 
> - Dan um Style


One thing that studies like this do not do is examine cultural priorities, it just isn't PC to say so but they need to examine what the people have done with what is left of their paychecks after rent/mortgage and food.

I probably save more than most of my coworkers, 15% into 401K, have a 15 year old truck etc. Some of my coworkers have no money at all in the bank but always have a $60k car that is less than 3 years old. One of them does not even put enough into his 401k to receive matching funds.


----------



## RobS888

> Lets just all stick an extra zero at the end of what we are paid and everything costs etc and you can say minimum wage workers got a raise of 10x, does it really do anything in the end? Back in college I had a job that paid close to the minimum wage, minimum wage went up and I received an equal raise. I was excited until it only took a couple months for everything that I spent my money on to go up. The prices I paid for the things I spent my money on went up far more than the minimum wage also. Blockbuster raised the cost of a video from $3 to $4, McDonalds raised the price of a two cheeseburger meal from $3 to $4, a twelve pack of Schlitz also went up by a couple dollars. In the end it was just a meaningless number but because it was bigger it made people feel better.
> 
> That is the point Dr Dirt is trying to make.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> So let them feel better, if it is meaningless.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> What inflation does is wipes out wealth of people that have saved throughout their lives. Say you have 100k in the bank, congratulations because it is now worth 10k.
> 
> - patcollins


Doubling the minimum wage causes 90% inflation?


----------



## RobS888

> White families accumulate more wealth over their lives than African-American or Hispanic families do, widening the wealth gap at older ages (see figure 4). In their thirties, whites have an average of $140,000 more in wealth than African Americans (three times as much). By their sixties, whites have over $1 million more in average wealth than African Americans (eleven times as much).
> 
> Median wealth by race is lower. Though the dollar gap grows with age, the ratio doesn't grow in the same way: whites have seven times more median wealth than African Americans in their thirties and in their sixties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: Survey of Consumer Finances 1983-2013.
> Notes: 2013 dollars. Hispanic sample size too small to show. Age is defined as the age of the household head. In 2013, these people were ages 62 to 70. In 1983, ages 32 to 40.
> 
> - Dan um Style
> 
> One thing that studies like this do not do is examine cultural priorities, it just isn t PC to say so but they need to examine what the people have done with what is left of their paychecks after rent/mortgage and food.
> 
> I probably save more than most of my coworkers, 15% into 401K, have a 15 year old truck etc. Some of my coworkers have no money at all in the bank but always have a $60k car that is less than 3 years old. One of them does not even put enough into his 401k to receive matching funds.
> 
> - patcollins


Are you saying we would be wealthier, but many spend it?


----------



## patcollins

> Are you saying we would be wealthier, but many spend it?
> 
> - RobS888


I am saying many people don't have a pot to piss in because they can't control their spending habits in today's world of easy credit. Many people that could have wealth don't because they blow it. I know a man and woman that together make about $250k/year that have a negative net worth.


----------



## patcollins

> Doubling the minimum wage causes 90% inflation?
> 
> - RobS888


It could very well have that effect. There are so many things that play into it that it is very hard to isolate and there is always enough uncertainty that people will never agree on the cause/effect.


----------



## RobS888

> Are you saying we would be wealthier, but many spend it?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> I am saying many people don t have a pot to piss in because they can t control their spending habits in today s world of easy credit. Many people that could have wealth don t because they blow it. I know a man and woman that together make about $250k/year that have a negative net worth.
> 
> - patcollins


Ok, if I accept the description as being accurate, what is the effect of people living beyond their means on the distribution of wealth? Keeping in mind one needs some demonstrable assets to even get credit.


----------



## RobS888

> Doubling the minimum wage causes 90% inflation?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> It could very well have that effect. There are so many things that play into it that it is very hard to isolate and there is always enough uncertainty that people will never agree on the cause/effect.
> 
> - patcollins


To me it seems like you are steeping back from the edge and saying it is really hard to predict what causes what. So it seems any direct or indirect predictions about a minimum wage increase are just guesses at this point.

Neither you, Dr Dirt or I can accurately predict what would happen if the minimum wage is doubled over, say the next 3 years. We could look at some examples and extrapolate from them, but anything else is just a guess.


----------



## Mahdeew

If we look at cause and effect, minimum wage doubling could be the cause of hyperinflation or hyperinflation could be the cause of minimum wage doubling:
johannesburg, 25 April 2003 (IRIN) - Following days of strike action over hyper-inflation in Zimbabwe, the government announced that it had reached agreement with business on new minimum wages.

The official The Herald newspaper reported that government and business, through the Tripartite Negotiating Forum (TNF), had set new minimum wages ranging from Zim $23,070 (about US $27) to Zim $47,696 (about US $57).

Workers in the agricultural sector would now be paid a basic wage of Zim $23,070 and those in commerce and industry would receive a minimum of Zim 47,696 per month, The Herald reported.

Not included in the new set of minimum wages were those of civil servants and domestic workers, and those in "unclassified sectors".

The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), a member of the TNF, boycotted the final round of talks on the new minimum wages as it had organised a workers' stayaway to protest the impact of recent fuel price increases.

The government has condemned the strike, calling it illegal, and has threatened to take action against companies who "locked out" workers, and commuter bus operators who failed to run their services during the stayaway.

But the ZCTU expects that the strike will increase pressure for economic reforms. Zimbabwe's inflation rate reached 228 percent in March, fuel prices have more than doubled and power cuts have begun to occur more frequently.
Theme (s): Economy, Governance, Other,
LINK


----------



## patcollins

> Ok, if I accept the description as being accurate, what is the effect of people living beyond their means on the distribution of wealth? Keeping in mind one needs some demonstrable assets to even get credit.
> 
> - RobS888


No, you don't need much in the way of assets to get credit. College starts this week in many places and the very first thing incoming freshman see at the student union is credit card companies throwing credit at them. The only thing you need is a social security number. I got my first credit card my 2nd or 3rd week of college and didn't tell my parents about it till a year later. I didn't even have a job. It was probably a good thing it was 1992 and internet shopping was still to come.

My mothers best friend's sister in-law was in SS Disability yet some how managed to have 27 credit cards maxed out, a mortgage, two car loans, a bunch of new furniture financed, and a John Deer yard tractor financed. She ended up losing everything after her brother that bailed her out once refused to do it again.


----------



## patcollins

> Doubling the minimum wage causes 90% inflation?
> - RobS888
> 
> It could very well have that effect. There are so many things that play into it that it is very hard to isolate and there is always enough uncertainty that people will never agree on the cause/effect.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> To me it seems like you are steeping back from the edge and saying it is really hard to predict what causes what. So it seems any direct or indirect predictions about a minimum wage increase are just guesses at this point.
> 
> Neither you, Dr Dirt or I can accurately predict what would happen if the minimum wage is doubled over, say the next 3 years. We could look at some examples and extrapolate from them, but anything else is just a guess.
> 
> - RobS888


Not at all, my point is we should do it slowly and see what happens, but use things that these people spend their money on as an inflation indicator not the crap that they have used for the last 10 years while telling us there is no inflation.


----------



## Mahdeew

You are right Pat. A few years ago I was looking to buy a new car and told the salesman that I don't have any credit (never borrowed money). He said no problem, "the new incentive was designed just for people like you."


----------



## RobS888

> Ok, if I accept the description as being accurate, what is the effect of people living beyond their means on the distribution of wealth? Keeping in mind one needs some demonstrable assets to even get credit.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> No, you don t need much in the way of assets to get credit. College starts this week in many places and the very first thing incoming freshman see at the student union is credit card companies throwing credit at them. The only thing you need is a social security number. I got my first credit card my 2nd or 3rd week of college and didn t tell my parents about it till a year later. I didn t even have a job. It was probably a good thing it was 1992 and internet shopping was still to come.
> 
> My mothers best friend s sister in-law was in SS Disability yet some how managed to have 27 credit cards maxed out, a mortgage, two car loans, a bunch of new furniture financed, and a John Deer yard tractor financed. She ended up losing everything after her brother that bailed her out once refused to do it again.
> 
> - patcollins


I was thinking mortgage credit, but if you think about student's future they have or used to have profitable futures. Anyone with 27 credit cards is fooling themselves big time. Although, I believe many had to resort to credit card roulette during the Great Recession.

We shouldn't form opinions about society based on anecdotes. You may recall there used to be debtor prisons. Some people struggle with money and always have. But how does it affect wealth distribution? I believe wealthy people can go bust as well.


----------



## patcollins

> I was thinking mortgage credit, but if you think about student s future they have or used to have profitable futures. Anyone with 27 credit cards is fooling themselves big time. Although, I believe many had to resort to credit card roulette during the Great Recession.
> 
> We shouldn t form opinions about society based on anecdotes. You may recall there used to be debtor prisons. Some people struggle with money and always have. But how does it affect wealth distribution? I believe wealthy people can go bust as well.
> 
> - RobS888


It isn't really an anecdote, I believe I saw somewhere that the average American has 15 credit cards and $20k in credit card debt.

Living beyond your means does affect wealth distribution because these people have a negative net worth so are considered in the bottom as far as net wealth goes and it skews the results quite a bit. It is difficult to take the numbers seriously when someone considered in the bottom has a nicer house and nicer cars than I do while being considered somewhere around the 5%.


----------



## RobS888

> You are right Pat. A few years ago I was looking to buy a new car and told the salesman that I don t have any credit (never borrowed money). He said no problem, "the new incentive was designed just for people like you."
> 
> - mrjinx007


No credit is better than bad credit.

There is easy money policy and tight money policy. We were in an easy money policy for a long time.


----------



## RobS888

> I was thinking mortgage credit, but if you think about student s future they have or used to have profitable futures. Anyone with 27 credit cards is fooling themselves big time. Although, I believe many had to resort to credit card roulette during the Great Recession.
> 
> We shouldn t form opinions about society based on anecdotes. You may recall there used to be debtor prisons. Some people struggle with money and always have. But how does it affect wealth distribution? I believe wealthy people can go bust as well.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> It isn t really an anecdote, I believe I saw somewhere that the average American has 15 credit cards and $20k in credit card debt.
> 
> Living beyond your means does affect wealth distribution because these people have a negative net worth so are considered in the bottom as far as net wealth goes and it skews the results quite a bit. It is difficult to take the numbers seriously when someone considered in the bottom has a nicer house and nicer cars than I do while being considered somewhere around the 5%.
> 
> - patcollins


I think your figures are off a lot! The average (as of April-14) is less than 5 cards and 8k in debt. It may have been more before the Great Recession, but I doubt it was an average of 15.

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/ownership-statistics-charts-1276.php

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168668/americans-rely-less-credit-cards-previous-years.aspx

If the averages are a 1/3 of what you thought will you reconsider? I don't think things are as bad as you and the dirty one think.


----------



## patcollins

> I was thinking mortgage credit, but if you think about student s future they have or used to have profitable futures. Anyone with 27 credit cards is fooling themselves big time. Although, I believe many had to resort to credit card roulette during the Great Recession.
> 
> We shouldn t form opinions about society based on anecdotes. You may recall there used to be debtor prisons. Some people struggle with money and always have. But how does it affect wealth distribution? I believe wealthy people can go bust as well.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> It isn t really an anecdote, I believe I saw somewhere that the average American has 15 credit cards and $20k in credit card debt.
> 
> Living beyond your means does affect wealth distribution because these people have a negative net worth so are considered in the bottom as far as net wealth goes and it skews the results quite a bit. It is difficult to take the numbers seriously when someone considered in the bottom has a nicer house and nicer cars than I do while being considered somewhere around the 5%.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I think your figures are off a lot! The average (as of April-14) is less than 5 cards and 8k in debt. It may have been more before the Great Recession, but I doubt it was an average of 15.
> 
> http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/ownership-statistics-charts-1276.php
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/168668/americans-rely-less-credit-cards-previous-years.aspx
> 
> If the averages are a 1/3 of what you thought will you reconsider? I don t think things are as bad as you and the dirty one think.
> 
> - RobS888


Looking at this page http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-card-data/average-credit-card-debt-household/
the figures I had remembered were probably for indebted households.

So approximately 40-45% of households owing an average of $15k on credit cards is not a very rosey thought.


----------



## Mahdeew

So, on top of student loan bubble, we have a car loan bubble and perhaps another real estate bubble. Maybe all these bubbles will be conducive in helping the global warming bubble.


----------



## RobS888

> I think your figures are off a lot! The average (as of April-14) is less than 5 cards and 8k in debt. It may have been more before the Great Recession, but I doubt it was an average of 15.
> 
> http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/ownership-statistics-charts-1276.php
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/168668/americans-rely-less-credit-cards-previous-years.aspx
> 
> If the averages are a 1/3 of what you thought will you reconsider? I don t think things are as bad as you and the dirty one think.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Looking at this page http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-card-data/average-credit-card-debt-household/
> the figures I had remembered were probably for indebted households.
> 
> So approximately 40-45% of households owing an average of $15k on credit cards is not a very rosey thought.
> 
> - patcollins


Not rosy, but better than portrayed. Also, after a huge economic crisis it is less than one would expect.

This was telling from your link…

_The median American household owed $3,300 of consumer debt;
The average American household owed $7,768 and
The average indebted American household owed $17,630._

Note that the average American household owed far more than the median, and also that the average indebted household owed far more than the average household overall. *Such large discrepancies indicate that a relatively small number of households were deeply underwater*

1/2 of the people that owed, owed less than $3,300!


----------



## oldnovice

Many blogs overstate American debt as a scare tactic.

Similar to some of the "health" sites that tell you which *foods will kill you* or the fact that airlines are slowly killing passengers by adding *nitrogen* to the air you breath, or that Crayola crayons contain *lead* without checking the facts.


----------



## Mahdeew




----------



## oldnovice

Nice map for vizualization of the "REAL" world.

I thought that *Extra Space Storage* would be located in Montana, if you have ever been there you would understand but Utah is not far behind.

I understand the states are represented by market capitalization but if this were by popularity I believe that most Californians would identify with Google first as it is not as niche as Apple.


----------



## Mahdeew

Oldnovice, two of the states I have not yet visited. Supposedly, they used July 2015 market cap rather than revenue to come up with the map. Off course it could be a totally different map by the end of this quarter reporting.


----------



## kelvancra

There is more to it than the definitions provided here. The devil is in the details.

As noted, we were guaranteed a republic. In it, individual liberties are paramount. To that end, each public official takes an oath to the laws and constitutions of the United States and the united states, or falls under the oath of a superior.

We, the people, are the government. What is commonly called government is more properly called representative government. The powers of that representative government are laid out in, that is, limited by the state and federal constitutions. In the end, it's simple: We the people may do any act not proscribed, while representative government may only do acts prescribed.

If, however, you take the production of an individual and give it to another, you, certainly, are trampling individual liberties. In such an instance, the socialism talked of crosses onto the protections established for the republic.

For insight into the intent of the founders with regard to the formation of the country, review both the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers.



> Ratification. Look the word up.
> 
> Ratification can be done many ways. It can even be done by doing nothing. For example, there are situations in which, if you do not challenge what someone does, you ratify their acts. Then there is the obvious means - by acting to make clear you condone the act. This can be done by signature, statement or other means.
> 
> If you vote for someone, you ratify what they represent. For those of you who prefer a republic over socialism, or central government, consider this fact.
> 
> Of course, many have no clue of what a republic is (hint, rather than mob rule, it s about protecting individual liberties).
> 
> - Kelly
> 
> A Republic is a form of government without a Monarch. Socialism is an economic system. A country could be a Republic and Socialistic. Most democratic countries are Republics. Any with a Monarch aren t Republics. One of the FF was confused about democracy and representative democracy. What most of the world calls representative democracy we call Republic to avoid using the word democracy.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a form of government or country [1] in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body2[3] and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law. In modern times, the definition of a republic is commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch.[3][4] Currently, 147 of the world s 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.
> 
> 147 of 206 have Republic as part of their names. Any with a monarch are just democracies, but if they drop their Monarch they can be a Republic too.
> 
> It means almost nothing to say Republic. We could become socialistic if we want or communistic. Nothing in the constitution guarantees an economic system.
> 
> - RobS888


----------



## RobS888

> There is more to it than the definitions provided here. The devil is in the details.
> 
> As noted, we were guaranteed a republic. In it, individual liberties are paramount. To that end, each public official takes an oath to the laws and constitutions of the United States and the united states, or falls under the oath of a superior.
> 
> We, the people, are the government. What is commonly called government is more properly called representative government. The powers of that representative government are laid out in, that is, limited by the state and federal constitutions. In the end, it s simple: We the people may do any act not proscribed, while representative government may only do acts prescribed.
> 
> If, however, you take the production of an individual and give it to another, you, certainly, are trampling individual liberties. In such an instance, the socialism talked of crosses onto the protections established for the republic.
> 
> For insight into the intent of the founders with regard to the formation of the country, review both the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers.
> 
> - Kelly


The states must be republics, but as noted republic was used to avoid saying democracy. Federally, republic is never mentioned. As you say we have a representative form of democracy. The constitution can be modified, so nothing you cite is permanent, all can be modified by amendments if desired by enough people.

I see most of what you are saying as back definitions, you are describing our form of government and ascribing it to a republic.

Many countries have rule of law, they just don't claim divine inspiration.


----------



## patcollins

Back many posts ago I tried to make the point that although Costco pays its workers well that its pressure on its suppliers forces them to probably pay their people poorly, that savings have to come from somewhere. All is not rosy with Costco.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-costco-prawns-20150820-story.html

*The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, alleges that Costco was aware that the prawns it purchased from its Southeast Asian producers came from a supply chain dependent on human trafficking and other illegal labor abuses.*


----------



## RobS888

> Back many posts ago I tried to make the point that although Costco pays its workers well that its pressure on its suppliers forces them to probably pay their people poorly, that savings have to come from somewhere. All is not rosy with Costco.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-costco-prawns-20150820-story.html
> 
> *The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, alleges that Costco was aware that the prawns it purchased from its Southeast Asian producers came from a supply chain dependent on human trafficking and other illegal labor abuses.*
> 
> - patcollins


Perhaps after the lawsuit is settled we can discuss the case, but aren't these just allegations in a civil court?

This wouldn't change my feelings at all. Do you have anything other than a suspicion about the supply chain absorbing Costco's pay rate? No offence but that is just day dreaming on your part. I would be surprised if Costco pays enough less than Sam's to cover paying at least twice the wage. I don't see the margin there in the food service industry. Don't know about some other stuff, electronics are usually comodities (meaning everyone pays the same). I guess it is ok for gov agencies to bolster wally world, but not for Costco to find money in their actual operations or supply chain.

I just don't understand the attacks on a company doing what you and dirt say is not possible. Oh, never mind.

P.S.

Should Exxon be sued for buying oil from repressive countries or apple for their plant in China that had people worked so hard they were killing themselves? The company put up nets to reduce the deaths, pretty nice of them.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I'm not changing my opinion of Costco either just yet. WallyWorld breaks suppliers demanding lower prices. Levis comes to mind off the top of my head. Snapper lawn mowers decline to play the Wally World scam. A friend who was also an electrical contractor reused to do their work do to their accounts payable policies.

I have to wonder how they will get the "tainted" label? Either the WTO recently ruled it is illegal to label the country of origin or it is in the SE Asian trade treaty Obama wants "Fast Track" authority to pass.


----------



## oldnovice

How about Lumber Liquidators and their "non-formaldehyde" flooring made in China screwing over quite a number of people?

They were part of the problem that caused my favorite lumber yard to close it's doors after 110 years in business as high quality flooring was part of the product line and they could not compete with the Chinese manufactured flooring.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> How about Lumber Liquidators and their "non-formaldehyde" flooring made in China screwing over quite a number of people?
> 
> They were part of the problem that caused my favorite lumber yard to close it s doors after 110 years in business as high quality flooring was part of the product line and they could not compete with the Chinese manufactured flooring.
> 
> - oldnovice


If corps are people, put them in jail or give them the death penalty. The only thing law enforcement does in 21st America is restrict good people taking care of the lying scum that should be removed for the good of all of us, US. Time to do what Jefferson would do.


----------



## Mahdeew

Does this sum it up?


----------



## joejinky

> The issue is that there is a smaller and smaller group of people who have a larger percentage of the wealth in this country. We have a increasing number of people that are either living near poverty or close to it. the middle class is getting smaller. There was a time when the American dream was possible for everyone but thats just not true anymore. Never in this countries history has so few owned so much of wealth in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - stephan


How is that the fault of the wealthy?

Kids used to come home from school and sit down and do HOMEWORK. NOW they come home and sit in front of a PlayStation or X-Box. Colleges that used to push classes like Calculus and Quantum Physics have become bastions of liberalism where graduates are applauded for achieving a Phd in 4th Century Egyptian Poetry.

*The American dream is still alive and well*. It only requires DRIVE and AMBITION.

American ambition, ingenuity, innovation, creativeness AND personal pride have withered and are nearly dead. Our school system has churned out a generation of people who believe that they should earn massive amounts of money for the simple act of waking up in the morning.

I weep for America.

.


----------



## Mahdeew

*How is that the fault of the wealthy?*
The wealthy control the government and the government control the education and it's content. It is not some invisible hand out there that has caused the kids to be the way they are. When mom and dad have to work two jobs to make ends meet, the kids get left behind. In my wealthy friends and family either the wife or the husband (rarely) become a house mom until the kids are old enough to go to school. Even then, they adjust their schedule to be home when the kids arrive home. Summers consist of European vacations and camps. 
So, maybe the poor shouldn't have kids. Not all kids grown in wealth turn out successful but at least they have darn good chance of it and no excuse.


----------



## CharlesA

It is not the fault of the wealthy, per se. It is the fault of those who keep pushing for further and further tax cuts on the wealthy. In the past 20 years, partially due to tax policy, the wealthy have continued to rise while the rest of us have stagnated or fallen back, leading to incredible income inequality. While tax cuts can be helpful at times and to a point, they are not a cure all, and I think in the past 20 years have hurt our overall economy.


----------



## RobS888

> Does this sum it up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - mrjinx007


Pink Floyd: Animals!


----------



## RobS888

> *How is that the fault of the wealthy?*
> The wealthy control the government and the government control the education and it s content. It is not some invisible hand out there that has caused the kids to be the way they are. When mom and dad have to work two jobs to make ends meet, the kids get left behind. In my wealthy friends and family either the wife or the husband (rarely) become a house mom until the kids are old enough to go to school. Even then, they adjust their schedule to be home when the kids arrive home. Summers consist of European vacations and camps.
> So, maybe the poor shouldn t have kids. Not all kids grown in wealth turn out successful but at least they have darn good chance of it and no excuse.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I totally agree!


----------



## patcollins

> Perhaps after the lawsuit is settled we can discuss the case, but aren t these just allegations in a civil court?
> 
> This wouldn t change my feelings at all. Do you have anything other than a suspicion about the supply chain absorbing Costco s pay rate? No offence but that is just day dreaming on your part. I would be surprised if Costco pays enough less than Sam s to cover paying at least twice the wage. I don t see the margin there in the food service industry. Don t know about some other stuff, electronics are usually comodities (meaning everyone pays the same). I guess it is ok for gov agencies to bolster wally world, but not for Costco to find money in their actual operations or supply chain.
> 
> I just don t understand the attacks on a company doing what you and dirt say is not possible. Oh, never mind.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> Should Exxon be sued for buying oil from repressive countries or apple for their plant in China that had people worked so hard they were killing themselves? The company put up nets to reduce the deaths, pretty nice of them.
> 
> - RobS888


Not really attacking Costco, personally I would be surprised if more stuff Americans buy isn't made/fished/etc by slave labor.

My point is that Costco puts pressure on suppliers for the lowest price possible, beyond that they don't care how it happens. You and a few others have just pointed to them like they were angels for their higher than average pay. Costco is a great business that is obviously run by some pretty smart people that must know that pressuring suppliers with their buying power will force them to cut costs however possible.

Apple went through this a few years ago and now they are considered responsible for what their suppliers do.

Personally I do not believe a business is responsible for what their suppliers do as long as they do not instruct them to break the law for lower prices. The responsibility lays on the supplier to say "I am sorry we can not meet that price point".

This article makes an excellent point. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-08-27/why-walmart-will-never-pay-like-costco

*Costco is similar, but with an even higher household income-the average Costco household makes more than $80,000 a year.*

Everything can't be like Costco, even Costco knows there is no money to be made in poorer areas.


----------



## Bonka

According to The Tax Foundation the top 1% pay more in income taxes than the bottom 90%.
Taxes are too high for all of us to support a huge, uncaring federal government. We also tax business at the highest rate of developed countries.
Why should businesses even be taxed? They pass all of the taxes and billions of dollars in administration of compliance on to the consumer.
All I ever hear is tax the rich and businesses more. It is class warfare to deflect away the main big money hole, The Federal Government.


----------



## RobS888

> Not really attacking Costco, personally I would be surprised if more stuff Americans buy isn t made/fished/etc by slave labor.
> 
> My point is that Costco puts pressure on suppliers for the lowest price possible, beyond that they don t care how it happens. You and a few others have just pointed to them like they were angels for their higher than average pay. Costco is a great business that is obviously run by some pretty smart people that must know that pressuring suppliers with their buying power will force them to cut costs however possible.
> 
> Apple went through this a few years ago and now they are considered responsible for what their suppliers do.
> 
> Personally I do not believe a business is responsible for what their suppliers do as long as they do not instruct them to break the law for lower prices. The responsibility lays on the supplier to say "I am sorry we can not meet that price point".
> 
> This article makes an excellent point. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-08-27/why-walmart-will-never-pay-like-costco
> 
> *Costco is similar, but with an even higher household income-the average Costco household makes more than $80,000 a year.*
> 
> Everything can t be like Costco, even Costco knows there is no money to be made in poorer areas.
> 
> - patcollins


I don't believe Costco-Malmart is a proper comparison, Costco-Sam's is the proper comparison. We may have gone around about this before.

Just because I admire them for the products and the way they do business doesn't mean I think they are angelic, but if I was ranking stores they are way out in front. I would rather a business put money into their people than trying to maximize the amount they can send to stockholders.

Walmart $1.92 to 3.2B http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/services/discount-variety-stores/wmt-wal-mart-stores/

Costco $1.60 to 439M http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/services/discount-variety-stores/cost-costco/

I'm not sure if Sam's is even 25% of WallyWorld… http://news.walmart.com/walmart-facts/corporate-financial-fact-sheet

Sam's is projected to earn $58 billion this year of $288 total for WallyWorld, so 58/288 = 20.1% .201388×3.2B = 644M, so WallyWorld is paying 644M x $1.92= $1.2B dividend for Sam's portion of revenue.

Costco is 439m x $1.6 = $702 million.

Is my math OK? Are my assumptions OK?

If so, the stock holders get $500M that could go to employees 500m / 110,000 Sam's employees.

That works out to $4,545 each/year.


----------



## RobS888

> According to The Tax Foundation the top 1% pay more in income taxes than the bottom 90%.
> Taxes are too high for all of us to support a huge, uncaring federal government. We also tax business at the highest rate of developed countries.
> Why should businesses even be taxed? They pass all of the taxes and billions of dollars in administration of compliance on to the consumer.
> All I ever hear is tax the rich and businesses more. It is class warfare to deflect away the main big money hole, The Federal Government.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


GE pays no net tax. That is beyond belief.


----------



## patcollins

> According to The Tax Foundation the top 1% pay more in income taxes than the bottom 90%.
> Taxes are too high for all of us to support a huge, uncaring federal government. We also tax business at the highest rate of developed countries.
> Why should businesses even be taxed? They pass all of the taxes and billions of dollars in administration of compliance on to the consumer.
> All I ever hear is tax the rich and businesses more. It is class warfare to deflect away the main big money hole, The Federal Government.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson
> 
> GE pays no net tax. That is beyond belief.
> 
> - RobS888


Yes it is, and do you know who was the jobs Czar of the Obama administration?


----------



## patcollins

> I don t believe Costco-Malmart is a proper comparison, Costco-Sam s is the proper comparison. We may have gone around about this before.
> 
> Just because I admire them for the products and the way they do business doesn t mean I think they are angelic, but if I was ranking stores they are way out in front. I would rather a business put money into their people than trying to maximize the amount they can send to stockholders.
> 
> Walmart $1.92 to 3.2B http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/services/discount-variety-stores/wmt-wal-mart-stores/
> 
> Costco $1.60 to 439M http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/services/discount-variety-stores/cost-costco/
> 
> I m not sure if Sam s is even 25% of WallyWorld… http://news.walmart.com/walmart-facts/corporate-financial-fact-sheet
> 
> Sam s is projected to earn $58 billion this year of $288 total for WallyWorld, so 58/288 = 20.1% .201388×3.2B = 644M, so WallyWorld is paying 644M x $1.92= $1.2B dividend for Sam s portion of revenue.
> 
> Costco is 439m x $1.6 = $702 million.
> 
> Is my math OK? Are my assumptions OK?
> 
> If so, the stock holders get $500M that could go to employees 500m / 110,000 Sam s employees.
> 
> That works out to $4,545 each/year.
> 
> - RobS888


Sams is roughly 12% of Walmarts sales. One reason it does so poorly is because they are often right beside each other and Sams has very little that Walmart doesn't also sell. That is why my parents were only a member for one year, they found out they didn't have to pay a $50 membership fee to buy the same stuff and a very slightly higher price at Walmart. That Sams club actually ended up closing because the parking lot was always empty but the Walmart parking lot next door was always near capacity.

Sams are also not targeted for affluent neighborhoods like Costco is, buying in bulk is almost a hobby of affluent people that the lower middle class and poor simply do not partake in.

There is a BJ's warehouse here and I had a trial membership for 3 months once, everyone in there was a well to do person, the parking lot was full of $50k+ vehicles. We do have a lot of dual income $100k/each families here just not enough people to bring in the likes of Costco and Wholefoods.

One of the links I read that there are 120 Sams stores in typical Costco style neighborhoods, I wish they broke their profitability out. I would wager those 120 stores did much better than the others, knowing what I do about Walmarts pay I would also wager those Sams Clubs stores pay higher than you would think also.


----------



## Bonka

Businesses do not pay taxes. The people that buy their goods and services do. The taxes and the costs of compliance are built into the cost of their product. Just as the wages, advertisement, insurance and so on, are build into what they sell.
If they were not taxed then their prices would come down. Remember businesses have to stay competitive. Someone would blink and lower prices and others would have to follow to stay in the game.
Many, as I, feel we should go to a tax such as The Fair Tax. Read the book. The profits from it go to charity. We could all benefit because in essence we could determine if we wanted to pay a tax or not.
Why won't the powers that be allow the repatriation of over one trillion dollars back into the USA without taxing it?
Taxes have been paid elsewhere. If it were to come back it could be put to use to build and expand businesses.
That would mean more jobs.
Other people being made rich by taking it from those who earned it does not work. It is, once again, class war fare. Taxing the rich has been the mantra of the statist ever since I started to pay attention to politics in the middle 1950's


----------



## RobS888

> According to The Tax Foundation the top 1% pay more in income taxes than the bottom 90%.
> Taxes are too high for all of us to support a huge, uncaring federal government. We also tax business at the highest rate of developed countries.
> Why should businesses even be taxed? They pass all of the taxes and billions of dollars in administration of compliance on to the consumer.
> All I ever hear is tax the rich and businesses more. It is class warfare to deflect away the main big money hole, The Federal Government.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson
> 
> GE pays no net tax. That is beyond belief.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Yes it is, and do you know who was the jobs Czar of the Obama administration?
> 
> - patcollins


Are you suggesting that they didn't pay much tax because they had someone high up?

Did that work retroactively to 2002? They have paid an average of 1.8% since 2002.


----------



## RobS888

> I don t believe Costco-Malmart is a proper comparison, Costco-Sam s is the proper comparison. We may have gone around about this before.
> 
> Just because I admire them for the products and the way they do business doesn t mean I think they are angelic, but if I was ranking stores they are way out in front. I would rather a business put money into their people than trying to maximize the amount they can send to stockholders.
> 
> Walmart $1.92 to 3.2B http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/services/discount-variety-stores/wmt-wal-mart-stores/
> 
> Costco $1.60 to 439M http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/services/discount-variety-stores/cost-costco/
> 
> I m not sure if Sam s is even 25% of WallyWorld… http://news.walmart.com/walmart-facts/corporate-financial-fact-sheet
> 
> Sam s is projected to earn $58 billion this year of $288 total for WallyWorld, so 58/288 = 20.1% .201388×3.2B = 644M, so WallyWorld is paying 644M x $1.92= $1.2B dividend for Sam s portion of revenue.
> 
> Costco is 439m x $1.6 = $702 million.
> 
> Is my math OK? Are my assumptions OK?
> 
> If so, the stock holders get $500M that could go to employees 500m / 110,000 Sam s employees.
> 
> That works out to $4,545 each/year.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sams is roughly 12% of Walmarts sales. One reason it does so poorly is because they are often right beside each other and Sams has very little that Walmart doesn t also sell. That is why my parents were only a member for one year, they found out they didn t have to pay a $50 membership fee to buy the same stuff and a very slightly higher price at Walmart. That Sams club actually ended up closing because the parking lot was always empty but the Walmart parking lot next door was always near capacity.
> 
> Sams are also not targeted for affluent neighborhoods like Costco is, buying in bulk is almost a hobby of affluent people that the lower middle class and poor simply do not partake in.
> 
> There is a BJ s warehouse here and I had a trial membership for 3 months once, everyone in there was a well to do person, the parking lot was full of $50k+ vehicles. We do have a lot of dual income $100k/each families here just not enough people to bring in the likes of Costco and Wholefoods.
> 
> One of the links I read that there are 120 Sams stores in typical Costco style neighborhoods, I wish they broke their profitability out. I would wager those 120 stores did much better than the others, knowing what I do about Walmarts pay I would also wager those Sams Clubs stores pay higher than you would think also.
> 
> - patcollins


Wall marts predictions are 20%.

I bet they pay as little as they can get away with, unlike Costco.


----------



## Bonka

Rob, I don't know what you mean by, "They have paid an average of 1.8% since 2002." 
I am not suggesting anything. The top 1% pay more than the bottom 90% was the figure from The Tax Foundation.


----------



## patcollins

> Are you suggesting that they didn t pay much tax because they had someone high up?
> 
> Did that work retroactively to 2002? They have paid an average of 1.8% since 2002.
> 
> - RobS888


This can't be….

*President Ronald Reagan overhauled the tax system after learning that G.E. - a company for which he had once worked as a commercial pitchman - was among dozens of corporations that had used accounting gamesmanship to avoid paying any taxes.

"I didn't realize things had gotten that far out of line," Mr. Reagan told the Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to Mr. Regan's 1988 memoir. The president supported a change that closed loopholes and required G.E. to pay a far higher effective rate, up to 32.5 percent.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=0


----------



## kelvancra

Gerald, using that logic and going further, people who buy their goods and services don't, the businesses they work for did.

In reality, business do pay those things. Money they pay for them is money they could have kept in their own pockets.

It is true they, of necessity, build cost into prices, but those also include labor costs, profit, without which running a business would not be justified, equipment costs and maintenance and so on.

"Businesses do not pay taxes. The people that buy their goods and services do. The taxes and the costs of compliance are built into the cost of their product. Just as the wages, advertisement, insurance and so on, are build into what they sell."


----------



## Mahdeew

In order to reduce taxes, you have to reduce government. If I make a million and pay 1% in taxes (10.000) am I paying more than someone who makes 100.000 and pays 30% (3000)??


----------



## patcollins

> In order to reduce taxes, you have to reduce government. If I make a million and pay 1% in taxes (10.000) am I paying more than someone who makes 100.000 and pays 30% (3000)??
> 
> - mrjinx007


Not exactly, you have to reduce government spending, there is a difference.

Also the tagline "reduce government" can mean different things. Does it mean reduce the number of government employees, buildings etc or does it mean reduce government involvement in things because there is a difference. Most people that spout reduce government really don't know what they are talking about just that someone told them to think/say that. Conversely most of the people on the opposite of the fence are the same way just with different tag lines.


----------



## Mahdeew

Reducing the government means reducing the government in general. Lets look at what is necessary. Do we need NSA collecting every citizen's e-mail, phone calls, social media comment, etc? It has not prevented anything, even the Boston or the most recent attack on the black church. Russia even tip us on the Boston marathon and the kid had posted all kinds of crap on his SMS. So, if we don't need domestic spying agency, we close it and reduce the government. Do we need an engineer to check exit lights, master level health dep worker to issue tickets to Kool-Aid stands? If not, lets reduce the government. When you reduce the government, you reduce its size, its function, its need for taxes and its influence (over influence). That's just two example of bloated government that is not functioning. I work in a place where several different government agencies are involved in ensuring "compliance". It is crazy. Some of the fly from all over the place to ensure the state agency is in compliance with the federal one. Then we have a new state agency director with two lawyer following him to every meeting so he doesn't say something wrong. Do you know what most of his speech is about? The government doesn't have enough money so we need to shut down some of these government funded programs. TSA has failed miserably and a flat tax would get rid of most of IRS. Just some examples of your tax money at work.


----------



## patcollins

> Reducing the government means reducing the government in general. Lets look at what is necessary. Do we need NSA collecting every citizen s e-mail, phone calls, social media comment, etc? It has not prevented anything, even the Boston or the most recent attack on the black church. Russia even tip us on the Boston marathon and the kid had posted all kinds of crap on his SMS. So, if we don t need domestic spying agency, we close it and reduce the government. Do we need an engineer to check exit lights, master level health dep worker to issue tickets to Kool-Aid stands? If not, lets reduce the government. When you reduce the government, you reduce its size, its function, its need for taxes and its influence (over influence). That s just two example of bloated government that is not functioning. I work in a place where several different government agencies are involved in ensuring "compliance". It is crazy. Some of the fly from all over the place to ensure the state agency is in compliance with the federal one. Then we have a new state agency director with two lawyer following him to every meeting so he doesn t say something wrong. Do you know what most of his speech is about? The government doesn t have enough money so we need to shut down some of these government funded programs. TSA has failed miserably and a flat tax would get rid of most of IRS. Just some examples of your tax money at work.
> 
> - mrjinx007


As far as the NSA goes it isn't we do not need a domestic spying agency, we should not have a domestic spying agency.

The example of having an engineer checking exit sign bulbs is horse******************** that has been twisted to try to make a point. I know for a fact most maintenance/custodial work is contracted out to private firms that pay the people about $12 to $15 an hr. That story is probably more likely someone that was an engineer decided to replace a bulb and the story grew from there. 
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/a-toilet-seat-is-nothing/article_9174fbc6-0e7c-55a2-8760-a264863320b2.html


----------



## Mahdeew

*The example of having an engineer checking exit sign bulbs is horse******************** that has been twisted to try to make a point. I know for a fact most maintenance/custodial work is contracted out to private firms that pay the people about $12 to $15 an hr. That story is probably more likely someone that was an engineer decided to replace a bulb and the story grew from there. *
It is a qualification criteria for the job. I encounter them annually when they come to inspect.


----------



## patcollins

> *The example of having an engineer checking exit sign bulbs is horse******************** that has been twisted to try to make a point. I know for a fact most maintenance/custodial work is contracted out to private firms that pay the people about $12 to $15 an hr. That story is probably more likely someone that was an engineer decided to replace a bulb and the story grew from there. *
> It is a qualification criteria for the job. I encounter them annually when they come to inspect.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I know many facilities coordinators that have no degree, would you be so kind as to post the job?


----------



## kelvancra

Regarding toilet seats and hammers, the waste in government is incomprehensible.

When I worked for the Fed, as a civilian for the Navy at Keyport, Washington, I got called on the carpet for picking up a box (one gross) of number four stainless steel flat washers from the parts department. The reason was, the flat washers cost three dollars each.

After I pointed out the same washers were available for four cents, each, retail at Ernst and the news sources would love to learn of this, they decided not to punish me.

Keep in mind, I was just one of thousands of employees ordering such parts.

Before working at Keyport, I worked for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, in Bremerton. There, they used stress relieved boxes for electrical terminations. These were solid brass. The smallest were three hundred back then, because they were stress relieved. However, drilling them, cutting holes in them and welding on them ruined the stress relief. Of course, none of them came with mounting ears, or holes for cables.

Before I worked


----------



## patcollins

> Regarding toilet seats and hammers, the waste in government is incomprehensible.
> 
> When I worked for the Fed, as a civilian for the Navy at Keyport, Washington, I got called on the carpet for picking up a box (one gross) of number four stainless steel flat washers from the parts department. The reason was, the flat washers cost three dollars each.
> 
> After I pointed out the same washers were available for four cents, each, retail at Ernst and the news sources would love to learn of this, they decided not to punish me.
> 
> Keep in mind, I was just one of thousands of employees ordering such parts.
> 
> Before working at Keyport, I worked for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, in Bremerton. There, they used stress relieved boxes for electrical terminations. These were solid brass. The smallest were three hundred back then, because they were stress relieved. However, drilling them, cutting holes in them and welding on them ruined the stress relief. Of course, none of them came with mounting ears, or holes for cables.
> 
> Before I worked
> 
> - Kelly


I am familiar with the brass junction boxes in ships, brass is used due to its favorable characteristics in a salt water environment. Drilling and cutting stress relieved brass does not ruin the stress relief, welding however may depending on the temperature, type of welding etc. If you throw a junction box on a ship that you got at Lowes in no time your box would be corroded and would start a fire.


----------



## Mahdeew

No, I am not going to rat out anyone as there are so many of them out there that makes the whole thing pandemic; no need to pick on one. Just think about one aspect of government: 
CMS, DHHS, DDS, APS, CPS, SS. Obviously, the state does not trust the local city fire department's inspection of exit lights, and the feds don't trust the state and even though if you go above and beyond both city, state and the fed by being accredited by an internationally accredited agency, apparently it is not enough unless all agencies have had their say. The bureaucracy is so thick you can't cut it wit a sharp razor blade. My friend made 10 grad a month working at Prudhoe Bay AK watching a panel all day in case there was a fire. His meals (steaks and lobster or whatever he wished) was part of the job. So was his room. In the 13 years he watched that monitor, there never was an alarm. He was the most depressed person I ever met. There are so many government workers out there that all they do is to show up for work for 30 years so they can collect their pension at a certain age. Believe me, there are some dedicated, good folks out there who make a big difference in people's lives but they are the rare breed. A government worker does not produce anything. They are like a made; you pay them to make life easier for you. This is how Rome collapsed; the taxes went up so high and the solders took it upon themselves to collect from the citizens. The citizens eventually abandoned their homes and left for they could not afford the taxes or the abuse of the collectors. That is where the word suburbia was coined.
*There were two taxes that altered how people lived. There was the Window Tax that inspired row homes in Colonial America. That simply became the standard and long after the tax was gone, row homes became the norm. Row Homes eliminated the need for windows on two sides of the house.

You will also see some colonial houses had just one step and others two or three. You were also taxed on the number of steps you had. Hence, the saying "taking a step up in life" had its root in the fact that you were rich because you had more than one step and were taxed at a higher rate.

Taxes have always altered behavior. The higher the taxes in a city, the more people moved to the suburbs in ancient times as they do today. When Maximinus I had spies seeking people with money in Rome, capital went into hiding. The one way to destroy an economy - keep raising taxes. Unemployment among the youth in Southern Europe is over 60%. Government is destroying their future entirely and altering society by preventing marriage at the same age because there is no job to start a family.

Money today is effectively electronic. Cash forms such a tiny fraction of the money supply it is rapidly on its way out the door. When I park my car in the city, there are only machines to give me a ticket, then to pay and receive an exit ticket, and I see no one. The age of technology is eliminating minor jobs and converting money into simply credit and debt cards. There will be no going back to some gold standard and the younger generation will look at you in amazement as if you are speaking "how for art thou" in some ancient tongue.*

HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Edward Gibbon, Esq.

With notes by the Rev. H. H. Milman

Vol. 6

1782 (Written), 1845 (Revised)

CONTENTS

Chapter LIX: The Crusades.-Part I. Part II. Part III.

Chapter LX: The Fourth Crusade.-Part I. Part II. Part III.

Chapter LXI: Partition Of The Empire By The French And Venetians.-Part I. Part II. Part III. Part IV.

Chapter LXII: Greek Emperors Of Nice And Constantinople.-Part I. Part II. Part III.

Chapter LXIII: Civil Wars And The Ruin Of The Greek Empire.-Part I. Part II.

Chapter LXIV: Moguls, Ottoman Turks.-Part I. Part II. Part III. Part IV.

Chapter LXV: Elevation Of Timour Or Tamerlane, And His Death.-Part I. Part II. Part III.

Chapter LXVI: Union Of The Greek And Latin Churches.-Part I. Part II. Part III. Part IV.

Chapter LXVII: Schism Of The Greeks And Latins.-Part I. Part II.

Chapter LXVIII: Reign Of Mahomet The Second, Extinction Of Eastern Empire.-Part I. Part II. Part III. Part IV.

Chapter LXIX: State Of Rome From The Twelfth Century.-Part I. Part II. Part III. Part IV.

Chapter LXX: Final Settlement Of The Ecclesiastical State.-Part I. Part II. Part III. Part IV.

Chapter LXXI: Prospect Of The Ruins Of Rome In The Fifteenth Century.-Part I. Part II


----------



## kelvancra

DSHS (CPS, etc.) is just a tiny little 300 billion dollar agency.

The Bernie set is pushing for more central government. Socialism requires it

Contrary to the definitions earlier put out, it is not just a "socioeconomic system." It cannot exist without strong government control of the product of our labor. Though it's alleged its better than communism "because people 'get to still own their property,'" that is lip service to support the concept. If others can take it from you at will [or vote], you don't really own it.

It was, earlier, said a republic was this or that. That finite definition was erroneous. Our republic was purposed to be about individual civil liberties. Representatives of the public were to have a duty to, first and foremost, protect individual liberties. However, an ignorant and gullible America has been conned into believing we are a democracy, wherein we can vote the other person's wealth into our own pockets.

Of course, most of us don't even understand the most important, basic fact: We are the government.


----------



## RobS888

Should be easy to prove about the republic…

I suppose you think we have god given rights as well.

I challenge you to prove we are not a democracy and a republic means anything other than no king or queen.

Also, if we can amend the constitution how are we not a democracy?

Wealth is voted around all the time, you can't seriously doubt that congress does that daily.


----------



## kelvancra

The words "first and foremost" confuse you?

Before I spend hours digging through nearly three decades of records used in client cases, tell me your opinion of the impact of the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers on the formation of the District of Columbia.

Too, we must have had some kind of rights antecedent to the constitution, or we would not have been able to establish state federal governments.

Lets back up to basics. Do you understand that each of the several states is an individual country and the U.S., in law, is foreign to each of them?



> Should be easy to prove about the republic…
> 
> I suppose you think we have god given rights as well.
> 
> I challenge you to prove we are not a democracy and a republic means anything other than no king or queen.
> 
> Also, if we can amend the constitution how are we not a democracy?
> 
> Wealth is voted around all the time, you can t seriously doubt that congress does that daily.
> 
> - RobS888


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Other people being made rich by taking it from those who earned it does not work. It is, once again, class war fare. Taxing the rich has been the mantra of the statist ever since I started to pay attention to politics in the middle 1950 s
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


On the contrary, Micheal Milkin invented the perfect scam and Romney made billions doing it.



> The Bernie set is pushing for more central government. Socialism requires it
> 
> - Kelly


Corporatism is destroying our democracy. The people will rebel just as they always have in the past when suppressed and enslaved. If socialism is the result, it will be better than oligarchy for the masses.


----------



## RobS888

Kelly,
You reject my questions and substitute your own, to me that means you can't really prove what you have said.

What would "client cases" prove either way in the definition of democracy and republic?

The antecedents to the constitution were the articles of confederation and the English bill of rights. The states are not now, nor have they ever been countries, they went directly from colonies to states under the articles of confederation. Well 13 did, most of the others were territories first.

So let's stay out of the reeds and work with the high level first. You have claimed in posts that most of us are ignorant about the real meaning of republic. Please enlighten us, what is a republic and how is it not a democracy?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Thom Hartman points out that the republic/democracy hair splitting came out of the the Reagan/Gingrich propaganda program. In modern times, the term democracy commonly refers to a republic such as the US. They started this controversy because America was referred to as a democracy which sounded like Democrat. They insisted it be called a republic because it sounds more like Republican.

Edit: The primary purpose is to divert attention away from the real issues of the day. The Rs know they can't win promoting ending Social Security and Medicare, supporting increasing Wall Street fraud (primary reason I am no longer a party officer), promoting the oligarchy and suppression of the peons.


----------



## kelvancra

Many of the answers you want me to give are in the old writings. Ones from the days when the states and federal government were formed.

It is becoming more and more obvious you are of a belief the people who formed our governments ,who sought to avoid the onerous taxation and control of others, built their new countries by mirroring what they left behind.

Regarding your questions, it is no less noteworthy I've mentioned critical, historical documents twice and each time you ignored them. My questions, certainly, are no more burdensome than are yours.

I am unwilling to spend days pulling up the significant research that would enlighten you on the thinking behind the formation of the republic. Especially since your bent is apparent and all the facts in the world are unlikely to sway you. However, I will pull some information that will direct you. Regardless, you will have to put your big boy pants on and do some of your own work, as well as realize others are not at your beck and call.


----------



## RobS888

> Many of the answers you want me to give are in the old writings. Ones from the days when the states and federal government were formed.
> 
> It is becoming more and more obvious you are of a belief the people who formed our governments ,who sought to avoid the onerous taxation and control of others, built their new countries by mirroring what they left behind.
> 
> Regarding your questions, it is no less noteworthy I ve mentioned critical, historical documents twice and each time you ignored them. My questions, certainly, are no more burdensome than are yours.
> 
> I am unwilling to spend days pulling up the significant research that would enlighten you on the thinking behind the formation of the republic. Especially since your bent is apparent and all the facts in the world are unlikely to sway you. However, I will pull some information that will direct you. Regardless, you will have to put your big boy pants on and do some of your own work, as well as realize others are not at your beck and call.
> 
> - Kelly


I just ask you to prove what you wrote. If you don't have "big boy pants" then your opinion means nothing. I have supported my opinion, you have not. You claimed there was more to it than the definitions! Huh?

Taxation was a minor grievance that was acceded to before the revolution, control of the west was the real issue.

It is a fantasy to think everything the FFs did wasn't based on prior governments/writings. The previously mentioned federalist papers lists many of the sources for the ideas.

The Articles of confederation were deemed too weak, so to get more federal power the constitution was written, (remember, more perfect?) we could write a new one giving more or less power to the federal government if we wanted to because we are a democracy.

There was no divine inspiration. That is just fantasy!


----------



## patcollins

> *There were two taxes that altered how people lived. There was the Window Tax that inspired row homes in Colonial America. That simply became the standard and long after the tax was gone, row homes became the norm. Row Homes eliminated the need for windows on two sides of the house.


You know it is possible to build a regular house without windows on the sides, row homes were built to cram more into a small space, they were also more efficient to heat because two sides were not exposed to the elements. I call BS on that one.


----------



## patcollins

> Taxation was a minor grievance that was acceded to before the revolution, control of the west was the real issue.


Taxation was more like the spark that lit the barn on fire. Colonists were not allowed to produce anything, they were just supposed to send the raw materials back to England then the final products would be shipped back to the colonists to buy. Trade was heavily regulated, but many became smugglers. It was the crackdown on unauthorized trade that was really fueling the revolution.


----------



## Mahdeew

BS is in the eyes of the beholder. 
*Additionally, the windows in the Morris House Hotel are consistent with Georgian ideals. It features three dormer windows and sashed windows throughout the rest of the home. The windows on the lower floors are larger than the windows on the upper floors. This was a common way that home builders and architects could reduce the amount of "window tax" that a homeowner would have to pay. The amount of the window tax due was based on the amount of windows a home had. The tax would be added to the home owner's property taxes. One way that Georgian architects were able to reduce property taxes owed was to reduce the number of window panes that a house had overall.*


----------



## RobS888

> *There were two taxes that altered how people lived. There was the Window Tax that inspired row homes in Colonial America. That simply became the standard and long after the tax was gone, row homes became the norm. Row Homes eliminated the need for windows on two sides of the house.
> 
> You know it is possible to build a regular house without windows on the sides, row homes were built to cram more into a small space, they were also more efficient to heat because two sides were not exposed to the elements. I call BS on that one.
> 
> - patcollins


They were pretty common in the UK as well.


----------



## RobS888

> Taxation was a minor grievance that was acceded to before the revolution, control of the west was the real issue.
> 
> Taxation was more like the spark that lit the barn on fire. Colonists were not allowed to produce anything, they were just supposed to send the raw materials back to England then the final products would be shipped back to the colonists to buy. Trade was heavily regulated, but many became smugglers. It was the crackdown on unauthorized trade that was really fueling the revolution.
> 
> - patcollins


Not having representatives in parliament was the issue. Taxes had been eliminated by the UK because it reduced the need to let the colonies have seats in parliament. They did eventually add a small tea tax, that was seen as violating the UK's bill of rights.
Let's not forget that these were mostly Brits arguing with Brits.


----------



## RobS888

> BS is in the eyes of the beholder.
> *Additionally, the windows in the Morris House Hotel are consistent with Georgian ideals. It features three dormer windows and sashed windows throughout the rest of the home. The windows on the lower floors are larger than the windows on the upper floors. This was a common way that home builders and architects could reduce the amount of "window tax" that a homeowner would have to pay. The amount of the window tax due was based on the amount of windows a home had. The tax would be added to the home owner's property taxes. One way that Georgian architects were able to reduce property taxes owed was to reduce the number of window panes that a house had overall.*
> 
> - mrjinx007


If the tax was based on number of windows why reduce the size to save money.


----------



## patcollins

> BS is in the eyes of the beholder.
> *Additionally, the windows in the Morris House Hotel are consistent with Georgian ideals. It features three dormer windows and sashed windows throughout the rest of the home. The windows on the lower floors are larger than the windows on the upper floors. This was a common way that home builders and architects could reduce the amount of "window tax" that a homeowner would have to pay. The amount of the window tax due was based on the amount of windows a home had. The tax would be added to the home owner's property taxes. One way that Georgian architects were able to reduce property taxes owed was to reduce the number of window panes that a house had overall.*
> 
> - mrjinx007


Never denied that they used less windows, the BS part was that was why row houses became popular.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Bill Mahr's insight


----------



## DanYo




----------



## RobS888

Sanders makes too much sense to be elected.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Sanders makes too much sense to be elected.
> 
> - RobS888


Unfortunately, that is most likely true. But at least he had the sense to run in a major party instead of as an independent.

Something will give. As Jefferson said, the cycle of oppression, revolution and reformation never ends.


----------



## TexasTodd

Corporations income can either be retained or paid out in dividends. When the shareholder receives the dividend, he/she pays tax on that income. If the corporation retains the earnings, it will either sit in the bank, buy back shares of its own stock or invest the earnings in growth of the company. 
I don't think Mr. Sanders understands how this works. These arguments are more emotional manipulation than substantive and legitimate. Personally, I don't believe corporations should pay any federal income tax.


----------



## RobS888

According to Politifacts evaluation of a Bernie Sanders statement…

Corporations paid $274 billion in taxes in 2013. that equates to 10% of taxes collected. In 1952 corporations paid 33% ($21B) of total taxes collected.

Individual taxes went from 43% ($27.9B) to 50% ($1.3T)

So Corporations pay 13 times as much, individuals pay 46 times as much.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/28/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-tax-share-paid-corporations-ha/

Corporations pay tax on profit, if they paid more to their workers they could pay less taxes.


----------



## TexasTodd

Rob,
Comparing arbitrary dates in history does not have much significance to argue a point of view. I could glean all kinds of things from your statement that may or may not be your point. Was 1952 the perfect year for tax rates and 2013 was an abomination? That seems like a tangent (rabbit hole) that is not productive to an argument.
I believe all taxes are too high and still not nearly enough for the voracious appetite of government spending. I cannot imagine the huge pile of government revenues and an ongoing inability to even balance the budget. To think that our country has trillions in debt and billions of deficit regardless of mind boggling tax revenues. 
Personally, I believe the corporate tax should be zero and we should have some sort of mildly progressive flat tax on all income. Seems like a simple, straightforward approach that is both fair and reasonable. Corporate earnings would be taxed on an individual level as it should be. 
Further, I believe we should impose a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. There is no argument for gov't spending to exceed what can be collected. This is political convenience and contrivance to benefit current administrations / politicians and has been the case for decades too long.


----------



## Bonka

Has anyone taken the time to read " The Fair Tax" book?


----------



## patcollins

> Sanders makes too much sense to be elected.
> 
> - RobS888


He upsets the political machine of the Democratic party much the way Trump upsets the political machine of the Republican party so it will never happen.

Hillary will be going down in flames over the email scandal and Biden will end up being the nominee.

Sanders is more of a threat to the Democratic party than the Republican nominee would be, same with Trump and the Republican party.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Has anyone taken the time to read " The Fair Tax" book?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Why? It is a moot point as long as the prostitutes in Congress sell us, US, to the highest bidder; foreign or domestic.



> Corporations income can either be retained or paid out in dividends. When the shareholder receives the dividend, he/she pays tax on that income. If the corporation retains the earnings, it will either sit in the bank, buy back shares of its own stock or invest the earnings in growth of the company.
> I don t think Mr. Sanders understands how this works. These arguments are more emotional manipulation than substantive and legitimate. Personally, I don t believe corporations should pay any federal income tax.
> 
> - TexasTodd


That is a rather naive view of the business world. Mr Sanders understands the situation perfectly well as does Senator Warren. After Enron, et al, Bush had no choice but to declare any CEO who did not have honest and accurate financials in 6 months was going to jail. Nobody went as far as I know except they went after a high profile female scapegoat, Martha Stewart. It took years to get their financials in order in some cases, not 6 months. I do not remember when I got the last notice of class action against upper management for fraud against the share holders; probably about 2010. I was receiving them for most of the decade. Hardly worth the bother to fill out the paperwork. $30K loss on Flextronics recovered less than $30.00 when we joined the suit against those lying [email protected][email protected]$.

Since the 80s, corps have been managed for the benefit of upper management. By the late 90s, it was the greatest transfer of wealth from the public to private hands in the history of the world. Today, corporations pay very low if any dividends. They use their profits for upper management compensation and bonuses. After that, they buy back shares. Upper management further cashes in by selling on that price increase. Of course, they have to notify months in advance of a insider sale of their shares, but the insiders control the price increase caused by the buy back.

I always wondered what the perfect crime really was after the perfect crime fell apart when I was a little kid. Now I know, it is a Ivy League MBA; no chance of prosecution.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Sanders makes too much sense to be elected.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> He upsets the political machine of the Democratic party much the way Trump upsets the political machine of the Republican party so it will never happen.
> 
> Hillary will be going down in flames over the email scandal and Biden will end up being the nominee.
> 
> Sanders is more of a threat to the Democratic party than the Republican nominee would be, same with Trump and the Republican party.
> 
> - patcollins


Sanders is a threat to the whole corporate insider political machine both D & R. If they don't get the polls shut down to keep voters away or rig the electronic voting machines to eliminate him, he will win if his unprecedented political organizing turn out continues and shows up at the D Caucasus.

I have never seen anything like the enthusiasm people have at Bernie's meetings.


----------



## patcollins

> Sanders is a threat to the whole corporate insider political machine both D & R. If they don t get the polls shut down to keep voters away or rig the electronic voting machines to eliminate him, he will win if his unprecedented political organizing turn out continues and shows up at the D Caucasus.
> 
> *I have never seen anything like the enthusiasm people have at Bernie s meetings.*
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


The Ron Paul folks were similar, he is this elections Ron Paul.

There will be something that happens to him if he threatens to beat Hillary (or Biden).


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The Ron Paul folks were similar, he is this elections Ron Paul.
> 
> There will be something that happens to him if he threatens to beat Hillary (or Biden).
> 
> - patcollins


I'm afraid that could easily happen. Thom Hartmann mentioned the money /business boys wanted Nixon out and set him up. I didn't hear what he had to say as I was busy but he did mention Nixon was a crook anyway so very easy to get.


----------



## RobS888

So pessimistic, if that could happen Obama never, ever would have been elected.

It will be Clinton/Sanders or Clinton/Warren. I mean elected, not just running.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob,
> Comparing arbitrary dates in history does not have much significance to argue a point of view. I could glean all kinds of things from your statement that may or may not be your point. Was 1952 the perfect year for tax rates and 2013 was an abomination? That seems like a tangent (rabbit hole) that is not productive to an argument.
> I believe all taxes are too high and still not nearly enough for the voracious appetite of government spending. I cannot imagine the huge pile of government revenues and an ongoing inability to even balance the budget. To think that our country has trillions in debt and billions of deficit regardless of mind boggling tax revenues.
> Personally, I believe the corporate tax should be zero and we should have some sort of mildly progressive flat tax on all income. Seems like a simple, straightforward approach that is both fair and reasonable. Corporate earnings would be taxed on an individual level as it should be.
> Further, I believe we should impose a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. There is no argument for gov t spending to exceed what can be collected. This is political convenience and contrivance to benefit current administrations / politicians and has been the case for decades too long.
> 
> - TexasTodd


We elect them and they spend. About 650 elected people make all the decisions on what a couple of hundred thousand people do. Then we pay for it.

Out of curiosity why do you think we are taxed too much? We have a very low affective tax rate, most, if not all developed countries are higher. So I'm wondering if that is based on fact or your desire to pay less?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Do we really need another crooked president?

He had early experience in the S&L bailout.


----------



## patcollins

> So pessimistic, if that could happen Obama never, ever would have been elected.
> 
> It will be Clinton/Sanders or Clinton/Warren. I mean elected, not just running.
> 
> - RobS888


Why not, he was part of the machine, no matter how much he tried to paint himself as an "outsider".


----------



## RobS888

I think you're letting your pessimism get the best of you. He voted against the Bush wars and he is for single payer health care. He gets my vote.

This was great and not just for how stupid it made the Republican Senator look, but that what she said was correct, I checked and the doctor moves mentioned are right.


----------



## Mahdeew

After the next insider/bank sympathizer we elect, we can kiss cash goodbye. The MSM has been pushing this here and there.
Incase you are not a subscriber:

*The fact that people treat cash as the go-to safe asset when banks are teetering is heavy with historical irony. Paper money was once the symbol of monetary irresponsibility. But even as individuals have taken recent crises as reasons to stock up on banknotes, authorities would do well to consider the arguments for phasing out their use as another "barbarous relic", the moniker Keynes gave to gold.

Already, by far the largest amount of money exists and is transacted in electronic form - as bank deposits and central bank reserves. But even a little physical currency can cause a lot of distortion to the economic system.*

Hmmm. Interesting.

*The existence of cash - a bearer instrument with a zero interest rate - limits central banks' ability to stimulate a depressed economy. The worry is that people will change their deposits for cash if a central bank moves rates into negative territory. The Swiss, Danish and Swedish central banks have pushed rates lower than many thought possible; but most policymakers still believe in an "effective" lower band not far below zero.*

Ahhhh. How wonderful it would be if nobody had to handle those dirty, nasty IOU papers around. Very few use it as it is. So, why not get rid of it all together.

*Electronic money also permits innovations to reward law-abiding businesses. Value added tax, for example, could be automatically levied - and reimbursed - in real time on transactions between liable bank accounts. Countries that struggle with tax collection could go a long way in solving their problems by restricting the use of cash. Greece, in particular, could make lemonade out of lemons, using the current capital controls to push the country's cash culture into new habits.*


----------



## patcollins

> I think you re letting your pessimism get the best of you. He voted against the Bush wars and he is for single payer health care. He gets my vote.
> 
> This was great and not just for how stupid it made the Republican Senator look, but that what she said was correct, I checked and the doctor moves mentioned are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - RobS888


It shows that he knows how to manipulate the term conservative with respect to different governments. Most people misuse the terms liberal and conservative though.


----------



## RobS888

> I think you re letting your pessimism get the best of you. He voted against the Bush wars and he is for single payer health care. He gets my vote.
> 
> This was great and not just for how stupid it made the Republican Senator look, but that what she said was correct, I checked and the doctor moves mentioned are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> It shows that he knows how to manipulate the term conservative with respect to different governments. Most people misuse the terms liberal and conservative though.
> 
> - patcollins


He uses the Nordic countries as his example of what we should aspire to, I can't see anything wrong with that.

You may see him as same ol' same ol' (not sure why, other than him being a senator), I don't and I hope enough younger people see him differently. I suspect the millennials will determine the next president. When they vote, we all win, when they don't republicans win.


----------



## patcollins

> He uses the Nordic countries as his example of what we should aspire to, I can t see anything wrong with that.
> 
> You may see him as same ol same ol (not sure why, other than him being a senator), I don t and I hope enough younger people see him differently. I suspect the millennials will determine the next president. When they vote, we all win, when they don t republicans win.
> 
> - RobS888


Not sure why you getting that about Sanders, it was Obama I was saying was no different even though he tried to paint himself as an outsider.

Sanders does dare to be different and that alone is a plus in my book. But there is also an equal amount I don't like about him. Still he is probably no worse of a choice than any of the so called front runners.


----------



## RobS888

Oh, I see, sorry about that. I thought you were referring to Sanders.

When I first heard Ron Paul speak I liked him, but on subsequent speeches it went kind of wacky like ending Pell grants! Why on earth would he end that? We can't pretend to be egalitarian if we don't offer equal education opportunities.

I haven't heard any crazy out of Sanders…yet. I agree with everything *I* have heard him say.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Sanders does dare to be different and that alone is a plus in my book. But there is also an equal amount I don t like about him. Still he is probably no worse of a choice than any of the so called front runners.
> 
> - patcollins


I think most people will vote socialism by a wide margin over the slavery imposed by the oligarchy's advancing corporatism.


----------



## RobS888

We seem to always need to constrain someone, robber barons, unions, the rich. They all go too far.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Who ever is on top at the moment seems to go for the kill which ends up being an act of suicide.


----------



## patcollins

> We seem to always need to constrain someone, robber barons, unions, the rich. They all go too far.
> 
> - RobS888


That is an unfortunate side effect of people only supporting two parties in mass. Everything someones team does is good and everything the other team does is bad and nobody will call out their own team unless it is really bad.

I think things would work out a lot better if there were 3-4 fairly equally represented parties in government.

I once read there is so much vitriol in politics when there isn't a lot of difference between the choices because there has to be. If there was a lot of difference between the choices people would be able to see it and the vitriol wouldn't matter. I always thought it made sense.


----------



## RobS888

I would love a party in the middle. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I would like something in betwixt the 2 we have now.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Sorry Rob, it would take 2. Some will pop up socially conservative and financially liberal ;-)


----------



## RobS888

The Donald brought up something we have discussed… saying 93 million aren't counted as being out of work.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/31/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-us-has-93-milion-people-out-work/


----------



## oldnovice

I have been saying the same thing *Rob* but the *Trumpeters* and the *Palinites* seem to know better!
Any rational person could see that this number, 93 million, is out of order by just looking around.


----------



## RobS888

We are on the same page, I don't see bread lines and counting retired people is one of the biggest lies I have seen. I remember in 2010, when they were screaming about 300,000/month were leaving the workforce. Well yeah because 10,000 baby boomers were retiring/day.

I can't imagine hating the president so much that you would lie like that over and over again.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I doubt that number too, but the Supreme Court has given license to lie to the media and politicians. I really doubt anyone really knows the real number since only those drawing benes show in stats. Unemployed college grads + under employed who will never have a good paying job again + the unemployed + the long term unemployed who have given up and accepted their fate certainly = at least 2x the official tally, if not 3x.

Yesterday in the grocery store I over heard a couple shopping as I passed by. She said to him, "We don't have the money." I proceeded to the Blue Box to pick up a kitchen faucet. The old one we put in about 10 years ago is starting to leak. Easy fix with Delta kit but my wife doesn't like the spray head. Only a couple hundred to replace it with one I hope is satisfactory. As I was checking out, the cashier said she needed a new on in her kitchen. I mentioned there were lots of them back there. She said, "too expensive." Sad day in America when over half the population is struggling and will probably never have any hope of retirement.

Allan Greenspan's War on the Middle Class has been too successful. Even Greenspan himself finally admitted he was wrong in 2008.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

BTW, "Reflecting on Jefferson's broad-based knowledge, President Kennedy once welcomed a group of forty-nine Nobel laureates to the White House with these words:

*I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. *" (Address to Nobel Laureates, Dinner for Nobel Prize Winners of the Western Hemisphere, 29 April 1962.)

It is high time we just Do What Jefferson Would Do


----------



## dbray45

Thomas Jefferson died in poverty. His property (Monticello) was auctioned off or sold and his furntiure was sold off to pay his debt. All because he wanted to be a "scientist" and not work. He may have been brilliant but he was also stupid.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Thomas Jefferson died in poverty. His property (Monticello) was auctioned off or sold and his furntiure was sold off to pay his debt. All because he wanted to be a "scientist" and not work. He may have been brilliant but he was also stupid.
> 
> - dbray45


That comment is so asinine it does not deserve a response.

I will say Alexander Hamilton may have been and probably was a millionaire by today's standards. He was the richest in that period. The founding fathers who would be considered rich were rich in land, not cash. George Washington freed his slaves upon his death, but did not have the assets to buy and free Martha's slaves.
I will add that nobody of that time period was rich by today's standards.


----------



## RobS888

> Thomas Jefferson died in poverty. His property (Monticello) was auctioned off or sold and his furntiure was sold off to pay his debt. All because he wanted to be a "scientist" and not work. He may have been brilliant but he was also stupid.
> 
> - dbray45


Inheriting debt, what was he thinking?


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DrDirt

> - Dan um Style


That's terrible - - -CEO wages are lagging college tuition costs!! How will they afford to send their kids to Yale?


----------



## RobS888

Do you point and laugh because you can't "refudiate" the points?


----------



## DrDirt

I point and laugh as a parent of teenagers…. I see college Tuition as a bigger challenge than what some CEO compensation is.

What the 'board' decides to pay it's CEO is their choosing…. We the People are apparently happy with this as we demand cheap foreign goods, made by offshoring all the good jobs.

I point and laugh because for as much as gets dedicated in the nearly 3000 posts now on high pay….and how it has TOTALLY exploded and is COMPLETELY out of line.

Tuition - - which affects everyone's ability to improve their position in life going forward, and their ability to support Medicare/Social Security has exploded at an even greater rate - - nearly Double the rate of Healthcare.

yet the only discussion from Warren/Sanders/Clinton is about the student loan interest rate… and not the fact that 1 year of attending even just the local State university costs as much as a new SUV (like a honda CRV).

I think we can do a lot more 'Good' for a lot more people addressing educational opportunity without a lifetime of student loan debt… much better than modifying the stock options of a few dozen CEO's and Fat Cats and planning for that wealth to "Trickle down"

I thought you didn't support trickle down economics?


----------



## oldnovice

*DrDirt*, I believe that most shareholders have no idea, and could even care less, about the CEO compensation as long as they get the dividends they feel they need.

The increasing tuition costs will mean drvive us to a nation of stupid people because no one can afford an education so we will need to import intelligence from other countries.


----------



## Mahdeew

No worries, 10,000 Syrian Doctors, engineers and techies are on their way and happy to work for minimum wage. All is good.


----------



## Bonka

What does CEO compensation have to do with anything? In inference seems to be if their salaries were cut then somehow others would get more money.


----------



## oldnovice

Jerry, I think your stated inference is correct!


> What does CEO compensation have to do with anything? In inference seems to be if their salaries were cut then somehow others would get more money.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


If the CEO compensation were reduced a company could pay bigger dividends or expand production or increase the pay of the workers. All of these "spread the wealth" instead of expanding one pocket!


----------



## DrDirt

oldnovice - - agree completely. But also the CEO's represent a small population.
Are they paid more than they are worth….. Almost certainly.

As Jerry points out - - if we cut CEO pay, (via some draconian incursion into the private sector).... the idea that people lower on the food chain would receive a windfall is pure fantasy.

It would be spent on Refugee resettlement, and eminent domain, and other kick-backs to special interests. Not growing the middle class.


----------



## CharlesA

The issue about CEO compensation is that we have devised a whole host of governmental and corporate policies that promote income inequality. It is not true that if you dropped CEO compensation by 25% that workers would get that amount, but we have incentivized income inequality. That creates deep economic problems long-term (even with issues such as proportion of tax burden).


----------



## DrDirt

> The issue about CEO compensation is that we have devised a whole host of governmental and corporate policies that promote income inequality. It is not true that if you dropped CEO compensation by 25% that workers would get that amount, but we have incentivized income inequality. That creates deep economic problems long-term (even with issues such as proportion of tax burden).
> 
> - CharlesA


Not following how we have Incentivized inequality…. some example would help.. do you mean like how with NAFTA and the trade deals we incentivized firing all the workers and moved the jobs - - and now the CEO is raking in based on the higher profits that come from moving manufacturing to low wage countries?


----------



## Bonka

CEO's do not make that kind of money. If it were cut drastically and put back into employees salaries they would not see enough to make a difference in their lives. Same for dividend and production expansion.
Next question, who is going to cut the CEO's pay and by how much?
If a big slice is taken these people, who have the expertise, who run the companies are not going to play anymore.
Most of them will head for other places in other countries.
This is all the old misdirection template. Make everyone feel they are getting hosed by evil big business and greedy CEO'S.
Companies would not pay these people those salaries and perks if it was not profitable for them.


----------



## Mahdeew

I think it has a lot to do with who you know and your influence rather than expertise. Very much like a political country club; you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. You see it in all levels of life as well.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

This confirms my observations over the last 45 years in the world of business and contracting.


----------



## Pezking7p

CEOs make companies successful. If you decreased their pay dramatically, they would leave for a higher paying job and then be replaced by someone less capable, the company would dwindle and fail and everyone who works for the company would lose their job.

Leadership drives companies, and it starts at the very top.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> CEOs make companies successful. If you decreased their pay dramatically, they would leave for a higher paying job and then be replaced by someone less capable, the company would dwindle and fail and everyone who works for the company would lose their job.
> 
> Leadership drives companies, and it starts at the very top.
> 
> - Pezking7p


That occasionally happens as in the cases of Jack Welch at GE, Lee Iacocca at Chrysler, Alan Mulally in Boeing's commercial division & CEO of Ford + a few others. Bill Gates and Steve Balmer did quite well at MSN without taking half the annual income out in salaries and perks. Care to discuss David Komansky at Merrill Lynch, Dennis Kozlowski at Tyco, Joseph Berardino @ Arthur Andersen or Ken Lay at Enron? There seems to be more trouble coming from top than leadership when one begins to examine the records a bit more closely ;-(


----------



## oldnovice

*+1 Bob!*


----------



## RobS888

> I point and laugh as a parent of teenagers…. I see college Tuition as a bigger challenge than what some CEO compensation is.
> 
> What the board decides to pay it s CEO is their choosing…. We the People are apparently happy with this as we demand cheap foreign goods, made by offshoring all the good jobs.
> 
> I point and laugh because for as much as gets dedicated in the nearly 3000 posts now on high pay….and how it has TOTALLY exploded and is COMPLETELY out of line.
> 
> Tuition - - which affects everyone s ability to improve their position in life going forward, and their ability to support Medicare/Social Security has exploded at an even greater rate - - nearly Double the rate of Healthcare.
> 
> yet the only discussion from Warren/Sanders/Clinton is about the student loan interest rate… and not the fact that 1 year of attending even just the local State university costs as much as a new SUV (like a honda CRV).
> 
> I think we can do a lot more Good for a lot more people addressing educational opportunity without a lifetime of student loan debt… much better than modifying the stock options of a few dozen CEO s and Fat Cats and planning for that wealth to "Trickle down"
> 
> I thought you didn t support trickle down economics?
> 
> - DrDirt


I don't support it.

I also don't support top shelf theft. Boards are made up of other CEOs, so they are very happy to vote each other raises.

Costco's CEO makes 20 times the average (in 2013, $800,000 vs 40,000), that seems fair to base it on the average, that way he gets more pay if everyone gets more pay.

The guy that runs Fed Ex 148 times average, UPS head 28 times average, UPS has 25% more revenue and 50% more profit and 108,000 more employees. The guy from UPS ($1.5M) actually makes $5.5 million less than the head of FedEx ($7M).

http://www.diffen.com/difference/FedEx_vs_UPS

There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

This website says that the Walmart CEO makes 1,000 times the median where as CostCo is 57 times the median.

http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-income-2013/fortune-100

Again something is really wrong here… it is legal theft.

These 2 examples are comparable businesses (or at least closest rival), with huge differences in pay. It also seems that the higher pay doesn't really translate into a proportional profit.


----------



## Mahdeew

So, that would be $63000 a day, everyday for a year?


----------



## Bonka

What do all of you that moan about CEO's making too much money purpose to be done? Who is going to do it?
How will it make my life better? What are the outcomes of reducing CEO's compensation? How much should they be reduced?
Cutting the size and power of the federal government would put more money in my pocket. I am all for that.


----------



## dbray45

Let's look at the real picture-

An average large company of 20,000 employees all making $30,000 a year (total ridiculousness, I agree), not taking into account managers, supervisors, management and highly skilled this or that. To give them all a 1.5% increase that does not keep up with the cost of living, is $450 more a year or $37.50 a month per employee. This equates to $9,000,000.00 a year for the 1.5% increase only.

A CEO that is managing the workforce, managing the inventories, managing the suppliers, managing the product lines, and bringing the customers though his or her strategies and vision - to keep these people in their jobs is well worth their paycheck of $3,000,000 (less than 30% of the aggregate increase). Where I have a problem is when a person that is hired to run a company and totally screws it up (Sunbeam is a good example) and after the company goes into bankruptcy, this person sues and gets his contract amount of 5+million - he should have gotten jail time!


----------



## dbray45

The other problem that I have is that the focus is only on the stock price, not the quality of product (deliverables and employees) like it once was. Raising the stock price is easy, building a quality company is a whole different thing and takes much longer.


----------



## dbray45

Oh, just to make this point a little clearer - my union that I have to have by State Law, that I pay for out of my paycheck - makes almost twice that amount and does less than a good CEO (in my opinion).


----------



## CharlesA

twice what amount?


----------



## dbray45

In real numbers - about $65 a month or $15,600,000 a year.


----------



## Mahdeew

Let's say, I was a owner of a store and made $100,000 year in profit. I decide to hire a manager with an expectation of increasing my profit by 30%. I negotiate a salary of $20,000 (20% of my current earnings) in hopes of making a $110,000 instead of $100,000. 
My manager does a good job and beats expectations and increase my profit by 30%. He approaches me and ask for a 5% raise. I say fair enough and increase his salary to $21,000. The next 10 years same thing happens and by then he is making +55% over his base salary.
During the next 5 years after that, recession hits and at the end of each year same thing happens; 30% increase in profits; 5% for him and 25% for me. 
While we are playing golf at the country club, I ask the manager, how in the world have you been able to make the same profit during the bust as you have been during the boom?
He answers, from the day you hired me, I started to freeze all pay raises to employees and reluctantly gave them a -4% cost of living adjustment. I also told the supervisors to come up with excuses to fire people after 4 years so new workers would come-in at the base salary. 
When the recession hit, I fired senior supervisors and replaced them with desperate skilled managers at 1/3 of initial base salary. Then I did away with 60% of full-time jobs and replaced them with equivalent 30% of their hours worked with part-time people so we didn't have to pay them benefits (overseas and domestic jobs). 
After pondering on this for a few minutes, I told my manager, "you are a ********************ing genius let's go to the bar and have drink; and bytheway, I am giving you a bonus this year.


----------



## RobS888

> Let s look at the real picture-
> 
> An average large company of 20,000 employees all making $30,000 a year (total ridiculousness, I agree), not taking into account managers, supervisors, management and highly skilled this or that. To give them all a 1.5% increase that does not keep up with the cost of living, is $450 more a year or $37.50 a month per employee. This equates to $9,000,000.00 a year for the 1.5% increase only.
> 
> A CEO that is managing the workforce, managing the inventories, managing the suppliers, managing the product lines, and bringing the customers though his or her strategies and vision - to keep these people in their jobs is well worth their paycheck of $3,000,000 (less than 30% of the aggregate increase). Where I have a problem is when a person that is hired to run a company and totally screws it up (Sunbeam is a good example) and after the company goes into bankruptcy, this person sues and gets his contract amount of 5+million - he should have gotten jail time!
> 
> - dbray45


How about Nardelli, Home Depot fired him and he got $210Million, that is in my head when I consider buying from them and it sends some of my spending to Lowes.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/03/news/companies/home_depot/


----------



## RobS888

> In real numbers - about $65 a month or $15,600,000 a year.
> 
> - dbray45


The head of your union makes that or the union brings that in per year?


----------



## Bonka

MrJinx, your missive is a great example of a "Straw Man." You just make up things to make it fit your ideology.


----------



## Mahdeew

Gerald, sorry to wake you up.


----------



## dbray45

The union brings that in from my organization - one of many. I do not know what the union president makes, nor do I care. In the union's opening statement, their mission is to grow the union, there is nothing there to help the people that pay them.


----------



## dbray45

jinx - happens more than we want to believe.


----------



## Bonka

MrJinx. It seems you have no valid reply.


----------



## Mahdeew

dbray45, I know. Jerry, it is called trickle up economics. Ronald confused it and called it trickle down economics. I mean, it didn't even mist down. It all went upward.


----------



## Bonka

It is still a straw man. When lefties have no answer they drag up Present Reagan or President G.W. Bush.
History is on the side of trickle down. Unless you read the Huffington Post or other such publications.


----------



## Mahdeew

I have absolutely no political affiliation. I can criticize some of Bill's actions as well. In order to wake up to what is going on, one has to let go of tribalism mentality. Otherwise, we all live in our own dream worlds in IMHO.


----------



## DrDirt

> Costco s CEO makes *20 times the average (in 2013, $800,000 vs 40,000)*, that seems fair to base it on the average, that way he gets more pay if everyone gets more pay.
> 
> This website says that the *Walmart CEO makes 1,000 times the median where as CostCo is 57 times the median.*
> 
> http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-income-2013/fortune-100
> 
> - RobS888


So is it 20X or 57X…. if it is 57X do you still support the CEO of Costco? What makes *HIS PAY* the "Right Number" for CEO's world wide.

Others point at 212 million dollar payouts…. why is the CEO of Walmart making 1.3 million "evil" That is on the low end especially given the size of the company.

Do you think that the Secretary of the Dept of Commerce should implement this cap? Maybe have the NLRB enforce it?
Not sure what you are arguing - - MANY/ALL CEO's make a lot more than the average employee. That has been true for our entire history. Some CEO's make the same as their employees - - like the guy in Seattle that set EVERYONES salary to 70K including his own…( he then had to rent out his house)

But who/what do you propose be done?

----------------------------
the 212Million parachute for Home Depot - - I think sounds ridiculous. But I am not a board member..

But then again I see that Home Depot - market Cap of ~150 Billion. Annual Sales of 81 Billion. and 370,000 employees.
http://www.forbes.com/companies/home-depot/

So that 212 million represents a "Buyout of 0.26%" of annual sales.
So compared to a company that sells 1 million dollars a year… *gave a bonus of 2600 dollars*

IF instead they decided to say F-U to the outgoing CEO and gave the 212million to the employees. Each employee would have gotten a 1 time check for 572 bucks minus taxes.

A nice check for a cashier making 10 bucks an hour… but not changing their tax bracket… and not something they would get every year….

Hence my point - - Kvetching and demanding Redistribution of CEO Pay is irrelevant to the issue.

--------------------------
Indeed I still see Tuition as a MUCH MUCH bigger impact to the nations ability to function in a competitive high tech future. But because the Universities are run by liberals protecting their friends (aka Liz Warren who was at Harvard….2015-2016 cost of attending Harvard without financial aid is $60,659 for tuition, room, board and fees combined.) they dont discuss how the middle class cannot afford to pay 60K per year… and instead shout "Squirrel" and tell us focus on interest rate on student loans and permitting kids to go deeper in debt by increasing the loan limits.

The fiefdoms on the local campus are a bigger threat to your future than a few dozen Jackwads getting Stock Options.


----------



## Pezking7p

> CEOs make companies successful. If you decreased their pay dramatically, they would leave for a higher paying job and then be replaced by someone less capable, the company would dwindle and fail and everyone who works for the company would lose their job.
> 
> Leadership drives companies, and it starts at the very top.
> 
> - Pezking7p
> 
> That occasionally happens as in the cases of Jack Welch at GE, Lee Iacocca at Chrysler, Alan Mulally in Boeing s commercial division & CEO of Ford + a few others. Bill Gates and Steve Balmer did quite well at MSN without taking half the annual income out in salaries and perks. Care to discuss David Komansky at Merrill Lynch, Dennis Kozlowski at Tyco, Joseph Berardino @ Arthur Andersen or Ken Lay at Enron? There seems to be more trouble coming from top than leadership when one begins to examine the records a bit more closely ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I don't follow specific examples (I'm actually unfamiliar with all those examples, save that I know a few of the names), I speak only from my own life experiences. I have seen first hand the power and influence over a company that a single person can have. One single person can change the direction of a company, and that person should be compensated as such. I like to think of salary as a combination of your skills, responsiblities, and influence over a company.

In your own negative examples you imply that CEOs are responsible for company's failures, so you at least admit that they are extremely influential over the company that they are running? I think it's easy to pick a few examples on one side or another, but it would be more telling to look at ALL CEO's, their salaries and relative success rates, and draw conclusions from that. And there are a lot of "CEO's" or their counterpart.


----------



## Pezking7p

> --------------------------
> Indeed I still see Tuition as a MUCH MUCH bigger impact to the nations ability to function in a competitive high tech future. But because the Universities are run by liberals protecting their friends (aka Liz Warren who was at Harvard….2015-2016 cost of attending Harvard without financial aid is $60,659 for tuition, room, board and fees combined.) they dont discuss how the middle class cannot afford to pay 60K per year… and instead shout "Squirrel" and tell us focus on interest rate on student loans and permitting kids to go deeper in debt by increasing the loan limits.
> 
> The fiefdoms on the local campus are a bigger threat to your future than a few dozen Jackwads getting Stock Options.
> 
> - DrDirt


I don't think the cost of attending harvard is pertinent to most americans. GOOD state schools still cost between $5,000-$10,000 per year, and GOOD community colleges cost half that. Pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things. Don't get me started on people who go to college to get a degree in english or political science, and then complain that they only make $25,000/yr.

If you want to talk about what hurts people on a day-to-day basis, make credit cards illegal. Make it illegal to finance more than half the value of a vehicle. I see more people who are poor because they pay half their salary to interest than anything else. Maybe we need better financial education in for children at home and in schools.


----------



## DrDirt

> I don t think the cost of attending harvard is pertinent to most americans. GOOD state schools still cost between $5,000-$10,000 per year, and GOOD community colleges cost half that. Pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things. Don t get me started on people who go to college to get a degree in english or political science, and then complain that they only make $25,000/yr.
> 
> If you want to talk about what hurts people on a day-to-day basis, make credit cards illegal. Make it illegal to finance more than half the value of a vehicle. I see more people who are poor because they pay half their salary to interest than anything else. Maybe we need better financial education in for children at home and in schools.
> 
> - Pezking7p


Credit is a necessary evil in the 21st century… contrary to Dave Ramsey (who I agree with 90+%) you really cannot function all cash…. you don't need to dive into debt, but if you plan to travel, get a rental car, buy gasoline…. the card rules.
See what kind of "RANDOM" extra TSA attention you will get when you buy an Airline ticket with Cash.

I am actually loving what our school is doing on financial education…..

They have to actually develop a budget for the "lifestyle" they want in the future. The internet is great for that. My daughter said she wants to be an elementary teacher in Great Falls Montana…. (we've never been there but whatever) 
So she gets to look for a house (on zillow and figure the monthly PITI), figure out utility averages, transportation, utilities, food, childcare, health insurance, vacations, and savings- - and figure out what Monthly take-home pay is required for that lifestyle.

Part B is what is your Dream Job…. and that starting salary.
Then create your 'revised budget' to live within your means - - has a possibility to have people realize they cannot afford to be English literature majors living in a 2 bedroom Manhattan flat.

A truly eye opening excercise. BRAVO!!! USD305

-----------------------------------

Agree that Harvard is a difficult Bar - - but chose that because the parties arguing about cost of college being limited to interest rates….is from harvard (they like to never be part of any problem).

I suspect you are only looking at Tuition with your number, not the total cost of college though - - Kansas State University…. the Tuition is based on credits, and costs more for the upper division classes as a Junior and Senior… and consider that at 14 credits/semester you will need more than 4 years also.

*In State* in a basic double room - + books is $20,531 per year. (the price of a basic new car)
*Out of State* jumps up to $31,332

When median family GROSS income is ~55K… how does one afford that? Community College is not going to compete with the Chinese or Indians, in the job market.
https://www.k-state.edu/admissions/finaid/









----------

This is near and dear as I have a High School Junior, doing the ACT prep work, we have a household income well above that 55K median…. and we are concerned how to pull this off…. as his Sister then brother are behind him…. so it is conceivable to have 3 in college at the same time!

Then I consider a "MEDIAN" family making 1/2 what i do…. and see NO WAY IN HELL they pull this off


----------



## DanYo

> Let s say, I was a owner of a store and made $100,000 year in profit. I decide to hire a manager with an expectation of increasing my profit by 30%. I negotiate a salary of $20,000 (20% of my current earnings) in hopes of making a $110,000 instead of $100,000.
> My manager does a good job and beats expectations and increase my profit by 30%. He approaches me and ask for a 5% raise. I say fair enough and increase his salary to $21,000. The next 10 years same thing happens and by then he is making +55% over his base salary.
> During the next 5 years after that, recession hits and at the end of each year same thing happens; 30% increase in profits; 5% for him and 25% for me.
> While we are playing golf at the country club, I ask the manager, how in the world have you been able to make the same profit during the bust as you have been during the boom?
> He answers, from the day you hired me, I started to freeze all pay raises to employees and reluctantly gave them a -4% cost of living adjustment. I also told the supervisors to come up with excuses to fire people after 4 years so new workers would come-in at the base salary.
> When the recession hit, I fired senior supervisors and replaced them with desperate skilled managers at 1/3 of initial base salary. Then I did away with 60% of full-time jobs and replaced them with equivalent 30% of their hours worked with part-time people so we didn t have to pay them benefits (overseas and domestic jobs).
> After pondering on this for a few minutes, I told my manager, "you are a f-king genius let s go to the bar and have drink; and bytheway, I am giving you a bonus this year.
> 
> - mrjinx007


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> CEOs make companies successful. If you decreased their pay dramatically, they would leave for a higher paying job and then be replaced by someone less capable, the company would dwindle and fail and everyone who works for the company would lose their job.
> 
> Leadership drives companies, and it starts at the very top.
> 
> - Pezking7p
> 
> That occasionally happens as in the cases of Jack Welch at GE, Lee Iacocca at Chrysler, Alan Mulally in Boeing s commercial division & CEO of Ford + a few others. Bill Gates and Steve Balmer did quite well at MSN without taking half the annual income out in salaries and perks. Care to discuss David Komansky at Merrill Lynch, Dennis Kozlowski at Tyco, Joseph Berardino @ Arthur Andersen or Ken Lay at Enron? There seems to be more trouble coming from top than leadership when one begins to examine the records a bit more closely ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> I don t follow specific examples (I m actually unfamiliar with all those examples, save that I know a few of the names), I speak only from my own life experiences. I have seen first hand the power and influence over a company that a single person can have. One single person can change the direction of a company, and that person should be compensated as such. I like to think of salary as a combination of your skills, responsiblities, and influence over a company.
> 
> In your own negative examples you imply that CEOs are responsible for company s failures, so you at least admit that they are extremely influential over the company that they are running? I think it s easy to pick a few examples on one side or another, but it would be more telling to look at ALL CEO s, their salaries and relative success rates, and draw conclusions from that. And there are a lot of "CEO s" or their counterpart.
> 
> - Pezking7p


If your opinions are formed by your own limited personal experience, that would seem to be the ultimate cherry picking of examples cited. It is all a matter of history if you are interested in the ones I mentioned and many others. No point in my going through it all. The CEOs normally have great influence. Too bad how much of it is not only negative but criminal in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Dennis Kozlowski at Tyco begat a mini-market crash from which many stocks have not fully recovered in the last decade.

It is a big wide world out there. Maybe more exposure would cause you to reconsider your position that "CEOs make companies successful. If you decreased their pay dramatically, they would leave for a higher paying job and then be replaced by someone less capable, the company would dwindle and fail and everyone who works for the company would lose their job." Most are not worth the compensation packages they demand. It is a scam against the share holders of publicly traded securities. The laws regarding corporate governance are desperately in need of revision.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

From Dent Research, "The BLS's September jobs numbers are in and they are abysmal. The economy added 142,000 nonfarm payrolls, far below expectations, and a paltry 118,000 private-sector hires. The unemployment rate remained unchanged.

Of the few private-sector jobs the economy added, a majority fell below the median wage. Even worse, Dent Research finds that 63% of the jobs added fell to the lowest quarter of the wage scale."

https://dentresearch.s3.amazonaws.com/Press_Release/images/100215_PR.png

The 142,000 is only about 1/2 the number needed to keep up wiht population growth not counting immigration.


----------



## DrDirt

So Topa - - is there a solution? Particularly one that wouldnt have the same effect as the merger between Canada's Tim Hortons and Burger King….. they just moved HQ from Florida to Canada and dodge 1.2Billion in Taxes.
http://www.ibtimes.com/burger-king-could-dodge-12-billion-us-taxes-through-2018-tim-hortons-merger-americans-1748021

people like to compare CEO salaries vs median (like Rob with the 20X for Costco)

How about Microsoft and Apple, how do the new CEO salaries compare to their employees in India and China (well Foxconn) respectively?

Pass a cap at say 50X the worker salary, and they will either move… or outsource.

I am sure that in Cupertino the Tim Cook (Apple) would be "legal"/OK based on being compared to the managers and engineers there at HQ… but not compared to the people comitting suicide on slave wages making their products in china.

You point at CROOKS - -like Ken Lay, but what does their pay being redistributed hope to accomplish?.

Nor Microsofts Rampant abuse of H1B visa system, but hey he founded the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and "promised" to give his wealth to charity … AFTER he dies of course..
SO he gets a pass, as the Richest man in the world because of his "Stated" politics

Seems John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie (and their appointees) were quite the bastards themselves. Was JP morgan (personal wealth enough to pay personally the entire national debt at the time) an "honest guy" or a manipulator of the banks??
even though his actions predate Reagan??


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

There are definitely solutions. Teddy Roosevelt took on the robber barons and his cousin Franklin furthered the causes on behalf of us, US, We the People. Jefferson did a remarkable job of setting the rules for a civil society and Adam Smith and Alexander Hamilton laid out the rules for a dynamic financial system. That served us, US, very well for 200 years until about 1980 when we were the world's creditor and the leader of innovation and manufacturing.

Everyone will say it is a different world now. Yes, it is, but only because We the People have been scammed and have not been doing our due diligence. A law limiting CEO and upper management compensation to X times the lowest paid or median worker's pay will never work. Adopting the principles that made us, US, what we were will.


----------



## RobS888

Dr dirt,

Did you just pay some tuition recently? We get tuition remission, how cool is that?

Walmart's CEO makes 25 million, not 1.5 million and there are thousands of these douche bags, not dozens.

Costco seems to be run with far less greed, so in my example they are stellar and to be emulated. I think the different rates are because one is average and one is median.

You are correct, presidents of corps have always made more than the employees, but as has been shown in this thread many times it used to be far less.

I say take the average of these and make that the max:










EDIT: chart didn't attach right.


----------



## RobS888

> So Topa - - is there a solution? Particularly one that wouldnt have the same effect as the merger between Canada s Tim Hortons and Burger King….. they just moved HQ from Florida to Canada and dodge 1.2Billion in Taxes.
> http://www.ibtimes.com/burger-king-could-dodge-12-billion-us-taxes-through-2018-tim-hortons-merger-americans-1748021
> 
> people like to compare CEO salaries vs median (like Rob with the 20X for Costco)
> 
> How about Microsoft and Apple, how do the new CEO salaries compare to their employees in India and China (well Foxconn) respectively?
> 
> Pass a cap at say 50X the worker salary, and they will either move… or outsource.
> 
> I am sure that in Cupertino the Tim Cook (Apple) would be "legal"/OK based on being compared to the managers and engineers there at HQ… but not compared to the people comitting suicide on slave wages making their products in china.
> 
> You point at CROOKS - -like Ken Lay, but what does their pay being redistributed hope to accomplish?.
> 
> Nor Microsofts Rampant abuse of H1B visa system, but hey he founded the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and "promised" to give his wealth to charity … AFTER he dies of course..
> SO he gets a pass, as the Richest man in the world because of his "Stated" politics
> 
> Seems John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie (and their appointees) were quite the bastards themselves. Was JP morgan (personal wealth enough to pay personally the entire national debt at the time) an "honest guy" or a manipulator of the banks??
> even though his actions predate Reagan??
> 
> - DrDirt


Well Bill Gates isn't a CEO at MS anymore, so there isn't any point in criticizing him, plus he made less than 1 million/year in salary. How about that? No one can make more than the richest dude in the world did.


----------



## oldnovice

In my opinion, there is no substitute for corporate greed and, again in my opinion, many U.S. CEOs are prime(al) examples!


----------



## RobS888

Based on the CEO to average ratios of other countries we are in league of our own.

Pure greed coalesced into a job, how sad.


----------



## DrDirt

> Well Bill Gates isn t a CEO at MS anymore, so there isn t any point in criticizing him, plus he made less than 1 million/year in salary. How about that? No one can make more than the richest dude in the world did.
> 
> - RobS888


You talking SALARY…. or ANNUAL COMPENSATION? Whole bunch of folks that publically decide to work for a mere 1 dollar in Salary.(but then "only" work for bonuses and stocks)

Bill Gates is wealthy because of his stock awards…. which came from ???? Same with the prior Walmart CEO example….his Salary is 'only' 1.2 million.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303973704579351341811042988

If Bill Gates' salary were saved it would take 1000 years at 1 million per year to have a billion dollars…. So OBVIOUSLY his 'total compensation' wasn't 1 million/year. While his official base salary could have been.


----------



## RobS888

> Well Bill Gates isn t a CEO at MS anymore, so there isn t any point in criticizing him, plus he made less than 1 million/year in salary. How about that? No one can make more than the richest dude in the world did.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> You talking SALARY…. or ANNUAL COMPENSATION? Whole bunch of folks that publically decide to work for a mere 1 dollar in Salary.(but then "only" work for bonuses and stocks)
> 
> Bill Gates is wealthy because of his stock awards…. which came from ???? Same with the prior Walmart CEO example….his Salary is only 1.2 million.
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303973704579351341811042988
> 
> If Bill Gates salary were saved it would take 1000 years at 1 million per year to have a billion dollars…. So OBVIOUSLY his total compensation wasn t 1 million/year. While his official base salary could have been.
> 
> - DrDirt


I believe he owned stock from the initial IPO as one of the founders of MS.

This article says Gates and Balmer made the same pay of $901,000 and received no stock options in 2004. So *OBVIOUSLY* you are wrong…again, that was their total compensation for the year. Comparing compensation to salary is intellectually dishonest.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/21/technology/gates_pay/

Anyway you look at it, the guy at Walmart makes 10 times the Costco CEO. Or like I showed the FedEx CEO makes 5 times what the UPS CEO makes and has 1/2 the profit. It can't be justified as anything other than theft!

Hmm perhaps these douche bags think they are in the same league as Gates. Gates grew up wealthy, but his wealth has always been in stock, don't you recall how he lost 1 billion dollars in a couple days when the markets crashed under Bush? He founded MS and has always had around 10% stock, he wasn't boning his company whenever he could.

I can see someone like Jack Welch that saw his company's profit grow 1,000% getting a lot of stock, but even when performance is down these thieves get a huge bonus, just like the stock market bonuses in '08 and '09.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

This is why tuition is so expensive.
In MD, all state employees compensation is public info, so every year the list of highest paid is published. Here are the ones that make over $500,000.










The governor makes $150,000, these people all work for him and make much more. To me they could free up $5 million by getting rid of the 3 coaches at the top. Even funnier they are all at the university and mostly doctors. In fact you have to go down to position 128 to find someone that works for the state that isn't in the university system.

Many professor emeritus have offices if they teach 1 class/year!


----------



## Mahdeew

There are a lot of perks being a public "servant". I think they call them public officers now. The problem is that they don't produce anything and actually cost the citizens a lot of tax money.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> This is why tuition is so expensive.
> In MD, all state employees compensation is public info, so every year the list of highest paid is published. Here are the ones that make over $500,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The governor makes $150,000, these people all work for him and make much more. To me they could free up $5 million by getting rid of the 3 coaches at the top. Even funnier they are all at the university and mostly doctors. In fact you have to go down to position 128 to find someone that works for the state that isn t in the university system.
> 
> Many professor emeritus have offices if they teach 1 class/year!
> 
> - RobS888


No Argument from me….. But according to Lis Warren… the ONLY problem in college tuition is the Interest Rate on loans, when the fact is you shouldn't need 100K in loans to get a BS or BA degree. even at 0% interest.


----------



## DrDirt

By the way Gates was not CEO in 2004 - - he stepped down in 2000.

You talk intellectually dishonest - yet talk about total compensation for Walmart CEO when the salary is indeed 1.2million…. you compare his 25 million COMPENSATION… to gates "base salary"

In 1987 As the world's youngest self-made billionaire, he was worth $1.25 billion, *over $900 million more than he'd been worth the year before*, when he'd debuted on the list.

So yeah all those shares when they went IPO in 1986… Gates wealth jumped 900 million.

Bet that was more than 50X the median pay of the workers, brought in on H1B visas.

History will decide if he ranks with Carnegie for Philanthropy

Microsoft Today…..

Microsoft has given CEO Satya Nadella a pay package worth $84.3 million, most of which are in the form of long-term stock awards.

A regulatory document that Microsoft filed showed that Nadella received a salary of $918,917 and a bonus of $3.6 million for the financial year that ended on June 30. Nadella was also given stock awards with a value of almost $79.8 million, with most of the payments to be spread out over several years.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Bill gates didn't need any compensation. He held 49% of shares at the IPO. Paul Allen held a little over 25%.


----------



## DrDirt

> Bill gates didn t need any compensation. He held 49% of shares at the IPO. Paul Allen held a little over 25%.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Yep…. they say he is now at 3% of the shares. he was making nearly 200 million a year from dividends when he held 10% in the mid 2000's


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

With the share he owned, a public sale would crash the market. He has bee selling lots to the Gates Foundation ;-)


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo

http://i.imgur.com/82q2VFL.gifv SKILLS


----------



## RobS888

> No Argument from me….. But according to Lis Warren… the ONLY problem in college tuition is the Interest Rate on loans, when the fact is you shouldn t need 100K in loans to get a BS or BA degree. even at 0% interest.
> 
> - DrDirt


Could you show me where she says the only problem is interest rates?

I suspect that is the only problem that can be tackled?


----------



## RobS888

> By the way Gates was not CEO in 2004 - - he stepped down in 2000.
> 
> You talk intellectually dishonest - yet talk about total compensation for Walmart CEO when the salary is indeed 1.2million…. you compare his 25 million COMPENSATION… to gates "base salary"
> 
> In 1987 As the world s youngest self-made billionaire, he was worth $1.25 billion, *over $900 million more than he d been worth the year before*, when he d debuted on the list.
> 
> So yeah all those shares when they went IPO in 1986… Gates wealth jumped 900 million.
> 
> Bet that was more than 50X the median pay of the workers, brought in on H1B visas.
> 
> History will decide if he ranks with Carnegie for Philanthropy
> 
> Microsoft Today…..
> 
> Microsoft has given CEO Satya Nadella a pay package worth $84.3 million, most of which are in the form of long-term stock awards.
> 
> A regulatory document that Microsoft filed showed that Nadella received a salary of $918,917 and a bonus of $3.6 million for the financial year that ended on June 30. Nadella was also given stock awards with a value of almost $79.8 million, with most of the payments to be spread out over several years.
> 
> - DrDirt


Correct Balmer was CEO, Gates was chairman and chief software architect.
MS CEO still only got 900k *TOTAL* compensation in 2004.

You brought Gates up not me. Sorry he didn't make you point for you!


----------



## RobS888

> - Dan um Style


Wow! We are worse than a stratified country like the UK. Egalitarian my arse.


----------



## DrDirt

> No Argument from me….. But according to Lis Warren… the ONLY problem in college tuition is the Interest Rate on loans, when the fact is you shouldn t need 100K in loans to get a BS or BA degree. even at 0% interest.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Could you show me where she says the only problem is interest rates?
> 
> I suspect that is the only problem that can be tackled?
> 
> - RobS888


Oh I indeed left out…. she says we don't spend enough money on education. Guess the football coaches need a raise


----------



## RobS888

I would agree with her, I think it should be free at public schools.

So she never said the only problem is the interest rate?

She was a law professor at Harvard and she wouldn't have made the list I provided…close, but not on it.


----------



## DrDirt

here ya go….
The "spend more" was from her speech at the Al Shaker Institute…so it was a plug for the teachers unions.
and is referenced on her senate website.
"There's no shortage of people hoping to get a college degree-and willing to work for it. The problem is how much they'll need to pay for it. College costs are exploding. Adjusted for inflation, a student going to a state school today will pay tuition that is more than 300% of what her mom or dad paid just 30 years ago."

So 'good speech'.... but what has she proposed legislatively?

http://eagnews.org/one-time-400k-harvard-prof-elizabeth-warren-builds-support-through-student-debt-crisis/
BOSTON - U.S. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren likes to talk about the problem with student loan debt.

She's even hosting several events with Representative Elijah Cummings, a fellow Democrat, as part of a "Middle Class Prosperity Project," which included a recent talk about "the student debt crisis" at the University of Massachusetts yesterday, CBS Boston reports.

*Warren's suggestion is to reduce the interest rate on student loans, and she introduced a bill about a year ago to do just that. But what Warren and her supporters don't discuss is the absurdly high salaries for college professors, and she's been among the top earners, according to Associated Press reports.
*
" … Elizabeth Warren was paid $429,981 as a Harvard law professor from 2010 to 2011," the AP reported in 2012, and "got nearly $134,000 in consulting fees on legal cases in 2010."

Those earnings were on top of investments, book deals, and other income that places Warren squarely in the vilified One Percent.

That makes her recent comments to WBZ NewsRadio 1030 seem all the more hypocritical.


----------



## RobS888

> here ya go….
> The "spend more" was from her speech at the Al Shaker Institute…so it was a plug for the teachers unions.
> and is referenced on her senate website.
> "There's no shortage of people hoping to get a college degree-and willing to work for it. The problem is how much they'll need to pay for it. College costs are exploding. Adjusted for inflation, a student going to a state school today will pay tuition that is more than 300% of what her mom or dad paid just 30 years ago."
> 
> So good speech …. but what has she proposed legislatively?
> 
> http://eagnews.org/one-time-400k-harvard-prof-elizabeth-warren-builds-support-through-student-debt-crisis/
> BOSTON - U.S. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren likes to talk about the problem with student loan debt.
> 
> She's even hosting several events with Representative Elijah Cummings, a fellow Democrat, as part of a "Middle Class Prosperity Project," which included a recent talk about "the student debt crisis" at the University of Massachusetts yesterday, CBS Boston reports.
> 
> *Warren's suggestion is to reduce the interest rate on student loans, and she introduced a bill about a year ago to do just that. But what Warren and her supporters don't discuss is the absurdly high salaries for college professors, and she's been among the top earners, according to Associated Press reports.
> *
> " … Elizabeth Warren was paid $429,981 as a Harvard law professor from 2010 to 2011," the AP reported in 2012, and "got nearly $134,000 in consulting fees on legal cases in 2010."
> 
> Those earnings were on top of investments, book deals, and other income that places Warren squarely in the vilified One Percent.
> 
> That makes her recent comments to WBZ NewsRadio 1030 seem all the more hypocritical.
> 
> - DrDirt


So no quote saying interest rates are the *ONLY* problem. (par for course for you).

How can you be angry at her, but not at the guy running Walmart? Cognitive dissonance?

According to this website 25% of her bills are about education
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=412542&subject=5991

S. 793: Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Mar 18, 2015
Referred to Committee: Mar 18, 2015

S. 2432 (113th): Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jun 4, 2014
Failed Cloture: Jun 11, 2014

S. 2292 (113th): Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: May 6, 2014
Referred to Committee: May 6, 2014

S. 2060 (113th): TEACH Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Feb 27, 2014
Referred to Committee: Feb 27, 2014

S. 897 (113th): Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: May 8, 2013
Referred to Committee: May 8, 2013

*Apparently walking the talk is unusual to you. *


----------



## DrDirt

Rob - Thank you for providing my evidence.

I note that all her bills are about *Student loans* (which was the point I made) and nothing about … affordability
\The TEACH act is about accesibility for disabled to technology.

So indeed she TALKS about college affordability…. but the only 'Walking the Talk" she has done is talk about refinancing student loans.

If you can point to any sponsorship of legislation regarding making college less expensive… rather than banking modifications to student debt…. love to see it.

Thanks for the links.


----------



## CharlesA

There's federal oversight on student loans, not on salaries paid to profs/admins of particular institutions.


----------



## RobS888

No, the point you tried to make was that she said interest was the *ONLY* problem. (*unsupported*)

You also made it seem like she only introduced one bill, not 5 on education in 2 1/2 years. (*proven wrong*)

Admit it, she is doing all she can to get relief for those with student debt. Changing/limiting tuition or professor pay is impossible with Republicans in control of the house.

It appears her bills were filibustered, since they failed the cloture vote. Why would anyone oppose interest relief for students?

Again, why did her pay bother you, but not the fortune going to the douche bag running Wlamart? His pay was about 50 times hers.


----------



## RobS888

> There s federal oversight on student loans, not on salaries paid to profs/admins of particular institutions.
> 
> - CharlesA


Yeah, he is asking for the impossible at this point and dissing her for not going all quixotic on it. I can't understand how her $430,000 is such a crime when $25 million to the guy running Walmart isn't?


----------



## DrDirt

> There s federal oversight on student loans, not on salaries paid to profs/admins of particular institutions.
> 
> - CharlesA


Really - - so how is it Obama is proposing 'Free Community College'.... if the Feds ONLY POSSIBLE lever to pull in anything is student loans?


----------



## CharlesA

Because that would be a federal initiative to pay tuition, not to oversee salaries.


----------



## DrDirt

> No, the point you tried to make was that she said interest was the *ONLY* problem. (*unsupported*)
> 
> You also made it seem like she only introduced one bill, not 5 on education in 2 1/2 years. (*proven wrong*)
> 
> Admit it, she is doing all she can to get relief for those with student debt. Changing/limiting tuition or professor pay is impossible with Republicans in control of the house.
> 
> It appears her bills were filibustered, since they failed the cloture vote. Why would anyone oppose interest relief for students?
> 
> Again, why did her pay bother you, but not the fortune going to the douche bag running Wlamart? His pay was about 50 times hers.
> 
> - RobS888


OK - - I will try to type slowly for you….

The Walmart CEO salary has NOTHING TO DO with Tuition…..

So back to the Nuevo Native American…
While she *talks* about education… and how it is expensive the only solution she ever PROPOSES and signs her name to, is on interest rates.
Her Salary (much like the list you showed for UMd) indicates that Maybe… just Maybe, 400K salaries are part of the PROBLEM….
But in Lib land - - out control spending and high salaries have no effect on cost of education.

Her salary makes her VERY SOLIDLY in the 1% crowd… so there is a real conflict listening to her rail about high salaries. While she collects a 525,000 dollar ADVANCE, while a candidate to writer her book "A Fighting Chance".

I make my assessment because if she working on a SOLUTION to high cost of education…. why is the ONLY bill addressing cost, the interest rate on student loans.

I guess you agree that she is a do nothing blowhard, that is just putting out bills to look busy, but accomplish nothing.

Submitting the same bill 5 times isn't the same as coming up with new ideas.


----------



## RobS888

> There s federal oversight on student loans, not on salaries paid to profs/admins of particular institutions.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Really - - so how is it Obama is proposing Free Community College …. if the Feds ONLY POSSIBLE lever to pull in anything is student loans?
> 
> - DrDirt


I just don't understand your motivation, you complain about the cost of tuition, but rail against people that want to help, Warren wanting to reduce interest rates or The President wanting 2 or more years to be free.

If you think tuition is expensive imagine what the total cost is with compound interest.


----------



## RobS888

> OK - - I will try to type slowly for you….
> 
> The Walmart CEO salary has NOTHING TO DO with Tuition…..
> 
> So back to the Nuevo Native American…
> While she *talks* about education… and how it is expensive the only solution she ever PROPOSES and signs her name to, is on interest rates.
> Her Salary (much like the list you showed for UMd) indicates that Maybe… just Maybe, 400K salaries are part of the PROBLEM….
> But in Lib land - - out control spending and high salaries have no effect on cost of education.
> 
> Her salary makes her VERY SOLIDLY in the 1% crowd… so there is a real conflict listening to her rail about high salaries. While she collects a 525,000 dollar ADVANCE, while a candidate to writer her book "A Fighting Chance".
> 
> I make my assessment because if she working on a SOLUTION to high cost of education…. why is the ONLY bill addressing cost, the interest rate on student loans.
> 
> I guess you agree that she is a do nothing blowhard, that is just putting out bills to look busy, but accomplish nothing.
> 
> Submitting the same bill 5 times isn t the same as coming up with new ideas.
> 
> - DrDirt


Ah, I see it is just an anti-Warren rant now.

How does a book advance have *ANYTHING* to do with this topic? How does her ethnicity as you perceive it to be have anything to do with this? You seem to hate her and by extension anything she does.

Comparing pay (and your lack of intellectual honesty about it ) is definitely germane.

I don't care if she is in the 1% she worked for the second best law school in the country, not some podunk Kansas school. Her time seems now to be about helping people.

Oh, and she submitted 1 bill 3 times, so she submitted 3 different bills just on education. And by extrapolation where does the house voting 50+ times on ending Obamacare fall in the new ideas category?

As far as blowhards go, look in the mirror. She is worth at least 100 of you.


----------



## DrDirt

> There s federal oversight on student loans, not on salaries paid to profs/admins of particular institutions.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Really - - so how is it Obama is proposing Free Community College …. if the Feds ONLY POSSIBLE lever to pull in anything is student loans?
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I just don t understand your motivation, you complain about the cost of tuition, but rail against people that want to help, Warren wanting to reduce interest rates or The President wanting 2 or more years to be free.
> 
> If you think tuition is expensive imagine what the total cost is with compound interest.
> 
> - RobS888


Tuition is expensive - - but you NEVER see the libs calling on the universities (their buddies) that perhaps the 1% salaries being drawn by these folks is out of line and harming the country.

We see Obama and others scream about rising cost of Healthcare, and who they say are evil drivers liek the insurance companies

Yet Tuition grows at nearly twice the rate of healthcare… and the only discussion or bit of legislation offered is that the interest rate on loans should be lower….

Really??

That is the solution??
Interest rates were much higher in the 70's and 80's but college was more affordable, because your Principal balance was small.
The Tuition rise of 300%... is not somehow offset by a 2% drop in interest rate. But I am using 'normal math'


----------



## RobS888

As usual you are are wrong, lying, or misdirecting:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/16/elizabeth-warren-the-tuit_n_7595806.html


----------



## Bonka

Rob, "The President wanting 2 or more years to be free." For "Free.?" How is that going to happen?


----------



## RobS888

> Rob, "The President wanting 2 or more years to be free." For "Free.?" How is that going to happen?
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Taxes, I would guess. I hope they expand it to all public schools.


----------



## Bonka

Taxes are not free. Government meddling into education has gotten us into the present mess. It is wholesale leftist indoctrination. It is called free because taxes pay for it. 
How long before all the those student loans are forgiven?


----------



## RobS888

Yawn,

Free at point of use.

How cool would that be to wipe out all the student loans?

I've seen you go to a few strange places with your posts, but "government meddling into education has gotten us into the present mess" is pretty far out there.

We need more federal government control of education to keep it out of local yokels hands.


----------



## Bonka

Rob, would that I have your intellect. Free at point of use. Wipe out all of the student loans? How high are taxes going to go for that. Oh! I know! Tax the rich. That should do it. 
Maybe we can try to be more like Cuba, North Korea or Red China.


----------



## RobS888

I don't see any benefit to emulating those countries!

Canada, Finland, Norway, & UK. those are worth following in social areas. I see nothing wrong with a country taking on some more debt to educate as many of its citizens as possible. Better than going into debt for wars and to make a rich guy richer.

Better education for all, will really help the economy.

EDIT:

Don't forget The Iraq war was $1 billion/week. That is a whole lot of edu-macation. The presidents plan would be about 1 week of a Bush war.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Better education for all, will really help the economy.
> 
> - RobS888


You mean the way it was preReagan?


----------



## Bonka

"Better education for all, will really help the economy." Better education is what we are not getting. We are fast approaching the loss of freedom and will be on par with other Socialists Countries.
Radical Egalitarianism that is the answer. All of us down to the same miserable level except the elites.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> "Better education for all, will really help the economy." Better education is what we are not getting. We are fast approaching the loss of freedom and will be on par with other Socialists Countries.
> Radical Egalitarianism that is the answer. All of us down to the same miserable level except the elites.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


So why all the support for the oligarchy in this thread? Reaganism has been and is a march to disaster for most of us, US. Isn't it time to restore Jefferson's democracy?


----------



## DrDirt

We are at the top of developed nations on per pupil spending… and the results stink.

But sure the ONLY answer democrats have is 'if we just borrowed more money to throw at the unions' we will have better results.



> As usual you are are wrong, lying, or misdirecting:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/16/elizabeth-warren-the-tuit_n_7595806.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - RobS888


Thanks again - - like I point out our 1% Senator will "Tell us" tuition is too high. But only propose interest rate changes.

YAY so your article is the same date from Warrens site about costs being up 300%.....
Then her solution (next paragraph)
Part of the problem, Warren said, has been the U.S. Department of Education, which has dragged its feet on aiding heavily indebted students, and defended debt companies that allegedly have illegally overcharged students

You already showed that she has NEVER actually introduced a bill about lower tuitions…..only interest rates

She will address tuition right after Trump finishes building his "beautiful Wall…paid for by mexico" (LOL)

PS… the Interest rate… on the money you already borrowed…. *did NOTHING to lower tuition.
*
I don't hate warren - - she is just like every other politician lining thier pockets and making speeches about things she never attempts to actually change what the problem is.

There solutions are to Say "My 1% friends and I like our morning starbucks and tenured positions with nearly half million dollar salaries…. Sure the Tuition has to be sky high to pay for our perks…. But NO No No …. it isn't the cost of tuition…..but it is those damn banks and their interest rates."

Giving Speeches is easy… legislating what you will really defend and stand for… shows what your values actually are. Hot Air isn't worth the BTU's consumed.


----------



## Bonka

A true democracy? You frequently speak of "Reaganism." What about Obamaism?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I don't really know what Obamaism is. The Congress has stopped nearly everything in its tracks for 6.5 years. We know what Reaganism is; destroy the middle class by accumulating all assets in the hands of a chosen few.


----------



## Bonka

Way to go Topa. The President has had to go extra constitutional to get his totalitarian agenda going. The Federal Government is the enemy. That is why we have a constitution. The lefties hate and do not obey it and the Repub. are gutless to stop them.
If you took oligarchs and Reagan out of your vocabulary you would be an effective mute.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Exactly what has happened except to stop spending the billion a week off budget the US was spending destroy the middle east and pass National Romney Care?


----------



## Bonka

Well for starters there is The Patient Protective Care Act. The president had to lie over and over about that. It so effective to don't you think? Our taxes are the among the highest in the world as are the business taxes. We have the savages at the gates with no end in sight. We are squandering billions in unemployment and welfare. Out military is in shambles. The armed forces have no respect for the Commander in Chief nor do most of the other nations in the world. Putin has the president in a head lock. China is widening their demographic. And our Dear Leader is worried about Global Warming and gun control
This makes me almost look back at the Carter years with nostalgia.


----------



## CharlesA

hyberbole much?


----------



## Bonka

It is what it is. That is the high lights of the Obama Games.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Have you read What Would Jefferson Do?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

BTW, name one thing the conservatives have done to benefit the common citizen.


----------



## Bonka

They gave us the 40 hour work week. Freeways. Got ride of slavery.


----------



## CharlesA

Conservatives didn't get rid of slavery. Old style Republicans did, a party almost completely removed from the modern Republican party when it embraced the Southern Strategy.


----------



## Bonka

What is the "Southern Strategy?" The Southern Democrats sure didn't want their finger prints on civil rights in the 60's.


----------



## CharlesA

Google it.


----------



## Bonka

If you can't explain it why should I bother with it. Do you own research.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> They gave us the 40 hour work week. Freeways. Got ride of slavery.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Eisenhower Republicans were progressives by definition. They didn't give us, US, a 40 hour work week. That belongs to FDR in 1938. By definition, conservatives oppose change; therefore, they could not have ended slavery.

Have you read What Would Jefferson Do?


----------



## RobS888

> Better education for all, will really help the economy.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> You mean the way it was preReagan?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Yes, but even more.


----------



## RobS888

> "Better education for all, will really help the economy." Better education is what we are not getting. We are fast approaching the loss of freedom and will be on par with other Socialists Countries.
> Radical Egalitarianism that is the answer. All of us down to the same miserable level except the elites.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Free education is egalitarianism! It takes the money out of it. How can you not see this?


----------



## oldnovice

Jerry and Charles are getting a little snippy with each other!

*This forum is like a cat chasing its own tail!*


----------



## Bonka

Well your always right Topa and oh so wrong. Read history. The Dems have been racists since Woodrow Wilson.
They have them all on the "Free things" plantation and will keep them there for the votes.
No I have not read Tom Harman's book.


----------



## RobS888

Is it a full moon tonight?


----------



## RobS888

> Jerry and Charles are getting a little snippy with each other!
> 
> *This forum is like a cat chasing its own tail!*
> 
> - oldnovice


I imagine Jerry with his fingers in his ears saying La, La, La. (Arabic for no).


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The Rs and Ds have both have their evil side and history. They swap back and forth from conservative to progressive at times. This country is based on progressive ideas and actions.

You should read it. I read and listen to all sides. I even heard Trump utter a few sane sentences on 60 Minutes last week ;-)



> Jerry and Charles are getting a little snippy with each other!
> 
> *This forum is like a cat chasing its own tail!*
> 
> - oldnovice


Round and round it goes, Hopefully, a casual observer's interest will be piqued and they will expose themselves to something they do not already believe ;-)


----------



## Bonka

You folks are liberals and just don't get it. Keep it up I find it, amusing. Just wait until I get my GED. Then your in for it!


----------



## Mahdeew

Would this cover our children education? And this list is just the top 25!

Top 25 Recipient Countries of U.S. Foreign Aid FY 2013 Reported in $US millions, Obligations [8]
Country U.S. Total Economic and Military Assistance FY 2013, $US millions Economic Assistance FY 2013, $US millions Military Assistance FY 2013, $US millions
Afghanistan 4,533.51 2,653.93 1,879.58
Israel 2,961.04 17.81 2,943.23
Egypt 1,566.24 330.60 1,235.64
Jordan 1,211.83 879.64 332.19
West Bank/Gaza 1,007.73 1,007.73 0.00
Kenya 886.88 848.59 38.29
Pakistan 799.34 786.29 13.05
Indonesia 770.98 755.68 15.30
Syria 737.88 737.88 0.00
Ethiopia 686.53 685.19 1.34
South Sudan 618.74 598.79 19.96
Malawi 571.18 570.91 0.27
Uganda 541.93 538.30 3.62
South Africa 526.19 523.86 2.32
Nigeria 518.84 509.41 9.43
Russia 465.16 445.07 20.08
Iraq 444.81 382.70 62.11
Tanzania 430.66 427.82 2.84
Mexico 419.94 348.72 71.21
Congo (Kinshasa) 379.24 366.73 12.52
Haiti 378.77 377.04 1.73
Lebanon 376.41 286.03 90.38
Somalia 367.18 188.00 179.18
Zambia 310.80 310.26 0.54
Sudan (former)* 290.05 290.05 0.00
Sudan (former) refers to the geographic area of Sudan, based on the area that was Sudan before the creation of South Sudan


----------



## Bonka

That would sure do something. I am not too much in favor of foreign aid as it usually ends up in the pockets of the despots. I am also against nation building. Go in kill them and get out.


----------



## Mahdeew

> That would sure do something. I am not too much in favor of foreign aid as it usually ends up in the pockets of the despots. I am also against nation building. Go in kill them and get out.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


That is what foreign aid is designed to do.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> You folks are liberals and just don t get it. Keep it up I find it, amusing. Just wait until I get my GED. Then your in for it!
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


But you have to pass US History to get it and includes Jefferson and Roosevelt (both of them) studies.


----------



## RobS888

> Would this cover our children education? And this list is just the top 25!
> 
> Top 25 Recipient Countries of U.S. Foreign Aid FY 2013 Reported in $US millions, Obligations [8]
> Country U.S. Total Economic and Military Assistance FY 2013, $US millions Economic Assistance FY 2013, $US millions Military Assistance FY 2013, $US millions
> Afghanistan 4,533.51 2,653.93 1,879.58
> Israel 2,961.04 17.81 2,943.23
> Egypt 1,566.24 330.60 1,235.64
> Jordan 1,211.83 879.64 332.19
> West Bank/Gaza 1,007.73 1,007.73 0.00
> Kenya 886.88 848.59 38.29
> Pakistan 799.34 786.29 13.05
> Indonesia 770.98 755.68 15.30
> Syria 737.88 737.88 0.00
> Ethiopia 686.53 685.19 1.34
> South Sudan 618.74 598.79 19.96
> Malawi 571.18 570.91 0.27
> Uganda 541.93 538.30 3.62
> South Africa 526.19 523.86 2.32
> Nigeria 518.84 509.41 9.43
> Russia 465.16 445.07 20.08
> Iraq 444.81 382.70 62.11
> Tanzania 430.66 427.82 2.84
> Mexico 419.94 348.72 71.21
> Congo (Kinshasa) 379.24 366.73 12.52
> Haiti 378.77 377.04 1.73
> Lebanon 376.41 286.03 90.38
> Somalia 367.18 188.00 179.18
> Zambia 310.80 310.26 0.54
> Sudan (former)* 290.05 290.05 0.00
> Sudan (former) refers to the geographic area of Sudan, based on the area that was Sudan before the creation of South Sudan
> 
> - mrjinx007


Sad legacy of paying people not to fight.


----------



## RobS888

> That would sure do something. I am not too much in favor of foreign aid as it usually ends up in the pockets of the despots. I am also against nation building. Go in kill them and get out.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Usually? Would you like to maybe say "sometimes" and stay within the realm of reality?


----------



## RobS888

> You folks are liberals and just don t get it. Keep it up I find it, amusing. Just wait until I get my GED. Then your in for it!
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Thank you, I'm proud of being liberal.


----------



## RobS888

> Well for starters there is The Patient Protective Care Act. The president had to lie over and over about that. It so effective to don t you think? Our taxes are the among the highest in the world as are the business taxes. We have the savages at the gates with no end in sight. We are squandering billions in unemployment and welfare. Out military is in shambles. The armed forces have no respect for the Commander in Chief nor do most of the other nations in the world. Putin has the president in a head lock. China is widening their demographic. And our Dear Leader is worried about Global Warming and gun control
> This makes me almost look back at the Carter years with nostalgia.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Our income taxes are nowhere near the highest. Just one country North pays more than we do.
We don't even pay the most on our own continent. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?


----------



## DrDirt

> Exactly what has happened except to stop spending the billion a week off budget the US was spending destroy the middle east and pass National Romney Care?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Um really - - yeah bush did the war off budget, however it is captured in the National Debt.

George took us from 5->10 trillion.

Obama is taking us from 10-20 trillion… and you act as though he is some fiscal hawk.
Sure you have a 787billion stimulus. but we cut and ran from iraq… so where are we spending the extra 9 trillion??


----------



## DrDirt

> Our income taxes are nowhere near the highest. Just one country North pays more than we do.
> We don t even pay the most on our own continent. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
> 
> - RobS888


*Federal taxes* are generally lower in Canada. Canada's top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire. The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%.

*State/provincial taxes are lower in the US*. You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other "bad" income-tax states. But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax. Ontario's top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%.

*Investment income taxes:* Canada wins, narrowly. Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you're very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta. The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state. Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush's 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon.

*Sales taxes:* US wins, but the gap is closing. Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister. Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax). Some provinces "harmonized" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8). 13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession.

*Payroll taxes*: much lower in Canada. Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000. Americans' 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Exactly what has happened except to stop spending the billion a week off budget the US was spending destroy the middle east and pass National Romney Care?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Um really - - yeah bush did the war off budget, however it is captured in the National Debt.
> 
> George took us from 5->10 trillion.
> 
> Obama is taking us from 10-20 trillion… and you act as though he is some fiscal hawk.
> Sure you have a 787billion stimulus. but we cut and ran from iraq… so where are we spending the extra 9 trillion??
> 
> - DrDirt


He probably is considering what he inherited Too bad Congress has stopped all attempts to fix it ;-(


----------



## Mahdeew

I can't believe MSNBC allowed this.

Here is another way to pay for our kids education.


----------



## RobS888

> Our income taxes are nowhere near the highest. Just one country North pays more than we do.
> We don t even pay the most on our own continent. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> *Federal taxes* are generally lower in Canada. Canada s top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire. The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%.
> 
> *State/provincial taxes are lower in the US*. You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other "bad" income-tax states. But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax. Ontario s top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%.
> 
> *Investment income taxes:* Canada wins, narrowly. Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you re very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta. The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state. Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush s 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon.
> 
> *Sales taxes:* US wins, but the gap is closing. Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister. Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax). Some provinces "harmonized" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8). 13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession.
> 
> *Payroll taxes*: much lower in Canada. Canadian employees CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000. Americans 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650.
> 
> - DrDirt


Taxes not rates, in the US we can deduct mortgage interest Canadians can't. We have so many deductions the rates are almost meaningless.

Tax freedom day is the day you stop working for the government and start working for yourself. US was end of April this year, Canada was start of June. UK was end of May.

I can't believe you are seriously saying this crap. You'll say anything try to win an argument I guess.


----------



## RobS888

> Exactly what has happened except to stop spending the billion a week off budget the US was spending destroy the middle east and pass National Romney Care?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Um really - - yeah bush did the war off budget, however it is captured in the National Debt.
> 
> George took us from 5->10 trillion.
> 
> Obama is taking us from 10-20 trillion… and you act as though he is some fiscal hawk.
> Sure you have a 787billion stimulus. but we cut and ran from iraq… so where are we spending the extra 9 trillion??
> 
> - DrDirt


Interest on Bush's deb was $1 billion per day. That is over 2 trillion just in interest on the previous debt, add in lower tax revenue thanks to Bush recession and there you go.

Can you honestly say The President got any big spends he wanted other than the ACA?


----------



## dbray45

You all are complaining about the cost of college and or education and the salaries paid out to the teachers and professors in those institutions. What are you proposing that they make? To get the job, you have to have at least a Master's degree and many a Doctorate. Then they have to keep current and that requires more education and research - who is paying for this - they are! To keep their jobs, they have to pay their student loans. The public school teachers have the same requirements to keep their certifications and keep their jobs.

If you want a free education, come to my county. The Community College gives free tuition to illegals here. Legal citizens have to pay (and my tax dollars).


----------



## dbray45

For many universities, once a professor is hired, they have until their 2nd or 3rd year to create their text books or they are let go. This is not a trivial matter.


----------



## Mahdeew

dbray45, I think the argument is that so much money is being invested on things (TSA, DHS, NSA, foreign aid, etc) that have very little or perhaps negative return in the long run. A small portion of that money could diverted toward educating our kids (future teachers and professors) without burdening them with lifetime of debt. I understand that our current system (Keynesian economy) is debt-based but it doesn't mean it is the best thing for our country's future.


----------



## CharlesA

Let me Google that for you.



> If you can t explain it why should I bother with it. Do you own research.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


----------



## RobS888

> For many universities, once a professor is hired, they have until their 2nd or 3rd year to create their text books or they are let go. This is not a trivial matter.
> 
> - dbray45


Really, professors have to write their own textbooks, I call bunk! Most use standard text books.
You might be confusing "publish or perish" for researchers. That is making some insights into their field, not creating a text book. And the perish portion means no grants or tenure, i.e. no future at that school. Not a straight out firing.


----------



## RobS888

> You all are complaining about the cost of college and or education and the salaries paid out to the teachers and professors in those institutions. What are you proposing that they make? To get the job, you have to have at least a Master s degree and many a Doctorate. Then they have to keep current and that requires more education and research - who is paying for this - they are! To keep their jobs, they have to pay their student loans. The public school teachers have the same requirements to keep their certifications and keep their jobs.
> 
> If you want a free education, come to my county. The Community College gives free tuition to illegals here. Legal citizens have to pay (and my tax dollars).
> 
> - dbray45


Perhaps they get free college for being bused around voting for democrats! Just kidding!


----------



## RobS888

> Let me Google that for you.
> 
> 
> If you can t explain it why should I bother with it. Do you own research.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson
> 
> - CharlesA


OMG that was funny! I've never seen that site before. Gonna bookmark it. Thanks so much Charles.


----------



## RobS888

> You all are complaining about the cost of college and or education and the salaries paid out to the teachers and professors in those institutions. What are you proposing that they make? To get the job, you have to have at least a Master s degree and many a Doctorate. Then they have to keep current and that requires more education and research - who is paying for this - they are! To keep their jobs, they have to pay their student loans. The public school teachers have the same requirements to keep their certifications and keep their jobs.
> 
> If you want a free education, come to my county. The Community College gives free tuition to illegals here. Legal citizens have to pay (and my tax dollars).
> 
> - dbray45


Do you have any proof of that? I know undocumented aliens can get in state rates, but free, wow! I may give up my MD citizenship for that, oh wait I already get tuition remission.


----------



## dbray45

I work across the street from the college, I live in the county, it was in the news - but, they don't say it loudly - how is your Spanish?


----------



## RobS888

> I work across the street from the college, I live in the county, it was in the news - but, they don t say it loudly - how is your Spanish?
> 
> - dbray45


Quite good, I googled it, but couldn't find anything. Surely you must have some proof of the free college? The undocumented must be flooding to your county to get them some of that free tuition.


----------



## DrDirt

> You all are complaining about the cost of college and or education and the salaries paid out to the teachers and professors in those institutions. What are you proposing that they make? To get the job, you have to have at least a Master s degree and many a Doctorate. Then they have to keep current and that requires more education and research - who is paying for this - they are! To keep their jobs, they have to pay their student loans. The public school teachers have the same requirements to keep their certifications and keep their jobs.
> 
> If you want a free education, come to my county. The Community College gives free tuition to illegals here. Legal citizens have to pay (and my tax dollars).
> 
> - dbray45


True most tenure track professors must have a doctorate.

In the sciences - graduate students are typically on teaching or Research Assistantship. Often depending on their years there.

e.g. When I was at Penn State - Chemistry grad students were all on Teaching Assistantship - so they got a "grant in aid" that covered tuition, and were required to teach for the first year.
After that the professor they have chosen to work for puts them on Research Assistantship, unless his grant dollars were tight, then they were allowed a certain number of T-A spots.
(under both assistantships - you were forbidden, and would lose your assistantship for taking a part time job….. they were giving you a living stipend, so you were expected to be in the lab every waking hour…. not tending bar)
The professors do not have to publish a textbook.. but to get tenure must as Rob pointed out Publish or Perish. 
The COSTS of doing research come from their grants…. not out of their pay. The grants usually also are used to pay for travel/conference attendance, and the summer salary. Most faculty are on 9 or 10 month pay cycles - - so they are allowed to draw summer salary.
---------------------------
As of 2012, chemistry professors earned an average of $81,460 per year. Those teaching at colleges and universities reported an average annual income of $86,230, while chemistry professors teaching at junior colleges averaged $65,840 per year.
----------------------------

I am not saying EVERY professor makes too much -

So David tell me why Liz Warren made *$430K*? She wasn't Dean


----------



## dbray45

If you do not believe me about the texts - go to a college bookstore with several class syllabi (class instructor, requirements, and required reading) in hand. You will find that most of the books that are required (and cost the most) are authored by the professor of the class and at least the department head - especially at the university level - but wait, how can that happen!

The ONLY salary that I am really concerned about is mine. If Liz Warren can negotiate and get $450K a year, she is more than invited to negotiate my next increase - which is negotiated by a union and is about worthless.


----------



## DrDirt

> If you do not believe me about the texts - go to a college bookstore with several class syllabi (class instructor, requirements, and required reading) in hand. You will find that most of the books that are required (and cost the most) are authored by the professor of the class and at least the department head - especially at the university level - but wait, how can that happen!
> 
> The ONLY salary that I am really concerned about is mine. If Liz Warren can negotiate and get $450K a year, she is more than invited to negotiate my next increase - which is negotiated by a union and is about worthless.
> 
> - dbray45


I have had classes that used the professors textbook. However I have never seen a text from an assisntant professor…. YOU made the claim that they lose their jobs if they don't publish a textbook in the first three years…. That is BS.

So are you also OK with all the other wealth inequality? CEO pay is A-ok because that is what they negotiated, so *"Bully for them!" *right??

I think there are a lot of overpayed CEO's… but most people don't look at their bosses all 'Doe eyed' and say look how hard Bob works… he deserves that company BMW,,,,while my pay is frozen!!

HOWEVER
I don't support government controls over private salary(and recognize there are bigger problems, and that CEO pay is irrelevant as any kind of economic solution.).... things are a little weirder for Public unions, as the 'negotiators' arent; the ones that have to pay…. they just say "we have to raise your taxes but I did my best to control cost"

Government money has driven tuition costs.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/college-aid-means-higher-tuition-1437345298


----------



## dbray45

I am NOT for a socialist government in any way shape or form.

As for salaries - I have been on the side where I did not get a negotiated pay increase that was in the union contract and the Superintendent got his contracted 10% increase. I have owned a business where (by law) I had to pay my employees BEFORE I was paid and they worked their 40 hours and I worked 100 hours a week for a lot less than what they received because I had other bills that were required.

I have have known professors that were told that their textbooks had to be completed before "x" date or they did not have a job for the fall session and helped them to finish them - so it is not BS (because you say so!)

Just to let you in on a secret, the money that CEOs and others are paid - does not take anything away from you or your money.

If you want to bring religion into it, even the bible says to not worry what the other person makes (that is their concern not yours) - just deal with what you make.


----------



## CharlesA

> If you want to bring religion into it, even the bible says to not worry what the other person makes (that is their concern not yours) - just deal with what you make.
> 
> - dbray45


And . . . the Bible talks almost incessantly about how the wealthy feed on the bones of the poor.


----------



## oldnovice

Back to university tuitions:

According to the San Jose Mecury News the average teachers pay in the CSU (California State University system) is $45,000 while the administration pay is all over $100K and some is in excess of $250K!

Do we see the problem? Money spent in the wrong place!


----------



## dbray45

Gives you a damn good incentive to become an administrator, doesn't it!

And Charles - It is not my sin to judge them (as you seem to do) and why if I get wealthy, I will not be like them - but then again, do YOU know what they do with their money? I am aware that Bill Gates has several foundations and college grants that he has paid for. The truth is, you really don't know what they do and if you do, it doesn't matter to me at all - I have other issues to deal with, like taking care of my family.


----------



## Bonka

Topa: I just ordered "What Would Jefferson Do?" I will keep in touch.


----------



## dbray45

It is also my understanding that Gates has already told his kids that they better get going because their wealth is theirs to build - not getting it from Dad.


----------



## Mahdeew

> It is also my understanding that Gates has already told his kids that they better get going because their wealth is theirs to build - not getting it from Dad.
> 
> - dbray45


Hmmm, wasn't a few years back that Senators were saying the same thing in opposition to repeal of the estate tax?


----------



## Mahdeew

Gates is smart enough to divert the estate tax and give to his kids while he is alive. If he dies, 40% or more of his wealth goes for taxes. That is why it is essential to give a certain amount to charitable gift annuity because they give you a certain amount of money every year for the rest of your life.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Topa: I just ordered "What Would Jefferson Do?" I will keep in touch.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


I think you will find it very interesting. Hartmann is a very through and well researched author.


----------



## DrDirt

> If you want to bring religion into it, even the bible says to not worry what the other person makes (that is their concern not yours) - just deal with what you make.
> 
> - dbray45
> 
> And . . . the Bible talks almost incessantly about how the wealthy feed on the bones of the poor.
> 
> - CharlesA


You mean it isn't something that started with Reagan?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I am NOT for a socialist government in any way shape or form.
> 
> As for salaries - I have been on the side where I did not get a negotiated pay increase that was in the union contract and the Superintendent got his contracted 10% increase. I have owned a business where (by law) I had to pay my employees BEFORE I was paid and they worked their 40 hours and I worked 100 hours a week for a lot less than what they received because I had other bills that were required.
> 
> I have have known professors that were told that their textbooks had to be completed before "x" date or they did not have a job for the fall session and helped them to finish them - so it is not BS (because you say so!)
> 
> Just to let you in on a secret, the money that CEOs and others are paid - does not take anything away from you or your money.
> 
> If you want to bring religion into it, even the bible says to not worry what the other person makes (that is their concern not yours) - just deal with what you make.
> 
> - dbray45


CEO salaries in privately held companies are none of my business; however, in publicly traded companies CEO & upper management compensation dilutes share holder value: dividends and share price appreciation. About 20 years ago I recall a pension payment to a retired CEO took the entire quarterly profit of Hercules Chemical. That did not affect the share holding public? That was just the leading edge of the scams upper management runs today. If you owned any stocks issues you would or at least should be outraged by these thieves.


----------



## DrDirt

> Back to university tuitions:
> 
> According to the San Jose Mecury News the average teachers pay in the CSU (California State University system) is $45,000 while the administration pay is all over $100K and some is in excess of $250K!
> 
> Do we see the problem? Money spent in the wrong place!
> 
> - oldnovice


WHen our local unions sued the state because of the education funding formula… the result was they went out and hired more administrators than teachers.

In my kids elementary school - - 3 classes per grade but 2 Kindergarten teachers because it is 1/2 day so a morning and afternoon session.

Regardless - - for K-5 just in the building not counting down town district administration there are 63 staff, of which 17 teachers.

So there are more than 2 staff for each teacher.
Some is obvious enoug, you need a librarian, principal, front secretary, nurse, lunch lady etc. then there is a pile of curriculum developers (thought the licensed teachers made plans), Lead teachers, Paraeducators etc.

The result is class size is 24. our per pupil spend is 17,000/yr. Teachers get 37K.

So why is it that 1/2 day kindergarden is 17K/year…. so more than full time tuition at the state engineering school?

With 24 students X 17K = 408,000 dollars per classroom. The teacher gets 37K and typical benefits are about 50% of salaries… so ~55K is to pay the teacher.

So the classroom takes in 352K after paying the teacher.
Parents pay for the books @200 per year.

So for the little local elementary school - - -we have those 17 classes 'clearing' 352K each for a Intake of 6 Million dollars with the teachers all paid including retirement and health insurance.

I think we should be able to "administrate" the neighborhood school for less than 6 million/year.
Our town of 48K has 8 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 2 high schools - all with similar 'overhead costs'

The USA is ranked outside the top 20 in education, yet we are #1 or #2 on spending per pupil…. so maybe the universal "we need to INVEST more money in education" isn't ever going to get us where we need to be.


----------



## DrDirt

> CEO salaries in privately held companies are none of my business; however, in publicly traded companies CEO & upper management compensation dilutes share holder value: dividends and share price appreciation. About 20 years ago I recall a pension payment to a retired CEO took the entire quarterly profit of Hercules Chemical. That did not affect the share holding public? That was just the leading edge of the scams upper management runs today. If you owned any stocks issues you would or at least should be outraged by these thieves.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


You mean like GM, who zeroed out peoples pension holdings in favor of the UAW?

Or the "taxpayer" loss of 11 billion on thier shares that the government held.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Gates is smart enough to divert the estate tax and give to his kids while he is alive. If he dies, 40% or more of his wealth goes for taxes. That is why it is essential to give a certain amount to charitable gift annuity because they give you a certain amount of money every year for the rest of your life.
> 
> - mrjinx007


I remember seeing a media story about either Gates or Buffet making money giving it away after taxes.


----------



## DrDirt

> It is also my understanding that Gates has already told his kids that they better get going because their wealth is theirs to build - not getting it from Dad.
> 
> - dbray45


If you look you would find that Bill is ONLY going to leave the poor little urchins 10 million dollars each…
(or as the press states… a MINISCULE portion of his wealth-cough cough)
Of course just like Chelsea Clinton… I suspec that Bill Gates' kids will have lifetime positions at teh "bill and melinda gates foundation" in some kind of BS position to have their names on the masthead.

You don't HONESTLY think Bill Gate's kids won't have a huge safety net and trust fund to ensure they are taken care of?

I dont think they will be eating Mac-n-Cheese and Ramen Noodles,


----------



## oldnovice

> I dont think they will be eating Mac-n-Cheese and Ramen Noodles,
> 
> - DrDirt


They will probably buy the companies and eat for free!


----------



## dbray45

Dr. - I think your suppositions are very interesting.

The thing about GM that is interesting is this -

Had the government kept out of it and GM actually filed for bankruptcy, the company could have renegotiated the contracts with the unions, brought some of the salaries and benefits to a reasonable level and the company could have been competitive. Instead, the government took the company, slashed paying republican dealers from selling their autos, and gave the management TO the unions. The ONLY winners were the government and the unions - the employees and the taxpayers lost. The whole thing was a failure from start to finish - and GM is now in bigger trouble than it was, and the management that wanted the company to succeed has been scuttled. There are additional things but hey, it would like I was piling on.

Do you really think that there was absolutely any intention of this administration for any of the bailouts to really succeed? There has no indication from this administration of anything that would demonstrate any desire for the USA to succeed.


----------



## dbray45

Oh, and what Bill does with his fortune AND his family - is between Bill and his family. What you suppose doesn't change a thing or matter.


----------



## RobS888

> Gives you a damn good incentive to become an administrator, doesn t it!
> 
> And Charles - It is not my sin to judge them (as you seem to do) and why if I get wealthy, I will not be like them - but then again, do YOU know what they do with their money? I am aware that Bill Gates has several foundations and college grants that he has paid for. The truth is, you really don t know what they do and if you do, it doesn t matter to me at all - I have other issues to deal with, like taking care of my family.
> 
> - dbray45


smells like the ends justifies the means to me.


----------



## RobS888

> If you want to bring religion into it, even the bible says to not worry what the other person makes (that is their concern not yours) - just deal with what you make.
> 
> - dbray45
> 
> And . . . the Bible talks almost incessantly about how the wealthy feed on the bones of the poor.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> You mean it isn t something that started with Reagan?
> 
> - DrDirt


started no, allowed to follow their instincts unchallenged, yes.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> CEO salaries in privately held companies are none of my business; however, in publicly traded companies CEO & upper management compensation dilutes share holder value: dividends and share price appreciation. About 20 years ago I recall a pension payment to a retired CEO took the entire quarterly profit of Hercules Chemical. That did not affect the share holding public? That was just the leading edge of the scams upper management runs today. If you owned any stocks issues you would or at least should be outraged by these thieves.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> You mean like GM, who zeroed out peoples pension holdings in favor of the UAW?
> 
> Or the "taxpayer" loss of 11 billion on thier shares that the government held.
> 
> - DrDirt


We had laws and policies that would have prevented this and taken care of any issues in place in 1980. It is too bad the oligarchy decided to undo the 20th century ;-((


----------



## RobS888

> WHen our local unions sued the state because of the education funding formula… the result was they went out and hired more administrators than teachers.
> 
> In my kids elementary school - - 3 classes per grade but 2 Kindergarten teachers because it is 1/2 day so a morning and afternoon session.
> 
> Regardless - - for K-5 just in the building not counting down town district administration there are 63 staff, of which 17 teachers.
> 
> So there are more than 2 staff for each teacher.
> Some is obvious enoug, you need a librarian, principal, front secretary, nurse, lunch lady etc. then there is a pile of curriculum developers (thought the licensed teachers made plans), Lead teachers, Paraeducators etc.
> 
> The result is class size is 24. our per pupil spend is 17,000/yr. Teachers get 37K.
> 
> So why is it that 1/2 day kindergarden is 17K/year…. so more than full time tuition at the state engineering school?
> 
> With 24 students X 17K = 408,000 dollars per classroom. The teacher gets 37K and typical benefits are about 50% of salaries… so ~55K is to pay the teacher.
> 
> So the classroom takes in 352K after paying the teacher.
> Parents pay for the books @200 per year.
> 
> So for the little local elementary school - - -we have those 17 classes clearing 352K each for a Intake of 6 Million dollars with the teachers all paid including retirement and health insurance.
> 
> I think we should be able to "administrate" the neighborhood school for less than 6 million/year.
> Our town of 48K has 8 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 2 high schools - all with similar overhead costs
> 
> The USA is ranked outside the top 20 in education, yet we are #1 or #2 on spending per pupil…. so maybe the universal "we need to INVEST more money in education" isn t ever going to get us where we need to be.
> 
> - DrDirt


Who are the "they" are they the local board? If so, that is who needs to be replaced and one reason I think *ALL* education should be controlled at a minimum the state level. We have rich counties in MD and they generate and hold all the education money themselves it shouldn't be controlled at the local level. All of MD education funds should be controlled, administered, and evenly distributed by the state. I bet the scores would go up.


----------



## RobS888

> You mean like GM, who zeroed out peoples pension holdings in favor of the UAW?
> 
> Or the "taxpayer" loss of 11 billion on thier shares that the government held.
> 
> - DrDirt


So no one should have received the money? There wasn't enough for everyone.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> You mean like GM, who zeroed out peoples pension holdings in favor of the UAW?
> 
> Or the "taxpayer" loss of 11 billion on thier shares that the government held.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> So no one should have received the money? There wasn t enough for everyone.
> 
> - RobS888


Maybe we should have let Romney and his ilk sell it off for salvage and just import autos?


----------



## CharlesA

> And Charles - It is not my sin to judge
> 
> - dbray45


Today's winner in unintended irony.


----------



## RobS888

Maybe he sees it as a blessing to judge?


----------



## DrDirt

> Oh, and what Bill does with his fortune AND his family - is between Bill and his family. What you suppose doesn t change a thing or matter.
> 
> - dbray45


I agree it is (as it should be) his choice…. I merely object when it is characterized that "Gates kids will be on their own" somehow.

Indeed he isn't just handing them each 20+ billion.
But they are far from having to fend for themselves.

If they put that 10 million in just a reasonable CD at 2% interest…. they will earn 200K per year in perpetuity.
a good deal I would say. nice safety net. If they went to start a new business venture, they start out guaranteed 200K per year if it fails. Hopefully they will be like their father and change the world


----------



## DrDirt

> You mean like GM, who zeroed out peoples pension holdings in favor of the UAW?
> 
> Or the "taxpayer" loss of 11 billion on thier shares that the government held.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> So no one should have received the money? There wasn t enough for everyone.
> 
> - RobS888


Not enough for everyone??.... So you like that Obama picks the winners and losers….Maybe the "Shares" purchased shoudl all be treated equally and valued the same. Not picking who gets 50 cents on the dollar and who is told GFY.

Wasn't the bailout plan promised to PREVENT bankruptcy? Then they went bankrupt anyway?
So the bailout did what? Other than cost "the government 11 Billion"

And Topa - - they did sell off Hummer, got rid of Pontiac, and Saturn.
Closed dealerships based on campaign retribution.

Going into Chapter 11 doesn't mean you are for sale to the vulture capitalist firms.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> And Topa - - they did sell off Hummer, got rid of Pontiac, and Saturn.
> Closed dealerships based on campaign retribution.
> 
> Going into Chapter 11 doesn t mean you are for sale to the vulture capitalist firms.
> 
> - DrDirt


I'm not defending the specific actions taken per se, just saying the out come of exporting that industry would be far worse than the results.

Many share holders are told to GFY. How about the holders of WAMU when the fed gave it to Chase? Or all the scams Wall Street regularly runs on us, US? Or, even old age pension holders when corps were allowed to tell them to GFY? One of the final straws when I quit the R party was finding out that the party supports fraud as a market risk rather than prosecuting it as a criminal activity.


----------



## RobS888

> You mean like GM, who zeroed out peoples pension holdings in favor of the UAW?
> 
> Or the "taxpayer" loss of 11 billion on thier shares that the government held.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> So no one should have received the money? There wasn t enough for everyone.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Not enough for everyone??.... So you like that Obama picks the winners and losers….Maybe the "Shares" purchased shoudl all be treated equally and valued the same. Not picking who gets 50 cents on the dollar and who is told GFY.
> 
> Wasn t the bailout plan promised to PREVENT bankruptcy? Then they went bankrupt anyway?
> So the bailout did what? Other than cost "the government 11 Billion"
> 
> And Topa - - they did sell off Hummer, got rid of Pontiac, and Saturn.
> Closed dealerships based on campaign retribution.
> 
> Going into Chapter 11 doesn t mean you are for sale to the vulture capitalist firms.
> 
> - DrDirt


We've covered this before. It is a fait accompli. Let it go.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The oligarchy had better straighten up. They don't have enough money to buy enough votes to defeat a grassroots movement if Sanders gets exposure and recognition among minorities. A majority of us, US, support just taxing them and taking it away

Just as in the 30s, this could be a very real threat that an expanding working poor population will support socialism leaving the greedy with nothing but memories of their bank accounts after nationalization. Just ask the Cubans how that worked out for them. Return of those assets were the biggest stumbling block for normalizing relations between US and Cuba for the last 60 years.


----------



## RobS888

I see greed ruling for another 12 years then a more aware approach will take over like in the 30s.


----------



## RobS888

So did we decide that the US is not one of the highest taxed nations? When the argument stops without a concession I suspect the topic will just reappear again. Let's try to actually settle something. My god, we aren't politicians, we're wood workers. finishing is in our blood.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Billionaire Hypocrisy of Helping the Poor pretty well sums up the point of this thread.



> So did we decide that the US is not one of the highest taxed nations? When the argument stops without a concession I suspect the topic will just reappear again. Let s try to actually settle something. My god, we aren t politicians, we re wood workers. finishing is in our blood.
> 
> - RobS888


That would appear to be the case. When you examine what is actually paid in taxes vs the hypothetical bill based on rates.


----------



## dbray45

Getting back to the college tuition - 
In the Maryland Dream Act states -

"This law enables certain undocumented high school graduates to obtain a post-secondary education - from an associate's degree to a bachelor's degree - at an affordable price.
First, if students meet the requirements of the law, they can qualify for a lower tuition rate - the in-county or state rate - at the Maryland community college they attend.

Second, students who earn their first 60 credits or an associate's degree from a community college and continue to meet the requirements of the Dream Act are eligible for the in-state rate at a four-year public university in Maryland.
Prior to passage of the Maryland Dream Act, Montgomery College students wishing to transfer to public four-year colleges and universities in Maryland had to pay out-of-state tuition. Now, students who continue to meet Maryland Dream Act requirements may transfer and be eligible for in-state tuition and fees.

Finally, as a result of the new law, Montgomery College now has a secure and statewide foundation to provide an affordable and accessible higher education to our community's high school graduates who are undocumented immigrants, continuing our long tradition of service to this community of students. "

The last line, " Montgomery College now has a secure and statewide foundation to provide an affordable and accessible higher education to our community's high school graduates …" covers the balance of the instate tuition so they pay $0.00 for tuition.


----------



## RobS888

I don't see where it says $0.00, just in state rate. That is a good discount, but nowhere near free.


----------



## dbray45

The instate rate is applied before that, then there is the statewide foundation.

Do I have a serious issue with this - you bet I do. I believe that everybody should have the same shot at their education as everyone else. I had to wait 20 years to get my degree and I paid for it with my own money. The idea that people that are actively breaking the law are handed a better education with my tax dollars is beyond reproach.


----------



## RobS888

Where is the free part? You should look up the requirements for the MD dream act, they have to spend at least 3 years at a MD high school, submit tax returns and register for selective service. They also must apply for permanent residence. Then they get in state rate.

What foundation? I'm trying to be patient here, but you haven't proven your point.

If a kid went to high school here, I don't have a problem with them getting help to go to school.


----------



## dbray45

Let's break this down for you slowly--

This law enables certain undocumented high school graduates to obtain a post-secondary education - from an associate's degree to a bachelor's degree - at an affordable price.

*These are not US Citizens and are not here LEGALLY!*

First, if students meet the requirements of the law, they can qualify for a lower tuition rate - the in-county or state rate - at the Maryland community college they attend.

*Again - These are not US Citizens and are not here LEGALLY so they are breaking the law!*

Second, students who earn their first 60 credits or an associate's degree from a community college and continue to meet the requirements of the Dream Act are eligible for the in-state rate at a four-year public university in Maryland. Prior to passage of the Maryland Dream Act, Montgomery College students wishing to transfer to public four-year colleges and universities in Maryland had to pay out-of-state tuition. Now, students who continue to meet Maryland Dream Act requirements may transfer and be eligible for in-state tuition and fees.

*This is after the 2 year college that they get preferential pricing!

So, up to now, the law says that they have instate pricing for both the 2 and the 4 year colleges and universities in the state of Maryland.*

Finally, as a result of the new law, Montgomery College now has a secure and statewide foundation to provide an affordable and accessible higher education to our community's high school graduates who are undocumented immigrants, continuing our long tradition of service to this community of students.

*This is the icing on the cake, the: "now has a secure and statewide foundation to provide an affordable and accessible higher education" is a different set of funding that pays the difference between in state and $0.00, it also takes care of books - as presented by the county and the news.*

All that is required is to document that you have been breaking our laws for at least 3 years and register for selective service. You cannot submit tax returns if you do not have a legal job and a legal Social Security number - oh, I forgot, you get one now - and a drivers license to. Being a legal resident and or US citizen is NOT required in Maryland - but you will be educated.


----------



## dbray45

So, we have legal requirements that you must follow while breaking our laws and then the tax payers pay for your education through college where legal US citizens have to pay for it - precious!


----------



## RobS888

The discussion is about free tuition, not the legality of undocumented aliens, who are by definition breaking the law.

Where is the proof of free tuition?


----------



## dbray45

They are getting free tuition, whether you believe it or not doesn't matter to me. Just like I know that illegal aliens get Social Security numbers, benefits, and medical, they get state unemployment, food stamps, FARMS meals at the schools, and are allowed drivers licenses - do I have proof, no - but I know people that watched it happen.

It is done quietly and is kept to those that "need" it - with your tax dollars. All in all, they are given a level of citizenship to make it as hard to separate from LEGAL citizens as possible.


----------



## Mahdeew

More than 2 million illegal immigrants will be approved for President Obama's deportation amnesty over the next few years, and they will be eligible to collect Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as claim a special tax break for low-income families, the Congressional Budget Office said in an analysis Thursday.

Mr. Obama predicted that up to 5 million illegal immigrants could be eligible for his amnesties, but the CBO numbers predict only 2.25 million will have signed up and been approved by 2017.
The estimate was released as the administration defended the law in a federal court in Texas on Thursday, asking a judge to reject a request by Texas and two dozen other states to halt the program even before it gets started.
Judge Andrew S. Hanen, sitting in Brownsville, said he won't rule before the end of the month. Applications for the first part of the amnesty are scheduled to begin in the middle of February.

"There aren't any bad guys in this," Judge Hanen told attorneys for both sides, according to The Brownsville Herald. He gave no indication of which way he is leaning in the thorny case, which is likely to determine Mr. Obama's legacy on immigration.

Texas and its allies argue that Mr. Obama overstepped his legal bounds in November when he announced a program to halt deportations for illegal immigrant parents who have legal resident or U.S. citizen children, and to expand a 2012 amnesty for illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.
To win, the states first must prove that they were injured by the amnesty, which would give them "standing" to sue. Then they must prove that Mr. Obama's actions are either unconstitutional because they try to rewrite the laws, which is Congress' job, or else they are official policies that should have been submitted to the public for comment and revisions before they were enacted.

Administration attorneys told Judge Hanen that Mr. Obama isn't rewriting law, but rather deciding whom to prosecute under it based on his powers of prosecutorial discretion. The attorneys say presidents going back to the 1950s have used similar powers to halt deportations, albeit on smaller scales.

The Obama administration said if it declares most illegal immigrants off limits for deportation, it will be easier to pursue the recent illegal immigrants and the serious felons who won't qualify for the leniency.

Mexican officials, hoping to help their citizens stay in the U.S., began issuing birth certificates at consulates Thursday.

Mexicans make up the majority of the illegal immigrant population in the U.S., though Central Americans may be rivaling them among newcomers, according to statistics.

Although Judge Hanen didn't tip his hand about his thinking, administration supporters fear the worst. They point to a striking order he issued in December 2013, at the beginning of the surge of Central American children crossing the border, that accused the Homeland Security Department of being complicit in human trafficking.

Judge Hanen said because agents would take children caught at the border to their parents living illegally in the U.S., without trying to deport either of them, the government was in effect doing the job of smugglers and encouraging others to make the same journey.

"Clearly, the plaintiffs filed their suit in Brownsville for one reason - a friendly judge," said America's Voice Education Fund, which lobbies for immigrants' rights.

Three self-identified illegal immigrants, who filed as "Jane Doe" litigants, asked Judge Hanen on Thursday to be allowed to join the lawsuit in defense of the president's policies.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which filed on their behalf, said they "could face deportation and separation from their families and their communities" if the president's amnesty is struck down.

They are three of the millions who could qualify, but the CBO report suggested that many of those who are eligible for amnesty won't apply.

All told, the budget analysts predicted that 1.5 million will have been approved under the amnesty for illegal immigrant parents by 2017, while 750,000 illegal immigrants will have been approved under the modified 2012 amnesty for Dreamers, who are illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

The total illegal immigrant population in the U.S. is estimated to be 11 million to 12 million people. The number dropped at the beginning of the Obama administration but has been ticking up in recent years.

Most illegal immigrants who do not qualify for the amnesty are unlikely to be deported under the guidelines Mr. Obama issued in November, which call for only the most serious criminals to be deported.

On Wednesday, the House voted to insist that convicted sex criminals be included in that list of crimes serious enough to demand deportation.

Those who are granted amnesty are also entitled to work permits, allowing them to compete legally for jobs. Texas and its allied states argued that those who get the amnesty are also eligible for some state benefits and services, such as a driver's license and, in some states, concealed weapons permits or health care.

The CBO also said those covered by the temporary amnesty, which the government refers to as "deferred action," will be eligible for some federal benefits.

"Because they are lawfully present during the period of their deferred status, they are eligible to receive Medicare and Social Security benefits if they meet the programs' requirements," the CBO said in its report. "In addition, those individuals who are approved for deferred action and receive work authorization have Social Security numbers and therefore can claim the earned income tax credit if they qualify. They are ineligible for other federal benefit programs."
Link

Report Shows 62 Percent of Illegal Alien Households Are On Welfare


----------



## dbray45

They have receiving state and federal benefits for over 6 years. As soon as they started this, the cry the Social Security was running out of money started - probably because they were giving it out.


----------



## RobS888

> They are getting free tuition, whether you believe it or not doesn t matter to me. Just like I know that illegal aliens get Social Security numbers, benefits, and medical, they get state unemployment, food stamps, FARMS meals at the schools, and are allowed drivers licenses - do I have proof, no - but I know people that watched it happen.
> 
> It is done quietly and is kept to those that "need" it - with your tax dollars. All in all, they are given a level of citizenship to make it as hard to separate from LEGAL citizens as possible.
> 
> - dbray45


I cant accept that without some form of proof. Hearsay and anecdotes are not proof.


----------



## Mahdeew

Lets hope other life forms in the universe don't find out about our alien policies.


----------



## RobS888

I'm surprised they can survive at all without status.


----------



## RobS888

> They have receiving state and federal benefits for over 6 years. As soon as they started this, the cry the Social Security was running out of money started - probably because they were giving it out.
> 
> - dbray45


You need to pay into SS, it isn't given out unless you are disabled.


----------



## dbray45

That is what you are told.

My daughter was trying to help a friend that was turned down but in the next lane - that was only Spanish speaking, these people were given a SS number, a debt card with $200 on it and were told that it would be replenished every month, given a medical card that would give them free health care, and were not required to have ID, just put your "X" if you could not write. Then they were told to send their friends as well.

This was over 6 years ago - this is not new.


----------



## dbray45

My daughter can think in several dialects of Spanish, French, Russian, Korean, English, Quebecois , and German and speak 23 or so languages so there was no error in translation.


----------



## RobS888

Your BS quotient is going way up. Especially about your daughter being a polyglot.

I have to discount everything you say unless you start substantiating some of it.


----------



## dbray45

If I substantiate my daughter being a polyglot among other things - will you stop your consistent pain in the ass attitude?


----------



## RobS888

I don't know what you mean, so no I can't stop asking for proof of dubious statements. You rarely substantiate anything, so I feel it is needed to point out this is just your opinion. I'd hate for someone to actually believe you.


----------



## DrDirt

> You need to pay into SS, it isn t given out unless you are disabled.
> 
> - RobS888


Wrong - - look at Social Security 'supplemental Security Income'

It only requires you to be over 65 and of limited means.

So many of the Indians (the ones from india not native americans) bring their parents over…. and without them ever working a day in the USA they qualify for SSI, so mama and papa can come here and help thier kids afford the Mcmansions.


----------



## RobS888

> You need to pay into SS, it isn t given out unless you are disabled.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Wrong - - look at Social Security supplemental Security Income
> 
> It only requires you to be over 65 and of limited means.
> 
> So many of the Indians (the ones from india not native americans) bring their parents over…. and without them ever working a day in the USA they qualify for SSI, so mama and papa can come here and help thier kids afford the Mcmansions.
> 
> - DrDirt


Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a United States government program that provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged (65 or older), blind, or disabled. Although administered by the Social Security Administration, SSI is funded from the U.S. Treasury general funds, not the Social Security trust fund.

Seems like that is from the disabled fund and not actually SS funds, so they aren't getting SS.

I don't recall dbray45 mentioning senior citizens? It doesn't seem that this is at all illegal. It has been the law since 1996.


----------



## DrDirt

> You need to pay into SS, it isn t given out unless you are disabled.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Wrong - - look at Social Security supplemental Security Income
> 
> It only requires you to be over 65 and of limited means.
> 
> So many of the Indians (the ones from India not native americans) bring their parents over…. and without them ever working a day in the USA they qualify for SSI, so mama and papa can come here and help thier kids afford the Mcmansions.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a United States government program that provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged (65 or older), blind, or disabled. Although administered by the Social Security Administration, SSI is funded from the U.S. Treasury general funds, not the Social Security trust fund.
> 
> Seems like that is from the disabled fund and not actually SS funds, so they aren t getting SS.
> 
> I don t recall dbray45 mentioning senior citizens? It doesn t seem that this is at all illegal. It has been the law since 1996.
> 
> - RobS888


Bwa ha ha ha ha…. yeah and how much money vs IOU's are in the trust fund.
That is like saying "i gave you money from my left pocket not my wallet…. so I gave you nothing."

Kind of like saying The Iraq war was free because of how Bush did the accounting….

They got money from Social Security.

All you have to do is be elderly… no residency requirement - - and Uncle Sam cuts you a check - even if you come here and live with your kids.

What exactly do I owe Mujibars parents and grandparents?


----------



## Mahdeew

> You need to pay into SS, it isn t given out unless you are disabled.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Wrong - - look at Social Security supplemental Security Income
> 
> It only requires you to be over 65 and of limited means.
> 
> So many of the Indians (the ones from india not native americans) bring their parents over…. and without them ever working a day in the USA they qualify for SSI, so mama and papa can come here and help thier kids afford the Mcmansions.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a United States government program that provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged (65 or older), blind, or disabled. Although administered by the Social Security Administration, SSI is funded from the U.S. Treasury general funds, not the Social Security trust fund.
> 
> Seems like that is from the disabled fund and not actually SS funds, so they aren t getting SS.
> 
> I don t recall dbray45 mentioning senior citizens? It doesn t seem that this is at all illegal. It has been the law since 1996.
> 
> - RobS888


Actually, as of recently, the SSI funding ran out and our wonderful representative co-mingled the two funds together. Now, our SS fill the gap for the broke SSI.


----------



## dbray45

You are not saying anything about Puerto Rico, they get benefits without paying into SSA

Rob, let me put this to rest, not for you but for the other folks to enjoy.

My daughter, here is a story from the Frederick News-Post, dated Dec. 1, 1989
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/archive/tuesday-s-people-language-a-window/article_e6d65a6e-8107-5e51-9e1f-535e763c1849.html

Oh, and she just won this -

https://www.facebook.com/AJ-Bray-Ms-Wheelchair-Eastern-USA-2016-910339879021806/timeline/

and this on StarNow - this was posted before she decided to learn Korean.

http://www.starnow.com/ajbray/

She only lists the languages that she doesn't have to translate in her head. She can translate between the languages as well. She has a few more that she can speak and understand but listing those takes the fun out of it.


----------



## dbray45

Any more, I think the only thing that gets funded by the SS trust fund is the Congress wish list and the general fund.


----------



## RobS888

> Bwa ha ha ha ha…. yeah and how much money vs IOU s are in the trust fund.
> That is like saying "i gave you money from my left pocket not my wallet…. so I gave you nothing."
> 
> Kind of like saying The Iraq war was free because of how Bush did the accounting….
> 
> They got money from Social Security.
> 
> All you have to do is be elderly… no residency requirement - - and Uncle Sam cuts you a check - even if you come here and live with your kids.
> 
> What exactly do I owe Mujibars parents and grandparents?
> 
> - DrDirt


I remember MichaelMoore showing the $11 trillion in IOUs from Bush the dumber, so yes we all know there is a problem with it.

I still haven't seen free tuition in MD for illegal aliens!

I still haven't seen anything illegal.


----------



## RobS888

> You are not saying anything about Puerto Rico, they get benefits without paying into SSA
> 
> Rob, let me put this to rest, not for you but for the other folks to enjoy.
> 
> My daughter, here is a story from the Frederick News-Post, dated Dec. 1, 1989
> http://www.fredericknewspost.com/archive/tuesday-s-people-language-a-window/article_e6d65a6e-8107-5e51-9e1f-535e763c1849.html
> 
> Oh, and she just won this -
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/AJ-Bray-Ms-Wheelchair-Eastern-USA-2016-910339879021806/timeline/
> 
> and this on StarNow - this was posted before she decided to learn Korean.
> 
> http://www.starnow.com/ajbray/
> 
> She only lists the languages that she doesn t have to translate in her head. She can translate between the languages as well. She has a few more that she can speak and understand but listing those takes the fun out of it.
> 
> - dbray45


Very cool, doesn't prove the rest though.


----------



## RobS888

> You need to pay into SS, it isn t given out unless you are disabled.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Wrong - - look at Social Security supplemental Security Income
> 
> It only requires you to be over 65 and of limited means.
> 
> So many of the Indians (the ones from india not native americans) bring their parents over…. and without them ever working a day in the USA they qualify for SSI, so mama and papa can come here and help thier kids afford the Mcmansions.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a United States government program that provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged (65 or older), blind, or disabled. Although administered by the Social Security Administration, SSI is funded from the U.S. Treasury general funds, not the Social Security trust fund.
> 
> Seems like that is from the disabled fund and not actually SS funds, so they aren t getting SS.
> 
> I don t recall dbray45 mentioning senior citizens? It doesn t seem that this is at all illegal. It has been the law since 1996.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Actually, as of recently, the SSI funding ran out and our wonderful representative co-mingled the two funds together. Now, our SS fill the gap for the broke SSI.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Still not seeing anything illegal and he never mentioned elderly people.


----------



## dbray45

You do realize that the IOUs started with LBJ. By 1990, when I first started to follow it, the IUOs were at 600 Billion.


----------



## dbray45

With that in the coffers at that time, the Social Security could have been increased to the the people a real retirement like it was intended to do. In those dollars, the value was more than 10 times what it is now and the interest that it was making at the time was about 14%.


----------



## dbray45

Instead, Congress (democrats for most of the time) decided that the IOU method was better and to use the money to pay for all kinds of pork spending to maintain elections. Now, something like 50% is just a tax to feed the general fund.


----------



## dbray45

If Congress does it, it must be done legally - but that doesn't make it right. After all, their attitude is that they KNOW what WE need and that WE don't understand what WE REALLY NEED. -or something like that!

Our money is their money, they will tell us what we need and we should be thankful that we get it - it is the Democrat way.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Actually, Reagan doubled SS tax to save it because the baby boomers were going to break it. To cover the massive deficits he was running after his tax cuts, everything was commingled in the general fund and it still is today. The "trust fund" is actually gillions of dollars invested in US Treasuries. Doesn't matter if you are a D or R you have been and are being screwed by your side ;-((


----------



## DrDirt

> I remember MichaelMoore showing the $11 trillion in IOUs from Bush the dumber, so yes we all know there is a problem with it.
> 
> I still haven t seen free tuition in MD for illegal aliens!
> 
> I still haven t seen anything illegal.
> 
> - RobS888


Not accepting anecdotal Michael Moore quotes as truth…..

Please show the 11 trillion in IOU's from Bush into Social Security Trust fund.


----------



## dbray45

Bob - You are very correct, the Rs and Ds had several chances to fix things and had no desire to do it.

Here is the deal - as explained to me by someone in a place that could and should know, the SS is not part of the general fund, it cannot run a deficit. After paying out exactly what is required, the balance is removed and an IOU is put in place. Once the paying people do not put enough to pay out in that year, SS is "out of money" because there is no carryover.

I have not found a better explanation and this has not been disputed by anybody that would know.


----------



## DrDirt

Remember when people worked for the government accepted that the pay was a little lower but you had great benefits and better job security?

Now best of both worlds - - but we cannot survive this way - -

http://freebeacon.com/issues/study-government-workers-make-78-percent-more-than-private-sector/

The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014, compared to the private sector's average of $56,350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a difference of over $52,000, or 78 percent.


----------



## Mahdeew

And off course SS increases are tied to government manufactured inflation rates. Or as it happened a few years back, they just freeze cost of living adjustment to it. So, while the price of everything we need has gone up dramatically, SS adjustments have severely lagged behind. Sugar prices alone have increased 30% in the last month.


----------



## Mahdeew




----------



## RobS888

> If Congress does it, it must be done legally - but that doesn t make it right. After all, their attitude is that they KNOW what WE need and that WE don t understand what WE REALLY NEED. -or something like that!
> 
> Our money is their money, they will tell us what we need and we should be thankful that we get it - it is the Democrat way.
> 
> - dbray45


I agree that legally isn't necessarily right.


----------



## DrDirt

McDonalds in LA….


----------



## RobS888

> I remember MichaelMoore showing the $11 trillion in IOUs from Bush the dumber, so yes we all know there is a problem with it.
> 
> I still haven t seen free tuition in MD for illegal aliens!
> 
> I still haven t seen anything illegal.
> - RobS888
> 
> Not accepting anecdotal Michael Moore quotes as truth…..
> 
> Please show the 11 trillion in IOU s from Bush into Social Security Trust fund.
> 
> - DrDirt


LoL, they were shown in his movie, so not anecdotal at all. You don't seem to understand what that means.


----------



## RobS888

> Remember when people worked for the government accepted that the pay was a little lower but you had great benefits and better job security?
> 
> Now best of both worlds - - but we cannot survive this way - -
> 
> http://freebeacon.com/issues/study-government-workers-make-78-percent-more-than-private-sector/
> 
> The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014, compared to the private sector's average of $56,350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
> 
> But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a difference of over $52,000, or 78 percent.
> 
> - DrDirt


Interesting, extrapolate that $28,000/year more by the number of federal workers and say what the total is? $300 million/year, $3 billion/year, 3 trillion/year? What are we talking about? That difference by itself is meaningless. Are you using Chaffetz statistical methods?


----------



## oldnovice

I was replaced yesterday afternoon.
I try to keep the speeding down on my street so whenever I am out in my drive and I see a speeder I shout slow down!

Yesterday that traffic enforcement division of the SJPD put up and automatic SLOW DOWN sign that tells you how fast you are going and if you are speeding flashes slow down!

I am no longer needed …. for now!


----------



## DrDirt

> Interesting, extrapolate that $28,000/year more by the number of federal workers and say what the total is? $300 million/year, $3 billion/year, 3 trillion/year? What are we talking about? That difference by itself is meaningless. Are you using Chaffetz statistical methods?
> 
> - RobS888


they were shown in his movie, so not anecdotal at all ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Well if it's on the internet it must be true?
Where is my IronMan suit… I saw that in a movie. Sorry… Marvel movies are more realistic than a Michael Moore diatribe like Farenheit 911

You pull that 28K/year gap from Michael Moores Script? The gap in what is spent is 52K

However when talking about government spending… if the gap is Zero, and we are at a ~20% effective tax rate….

We would need 5 people paying taxes for every government employee to get a salary. and never buy ships/roads/bridges etc. just pay salaries.

Government is 8% of the workforce.
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_Americans_are_government_employed


----------



## RobS888

> I was replaced yesterday afternoon.
> I try to keep the speeding down on my street so whenever I am out in my drive and I see a speeder I shout slow down!
> 
> Yesterday that traffic enforcement division of the SJPD put up and automatic SLOW DOWN sign that tells you how fast you are going and if you are speeding flashes slow down!
> 
> I am no longer needed …. for now!
> 
> - oldnovice


Just think of the statistical data they can get from the sign. We could use some speed bumps.

We have accident tv on our corner if it is raining or snowing after 11:00pm on Friday or Saturday night.

One guy flipped his car and slid 20 feet on his roof. Strangely, not under the influence of any drugs/drink. Even police said it was unusual.

One guy recently hit the power pole across from us and cracked the pole so bad they put huge splints on it.

Dr dirt, those are anecdotes. Although, I think I might have the security video from the car flipping and sliding.


----------



## RobS888

> Interesting, extrapolate that $28,000/year more by the number of federal workers and say what the total is? $300 million/year, $3 billion/year, 3 trillion/year? What are we talking about? That difference by itself is meaningless. Are you using Chaffetz statistical methods?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> You pull that 28K/year gap from Michael Moores Script? The gap in what is spent is 52K
> 
> However when talking about government spending… if the gap is Zero, and we are at a ~20% effective tax rate….
> 
> We would need 5 people paying taxes for every government employee to get a salary.
> 
> - DrDirt


Pulled it from your post. So how much does it cost?


----------



## DrDirt

> I was replaced yesterday afternoon.
> I try to keep the speeding down on my street so whenever I am out in my drive and I see a speeder I shout slow down!
> 
> Yesterday that traffic enforcement division of the SJPD put up and automatic SLOW DOWN sign that tells you how fast you are going and if you are speeding flashes slow down!
> 
> I am no longer needed …. for now!
> 
> - oldnovice


If you really want good effects… make up a few "photo radar" signs.


----------



## RobS888

I calculated it for you… 2.1 million full time fed workers times $28,000 = $59billion.

Big money, however many, If not 1/2 will have a 4 year degree or higher, so they should make more than the average of *all* US workers. Just like when teachers average was compared to US average, not a valid comparison.


----------



## RobS888

> I was replaced yesterday afternoon.
> I try to keep the speeding down on my street so whenever I am out in my drive and I see a speeder I shout slow down!
> 
> Yesterday that traffic enforcement division of the SJPD put up and automatic SLOW DOWN sign that tells you how fast you are going and if you are speeding flashes slow down!
> 
> I am no longer needed …. for now!
> 
> - oldnovice
> 
> If you really want good effects… make up a few "photo radar" signs.
> 
> - DrDirt


That would be funny, but I bet it would cause more accidents than it stopped. Big 6' by 4' orange signs say 20 mph, but I guess they think they can handle it. Thing that gets me is drifting into opposite lane on blind curve, WOW!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Now best of both worlds - - but we cannot survive this way - -
> 
> http://freebeacon.com/issues/study-government-workers-make-78-percent-more-than-private-sector/
> 
> The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014, compared to the private sector's average of $56,350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
> 
> - DrDirt


That is the result of NAFTA, GAT, China's Most Favored Nation status. All those jobs exiting the private sector has destroyed non-government employment wages. I noticed this trend in the middle 80s. When I was a volunteer fireman, most used it as a ladder to a paid position. It only paid about 1/3 what I was making. Today, it pays as much or more than a journeyman makes. Anyone with their eyes open could see this happening. One of the reasons Congress is destroying the post office; to get rid of the largest public employee union.


----------



## DrDirt

> Now best of both worlds - - but we cannot survive this way - -
> 
> http://freebeacon.com/issues/study-government-workers-make-78-percent-more-than-private-sector/
> 
> The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014, compared to the private sector's average of $56,350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> That is the result of NAFTA, GAT, China s Most Favored Nation status. All those jobs exiting the private sector has destroyed non-government employment wages. I noticed this trend in the middle 80s. When I was a volunteer fireman, most used it as a ladder to a paid position. It only paid about 1/3 what I was making. Today, it pays as much or more than a journeyman makes. Anyone with their eyes open could see this happening. One of the reasons Congress is destroying the post office; to get rid of the largest public employee union.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


It is more than that…. from 2009 to 2010 the number of government employees making more than 150K more than doubled.

So it is in large part "raises" in government salary, than just dissappearing 'good' private jobs. making the gap.,

http://www.federaltimes.com/story/government/management/agency/2015/02/17/hiring-agencies-2015/23299037/
Agencies adding 72000 more federal jobs this year



> I calculated it for you… 2.1 million full time fed workers times $28,000 = $59billion.
> 
> Big money, however many, If not 1/2 will have a 4 year degree or higher, so they should make more than the average of *all* US workers. Just like when teachers average was compared to US average, not a valid comparison.
> 
> - RobS888


Ahhh Rob…. from the governmetn - - the number of employees includes servicemen and women many clerical and postal workers with no college.

And why are you hating on teachers… they nearly all have 4 year degrees minimum

*Please provide proof that 1/2 of all federal government employees have college degrees.*

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

there are 2.7 million government employees (so 28% more people than you claim)
the Gap in what employees cost…. so what it COSTS the government includes the benefits… is 52K/employee.

So that EXTRA - - is actually *$140 Billion* not 59.
Good luck with your common core math skills.

I like how you and topa just cut off the last half of the quote….
But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a *difference of over $52,000*, or 78 percent.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Sorry Doc, My point was that Gov't employees are the only ones keeping up with inflation for the past 40 years while the private sector has been destroyed by the oligarchy (1%). Now they have hired the prostitutes in Congress to finish off the Post Office since it is the largest union left. The most effective way to destroy the middle class is to export their jobs ending any reason for unions and organized labor. The did that with NAFTA, GAT and most favored nations particularly China.


----------



## RobS888

> Ahhh Rob…. from the governmetn - - the number of employees includes servicemen and women many clerical and postal workers with no college.
> 
> And why are you hating on teachers… they nearly all have 4 year degrees minimum
> 
> *Please provide proof that 1/2 of all federal government employees have college degrees.*
> 
> http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
> 
> there are 2.7 million government employees (so 28% more people than you claim)
> the Gap in what employees cost…. so what it COSTS the government includes the benefits… is 52K/employee.
> 
> So that EXTRA - - is actually *$140 Billion* not 59.
> Good luck with your common core math skills.
> 
> I like how you and topa just cut off the last half of the quote….
> But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a *difference of over $52,000*, or 78 percent.
> 
> - DrDirt


49.3 have a bachelors degree.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/profile-of-federal-civilian-non-postal-employees/

I wasn't attacking teachers, I was attacking the way conservatives tried to say teachers made too much and you know it.

The Postal service has to pay their own pension and most don't consider them federal employees.

From Wiki:

The United States Postal Service employs some 617,000 workers, making it the third-largest civilian employer in the United States behind the federal government and Wal-Mart.[38]

This site says: 2.1 million plus 700,000 postal:

http://www.federaljobs.net/

Are you considering a federal job? The federal government employs approximately 2.1 million workers plus 700,000 Postal employees. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring over 2.0 percent of the nation's work force, and the average annual salary for full-time federal job holders exceeds $81,258

I was using the current approach. It has something to do with making the post office self sufficient, they receive no federal funds.

And for your final point… benefits are hard to judge. I said it was a lot what's the problem?


----------



## RobS888

> Sorry Doc, My point was that Gov t employees are the only ones keeping up with inflation for the past 40 years while the private sector has been destroyed by the oligarchy (1%). Now they have hired the prostitutes in Congress to finish off the Post Office since it is the largest union left. The most effective way to destroy the middle class is to export their jobs ending any reason for unions and organized labor. The did that with NAFTA, GAT and most favored nations particularly China.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I think most favored status for China is a bribe.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Sorry Doc, My point was that Gov t employees are the only ones keeping up with inflation for the past 40 years while the private sector has been destroyed by the oligarchy (1%). Now they have hired the prostitutes in Congress to finish off the Post Office since it is the largest union left. The most effective way to destroy the middle class is to export their jobs ending any reason for unions and organized labor. The did that with NAFTA, GAT and most favored nations particularly China.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> I think most favored status for China is a bribe.
> 
> - RobS888


A bribe for who? It has been a total disaster for us, US. The greatest beneficiaries are the multinational corps advancing up their new world order. It was a payback to them by Clinton. Somebody got to Slick Willy telling him he could play the game and be a millionaire after office or be like Truman. He followed in the tracks of his 2 immediate predecessors and sold us, US, down the tube. China is in such turmoil it is hard to say if they are a beneficiary or not? As the US consumer base continues to decline, they lose their market. It will be eons before they really establish a self sustaining economy on their own.


----------



## DrDirt

> Ahhh Rob…. from the governmetn - - the number of employees includes servicemen and women many clerical and postal workers with no college.
> 
> *Please provide proof that 1/2 of all federal government employees have college degrees.*
> 
> http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
> 
> But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a *difference of over $52,000*, or 78 percent.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> The Postal service has to pay their own pension and most don t consider them federal employees.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> The United States Postal Service employs some 617,000 workers, making it the third-largest civilian employer in the United States behind the federal government and Wal-Mart.[38]
> 
> This site says: 2.1 million plus 700,000 postal:
> 
> I was using the current approach. It has something to do with making the post office self sufficient, they receive no federal funds.
> 
> And for your final point… benefits are hard to judge. I said it was a lot what s the problem?
> 
> - RobS888


A - Benefits are easy to judge - OPM has all the numbers for pension liabilities, healthcare, etc. THat is why I brought it up.

B - I know of NOBODY that would try to say that the US Post Office is NOT a government job.
C- they got and 11 billion bailout… so it is false to say they get No federal funds.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bailout-postal-service-begins-cost-taxpayers-110000-vote-saved-or-gained

As I asked - federal employment includes military and postal.
I admit to being surprised by 49% even excluding them, but if you bring in the active and reserves under DOD, and Postal, your percentage would drop.


----------



## Mahdeew




----------



## dbray45

Many federal workers with the higher pays work in the DC metro area (base salary plus the cost of living differential for the area). The cost of living is based on about $150,000 per household for an office based job. Childcare in this area costs about $20,000 a year, parking is $8.00 a day (if you are lucky), commute times (traffic) beats LA, the cost of food and gas are higher, housing is crazy expensive here, and the list goes on.

The pay rate for a good HVAC tech is $55.00 an hour ($114,400) and gets time and a half overtime. As a school system employee, I make less than that and, as an hourly employee, I do NOT get overtime. To make it better, all those great benefits have been watered down considerably the last 10 years (and so has the retirement), If not for the retirement, I would not be here.

This may be why many really good people in the service professions have left the area, leaving a gap for the illegals to come in (or the other way around). Whatever the case, my paycheck does not go very far anymore.

If you are planning to move to the DC metro area, You can expect to pay $500,000 in Virginia and 350,000 in Maryland for a reasonable house. The taxes in Maryland are higher, but northern VA is not bargain either.


----------



## dbray45

*Rob - Your statement-

"Your BS quotient is going way up. Especially about your daughter being a polyglot.

I have to discount everything you say unless you start substantiating some of it."

And then-

"Very cool, doesn't prove the rest though."*

*Clearly shows me, and everyone else that you can pick apart anything that is beyond your scope - just because (which is not very far) - and that you really don't know much about what you say.

I WILL accept your apologies for calling me a liar - which you basically did and that is the way I took it. You have accused me of lying on several occasions, and I have (or others) provided the data to back it up. Then you made it personal by calling me a liar about my family.

It has always been my policy to not be personal and keep it close to the thread - you crossed over that line and I am not letting turn away and dismiss it like you did. You were wrong and even though, in your mind, you feel you were justified - you were wrong and should at least be man enough to admit it and apologize!

To move on the way you did without the appropriate apology is beyond reproach. *


----------



## RobS888

I do appolgize for not believing what seemed to be an outlandish claim about your daughter.

However, not believing other stuff you post due to lack of supporting data will continue.

I only recall 1 other time that you substantiated something. Others proving your claims is news to me, could you show me some examples?

Dr dirt is the only poster I strongly believe lies to win the argument. The rest of you I believe are led down an erroneous path.


----------



## RobS888

> The Postal service has to pay their own pension and most don t consider them federal employees.
> 
> From Wiki:
> 
> The United States Postal Service employs some 617,000 workers, making it the third-largest civilian employer in the United States behind the federal government and Wal-Mart.[38]
> 
> This site says: 2.1 million plus 700,000 postal:
> 
> I was using the current approach. It has something to do with making the post office self sufficient, they receive no federal funds.
> 
> And for your final point… benefits are hard to judge. I said it was a lot what s the problem?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> A - Benefits are easy to judge - OPM has all the numbers for pension liabilities, healthcare, etc. THat is why I brought it up.
> 
> B - I know of NOBODY that would try to say that the US Post Office is NOT a government job.
> C- they got and 11 billion bailout… so it is false to say they get No federal funds.
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bailout-postal-service-begins-cost-taxpayers-110000-vote-saved-or-gained
> 
> As I asked - federal employment includes military and postal.
> I admit to being surprised by 49% even excluding them, but if you bring in the active and reserves under DOD, and Postal, your percentage would drop.
> 
> - DrDirt


I don't make the definitions up, the terms generally exclude postal workers.

It isn't my percentage, it is the stat, take it or leave it as you choose. If it is $60 billion or $160 billion it is a lot of money, but as dbray points out this is an expensive area to live.
Even if you dilute the number (49%) by bringing in reserves and Postal it is still a pretty high degreed rate.


----------



## RobS888

> A - Benefits are easy to judge - OPM has all the numbers for pension liabilities, healthcare, etc. THat is why I brought it up.
> 
> B - I know of NOBODY that would try to say that the US Post Office is NOT a government job.
> C- they got and 11 billion bailout… so it is false to say they get No federal funds.
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bailout-postal-service-begins-cost-taxpayers-110000-vote-saved-or-gained
> 
> As I asked - federal employment includes military and postal.
> I admit to being surprised by 49% even excluding them, but if you bring in the active and reserves under DOD, and Postal, your percentage would drop.
> 
> - DrDirt


Is that the same OPM that says there are 2,067,262 Total; 1,831,723 Full-Time Permanent civilian, non postal workers?

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/profile-of-federal-civilian-non-postal-employees/


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr dirt is the only poster I strongly believe lies to win the argument. The rest of you I believe are led down an erroneous path.
> 
> - RobS888


Interesting, they guy that uses Michael Moore movies for data on deficit spending and waste - claims others are lying. That is rich.

David - you are right about Cost of living in the DC area. But for high federal salaries, it is not explaining a 52K gap versus the private sector.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/federal-employees-workforce-numbers-by-state.html

Nice breakout - they show 2,753,000 government employees nation wide.

145,300 in MD
203,500 in DC
172,500 in VA.

So that total is 521,300 which is just under 20% of the federal employees population.

Seems to get the Average to be that much higher than civilians in the US…. high federal pay has to be more widespread across the US. Especially with federal pay essentially topped out at ~400K… 
http://www.wusa9.com/story/money/2015/03/23/top-paid-federal-employees-mostly-va-doctors/70337430/
The two top paid employees were Dr. Thomas A. Burdon, a thoracic surgeon with the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California, who made $402,462; and Dr. Thomas V. Cacciarelli, a surgeon at VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, who made $401,589.

President Obama makes $400,000 - not including other benefits.


----------



## DrDirt

> Is that the same OPM that says there are 2,067,262 Total; 1,831,723 Full-Time Permanent civilian, non postal workers?
> 
> https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/profile-of-federal-civilian-non-postal-employees/
> 
> - RobS888


Sure is - - read the title in your link…. PROFILD OF FEDERAL CIVILIAN NON POSTAL EMPLOYEES.

The number shows "employment in *THIS PROFILE*

So yeah they can slice and dice teh populations and give the number of employees 'excluding' any population they want. (like all state departement employees in embassies overseas too)
I Highlighted the other areas excluded - - since you have 'selective' acceptance of visual stimuli even in your own data. (not that you are cough cough …. LYING)


----------



## dbray45

The Senior Executive Service is not in your list of salaries. It is the only federal salary series that get percs not listed like bonuses (not talking awards for this or that), is exempt from the Congress salary cap, etc… These are the real government leaders and executives - and they earn every penny of what they make. These are the people that actually run the organizations while dealing with the political appointees. There are times that these folks run a muck as well but as a rule, they keep thing together. With this administration, there have been a bunch of folks that have "lost their way1"


----------



## DrDirt

> The Senior Executive Service is not in your list of salaries. It is the only federal salary series that get percs not listed like bonuses (not talking awards for this or that), is exempt from the Congress salary cap, etc… These are the real government leaders and executives - and they earn every penny of what they make. These are the people that actually run the organizations while dealing with the political appointees. There are times that these folks run a muck as well but as a rule, they keep thing together. With this administration, there have been a bunch of folks that have "lost their way1"
> 
> - dbray45


'lost their way'.... you are being waayyyy to kind!


----------



## dbray45

Rob - there are many things that happen that are not readily documented - that does not mean that they do not happen. I do not read the press, I do live in the heart of politic country and I was a government contractor for 13 years. I also pay attention and have a good idea what is going on. There are some things I have followed for years (because they are of interest to me). There are some things that I say may not be exactly to the numbers, but I am closer than you might think. I do know this - there has been not much coming out of DC for many years that if there is any truth to it, it has been skewed well beyond reality - but somewhere in there they can say that some part of it is accurate and that magically makes it a true statement. This is a game that both parties play but the Democrats excel at it while the Republican party does not have the press to back them up making it harder - but they both spin beyond belief. Many people do this here.

Take the backing out of the proposed speaker - if you watch all the BS, it was all his idea, truth is, he didn't have the fricken votes - he is just trying to save face.

I learned in the Navy, watching the news media and comparing the "real" events through military channels how to read the newspapers and listen to the news. I saw first hand the BS that the media spills out to the public that at times are nowhere near any kind of truth - just propaganda. For this reason, I do not get the newspaper and only watch to news to see the weather and maybe the hockey scores. If you really knew what goes on between countries and within governments (including ours), you would (politely said) poop your pants.


----------



## Mahdeew

David,
The media used to be semi bias long, long time ago. Even going back to the propaganda that got us involved in WWII. Alternative news can be full of spin as well. It is very hard to discover an unbiased outlet. I think Clements once said, "I don't believe anything unless it is officially denied". 
I haven't watched that brainwashing tube called TV for 19 years now and even in my travels unless there is a good movie on HBO, the tube never gets turned on. 
Amazing thing is that I remember and can recite verbatim just about every commercial I've been exposed to. That is the power of television. There is a reason Coke or some other company is willing to pay 15 million dollars for a 5 second commercial during the super bowl.
Hope you got my PM.


----------



## Mahdeew

The Unnatural Saturation of Counterproductive 'Solutions'
by Jeffrey P. Snider in Economy, Federal Reserve/Monetary Policy, Markets Tags: economic socialism, global recovery, minimum wage is zero, monetarism, robots are winning, secular stagnation, serial asset bubbles
The minimum wage is not what is commonly referred, as is being proven again as parts of the US experiment directly with this boundary. In New York, fast food workers have been given a $15 per hour minimum wage which is being celebrated by the same fast food workers who will bear the brunt of the experimentation. Some of them will be happy with the results, but there will be clear losers - the full wrath of redistribution is usually unseen which is why it persists.
Twitter had been having fun on the other side of the country with a similar minimum wage diktat, as the University of California system mandates also a $15 per hour rate. Professors, who overwhelmingly lean in a favorable direction, are being shown this mathematical reductionism up close. One physics professor who in one tweet reiterated his support took the next to realize the logic of it.

He currently pays $9-$10 per hour for six undergrad assistants now, but in order to conform to the new "minimum wage" command he will only be able to afford four, maybe three. In other words, the true minimum wage is $0 per hour.
To think it is any different for a fastfood restaurant is naïve. Business owners paying their workers more by arbitrary government setting will not bring in offsetting revenue (a very close microcosm of all that belies "aggregate demand"). The cost of the law will be felt by fewer hours being worked, leading to rationing of the business operations (checkouts and those cooking in the back, meaning longer wait times and worse service) and, where possible, rising prices. None of this is surprising or especially insightful.
And yet in 2015, six years into recovery, there is still a huge and heavy undercurrent of discontent that breaks out into this kind of nonsensical "solution." There has been a resurgent trend toward Marxism already (dating back to Occupy Wall Street that survived in sentiment beyond that pitiful outbreak) that flares up here and there with the next great Marx replica (Picketty being the last, global vestige). In a real recovery, none of this counterproductive meandering would stand a chance. If the labor market were growing as it should, in sharp contrast to how it has been presented over the past year, minimum wage laws would be the furthest from the mainstream.
The same goes with the sudden outbreak of robot envy/fear. In the case of fastfood workers, they may find themselves actually staring into that reality as beyond the short-term automated technology may be more cost-effective, and productive, than unskilled at $15. But by and large, in the overall economy, this raging tinge of disgruntlement about technology and jobs is of the same deficient impulse. In a truly functioning economy robots are quite welcome. Instead, what we have now, and have had for a decade and a half or more, gives way to this:
The bleakest news involves manufacturing and service jobs. He reports that Foxconn, the primary maker of Apple products, plans to deploy up to 1 million robots in its factories. A chief Nike executive, meanwhile, thinks the solution to rising wages in Indonesia is "engineering the labor out of the product." This would not only be more affordable, it might also silence criticism about horrendous working conditions in international factories that make beloved American products. Self-checkout aisles at the grocery store, Redbox movie rental kiosks, and touchscreen ordering at restaurants are all examples of the same trend.

For those who claim that these changes simply move jobs from one sector of the economy to another, Ford points to statistics. Blockbuster once employed roughly 60,000 employees nationally. Redbox, in the entire Chicago area, has a staff of seven. A comparison between Google and General Motors is another instructive example. After adjusting for inflation, General Motors earned a profit of around $11 billion in 1979, when it employed 840,000 workers. Google, in 2012, earned almost $14 billion and employed fewer than 38,000 people. He offers many other examples suggesting that not every job lost in one area is gained in another.
The relevant comparison is not GM to Google but rather GM to first Japan and then China, with all of Google, Silicon Valley and the like added to Wall Street and its legions of mathematicians, accountants, lawyers and offshoot day traders and house flippers (along with the burger flippers, bartenders and hospitality workers "serving" asset inflation) to pick up the "slack." Monetary redistribution is entirely the problem, not shipping off low wage jobs overseas (and getting lower price products in return) and having the government artificially price the entirety of the bottom rungs.
Innovation is the spur to all of it, so long as it doesn't become entangled in exactly these kinds of socialist misdirections. In other words, the fear of robots is somewhat justified right now but only because innovation has run aground in the decades since financialism re-charted the overall economic course. The last time machines were "taking jobs" in such huge numbers it worked out very well not just for Americans but the rest of the world. There was once background fear of tractors as farming industrialized and reconstituted the entire workforce.
In 1820, out of the estimated 2.88 million American workers, 2.07 million (72%) were farm workers. By 1880, non-farm workers outnumbered those in agriculture; in 1910, the number of farm workers in the US peaked in absolute numbers, amounting to then just less than a third of all labor; today, very few are employed in agriculture. Innovation through industrialization absorbed labor into new and once "impossible" endeavors, industry and products that were prior scarcely believed realistic and certainly beyond the reach of all but the richest. True economic growth, labor specialization as its core, should be welcomed even though it is highly messy and dynamic. The general upheaval is, over time, unquestionably received in higher living standards for everyone.
The fear today should not be ATM's removing tellers from bank branches, just as there are no more elevator operators working in moving cages amongst the nation's taller buildings. The anxiety now is instead really about the serious lack of innovation that suddenly appeared right around the time hard money, and thus financial restraint, was banished so that various control elements could endeavor upon their utopian ideals of redistribution.
In other words, across now more than a century of monetary recalculations, the object remains the same - to become what Marx called that "third party", to be the wielder of a mathematical code that will break the conventions of the past and lead to a more or even most perfect economic existence. The problem, universally, is that value is not just some convention to be deciphered, it is essential and immutable. Monetarists have believed that money was that object, pliable and a perfect substitute across ages, but money is just the expression of a much deeper ethos, a physical stand-in for the dimension of value. Political socialism is to transform individuals into a cohesive singular entity; monetary socialism is to do the same, centered always on redefining value. We live today not with free market capitalism, or even a functioning eurodollar standard anymore, but what looks very much like the inevitable end of the third age of socialist monetary experimentation. Value, beaten, battered and bastardized, so far survives.
Each of these ages of socialist economic direction has pressed further and further into the economic foundation. Where once an entire system of economy was redistributed by market forces into global modernism, we now live in communal fear of every form of job being "taken" toward even the slightest difference (what would have been slight hyperbole just a few years ago isn't so much now). Perhaps the greatest rebuttal of these socialist ages is that now workers cling to mostly stasis of every kind (fastfood jobs are now as careers?), as job and labor opportunities are almost ancient concepts applied only to past remembrances of what it all used to be like (especially among the millennials; how must the economy look to all those stuck in school, endeavoring as college-educated baristas and living at home with mom and dad until after 30). There is no economic confidence because there has been no reason for it; the more that this is planned out by these kinds of intrusions into economic inner-workings the farther away from the utopian agenda (but not the totalitarian offshoot) we "progress."
Three AGES
The economy has shrunk and with it the means to be hopeful about what should be natural - opportunity. Robots are not the problem, per se, and the minimum wage will always be zero; it is this "secular stagnation" of serial asset bubbles that have robbed the economy of its organic and natural vitality and spreadable vigor. Fix the obvious incongruity, monetarism most especially, of redistribution by government directive and economic growth will engulf and subsume what is really unnatural economic angst expressed in all these various and quickening counterproductive "solutions."
ABOOK July 2015 Payrolls FT Participation
Some disquiet about the uneven progress of market beneficence has always been present, but what is unique about especially the past six to eight years is its pervasiveness and persistence. In other words, there will always be some that fear dynamism because, again, the widespread benefits aren't readily apparent right away; but when so many are convinced in the opposite something is very, very wrong. The first step is to stop making the economy shrink and let opportunity, real opportunity not linked to asset market gambling and the fake recovery efforts, again take hold.


----------



## dbray45

You know, your article only touches on the ramifications of what has taken place and is in place. This is a serious be careful what you ask for - because it is already in place. The entire mindset of of what the American attitude and work ethic is all but gone and where it is still present has been beaten down to be inconsequential and ostracized.


----------



## Mahdeew

He really makes a good point about the minimum wage being zero and how the perception of an economic recovery is basically kicking the can down the path the end of which lies a cliff called chaos.


----------



## dbray45

I expect, that in 10-15 years, you are not going to be able to purchase the tools to make your wood projects. It is getting more difficult to get finishes that harden. Chisels, saws, and other sharp and power tools will require permits and licensing - because it you get hurt, the govt health care has to fix you (maybe). Making furniture is no longer considered a career path, per the board of education, so there is no reason to teach it and soon every aspect of it will be banned.

So, in the government way, how do you stop these "dangerous" activities? Well, for guns, Obama has made it illegal to mine lead in this county and so, all ammunition grade lead has to come from other countries - invoking the trades acts to limit munitions. The goal - to raise the price of ammunition to a point where the average citizen cannot afford it. You can have your guns but it will be worthless if you cannot use it.

I expect that the harvesting of wood will be highly taxed and all of your really nice tools will stand as a testament of what once was - unless you can afford the really expensive license fees and taxes - but who would be able to afford these items?


----------



## dbray45

The definition of economic recession - when your neighbor in unemployed
The definition of economic depression - when you are unemployed


----------



## Mahdeew

Very true… I am afraid it is already happening as well. I read in another article that woodworkers are 500X more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than average person. Our insurance premiums will be based on our purchasing habits once "dirty money" is replaced by clean plastic. Every swipe of the card becomes a footprint of your habits, addictions, deviations and good deeds. And yet people say, "I have nothing to hide" as though tomorrow will be the reflection of today and now.


----------



## DrDirt

Nevermind they will also come in and tell you your wood violates teh Lacey Act - - like Gibson Guitars
http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2014/05/26/lumber-union-protectionists-incited-swat-raid-on-my-factory-says-gibson-guitar-ceo/

A good read is "3 felonies a day" 
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
about how there are now so many laws and nebulous regulations, that you are breaking laws you don't even know exist… and we lead a peaceful life only because nobody 'in power' has decided to drop the hammer on you.

The requirement in law school at George Washington - - is that you as a student bring legal action… sue people for the perceived public good.
Sueing the DC hair salons for charging more for womens styles than mens 'supercuts'

He also led the charge to have smoking in the home banned.


----------



## dbray45

Kind of a sobering thought - ehh?

(pronounced as a long or hard "A", like the letter "A") (the folks in Toronto say this and it is so appropriate)


----------



## Mahdeew

The 3 felonies a day is a good read. 
They pass these laws so when you get out of hand, they can shut you up. Here is a list of what makes you a potential terrorist based on DHS guidelines:

1. Those that talk about "individual liberties"

2. Those that advocate for states' rights

3. Those that want "to make the world a better place"

4. "The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule"

5. Those that are interested in "defeating the Communists"

6. Those that believe "that the interests of one's own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations"

7. Anyone that holds a "political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable"

8. Anyone that possesses an "intolerance toward other religions"

9. Those that "take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals"

10. "Anti-Gay"

11. "Anti-Immigrant"

12. "Anti-Muslim"

13. "The Patriot Movement"

14. "Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians"

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States "are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the 'North American Union'"

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is "opposed to the New World Order"

23. Anyone that is engaged in "conspiracy theorizing"

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that "fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations"

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that "don't think they should have to pay taxes"

30. Anyone that "complains about bias"

31. Anyone that "believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia"

32. Anyone that "is frustrated with mainstream ideologies"

33. Anyone that "visits extremist websites/blogs"

34. Anyone that "establishes website/blog to display extremist views"

35. Anyone that "attends rallies for extremist causes"

36. Anyone that "exhibits extreme religious intolerance"

37. Anyone that "is personally connected with a grievance"

38. Anyone that "suddenly acquires weapons"

39. Anyone that "organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology"

40. "Militia or unorganized militia"

41. "General right-wing extremist"

42. Citizens that have "bumper stickers" that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an "Army of God"

44. Those that are "fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)"

45. Those that are "anti-global"

46. Those that are "suspicious of centralized federal authority"

47. Those that are "reverent of individual liberty"

48. Those that "believe in conspiracy theories"

49. Those that have "a belief that one's personal and/or national 'way of life' is under attack"

50. Those that possess "a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism"

51. Those that would "impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)"

52. Those that would "insert religion into the political sphere"

53. Anyone that would "seek to politicize religion"

54. Those that have "supported political movements for autonomy"

55. Anyone that is "anti-abortion"

56. Anyone that is "anti-Catholic"

57. Anyone that is "anti-nuclear"

58. "Rightwing extremists"

59. "Returning veterans"

60. Those concerned about "illegal immigration"

61. Those that "believe in the right to bear arms"

62. Anyone that is engaged in "ammunition stockpiling"

63. Anyone that exhibits "fear of Communist regimes"

64. "Anti-abortion activists"

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about "the New World Order" in a "derogatory" manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed "to the collection of federal income taxes"

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag ("Don't Tread On Me")

71. Those that believe in "end times" prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/72-types-of-americans-that-are-considered-potential-terrorists-in-official-government-documents


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Looks like the missed #73, belief in the US Constitution.


----------



## RobS888

> He really makes a good point about the minimum wage being zero and how the perception of an economic recovery is basically kicking the can down the path the end of which lies a cliff called chaos.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Same crap different day! You can't use charts like this without correcting for the retiring of the largest generation. We have been over this several times.


----------



## RobS888

> Very true… I am afraid it is already happening as well. I read in another article that woodworkers are 500X more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than average person. Our insurance premiums will be based on our purchasing habits once "dirty money" is replaced by clean plastic. Every swipe of the card becomes a footprint of your habits, addictions, deviations and good deeds. And yet people say, "I have nothing to hide" as though tomorrow will be the reflection of today and now.
> 
> - mrjinx007


If we are more likely to get sick we should pay for it.


----------



## RobS888

> The 3 felonies a day is a good read.
> They pass these laws so when you get out of hand, they can shut you up. Here is a list of what makes you a potential terrorist based on DHS guidelines:
> 
> 1. Those that talk about "individual liberties"
> 
> 2. Those that advocate for states' rights
> 
> 3. Those that want "to make the world a better place"
> 
> *4. "The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule"*
> 
> - mrjinx007


DHS is punishing colonists retroactively? It must be hard to carry out the sentencing.


----------



## RobS888

> Kind of a sobering thought - ehh?
> 
> (pronounced as a long or hard "A", like the letter "A") (the folks in Toronto say this and it is so appropriate)
> 
> - dbray45


Do you know how to spell Canada? C eh?, N eh?, D eh?

Bob and Doug Mckenzie.

http://m.memegenerator.net/instance/63328769


----------



## RobS888

> Dr dirt is the only poster I strongly believe lies to win the argument. The rest of you I believe are led down an erroneous path.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Interesting, they guy that uses Michael Moore movies for data on deficit spending and waste - claims others are lying. That is rich.
> 
> - DrDirt


Michael Moore lied about the IOUs? No way! Have any proof? Or just that you don't like him?

Why don't we count anyone that gets a pay check from the federal gov as a fed worker?


----------



## Mahdeew

Rob, I really don't get your agenda, your concepts or your intentions. Obviously you are suffering from some sort of sickness that most tribal oriented people suffer from- fight to the death for "the cause" regardless of the outcome. That is okay with me. Unfortunately, there are more conditioned people like you than there are free thinkers out there right now and that is AOK. The chart does not reflect the retired people. As you can see,it says "Full-time employed".
I have ignored your most of your fallacious comments in the past in hopes that people can see right through your hypocritical comments and concepts. You don't present an argument, rather use an argument to create an argument for entertainment. So, let me play your game for a while. 


> He really makes a good point about the minimum wage being zero and how the perception of an economic recovery is basically kicking the can down the path the end of which lies a cliff called chaos.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> Same crap different day! You can t use charts like this without correcting for the retiring of the largest generation. We have been over this several times.
> 
> - RobS888


So, you mean that events like this can not be charted?? Do you have a proof in this regard?



> Very true… I am afraid it is already happening as well. I read in another article that woodworkers are 500X more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than average person. Our insurance premiums will be based on our purchasing habits once "dirty money" is replaced by clean plastic. Every swipe of the card becomes a footprint of your habits, addictions, deviations and good deeds. And yet people say, "I have nothing to hide" as though tomorrow will be the reflection of today and now.
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> If we are more likely to get sick we should pay for it.
> 
> - RobS888


Can you prove that a occasional woodworker in the middle of a Forrest is more exposed to pollutants than the person jogging in a highly pollutant city?



> The 3 felonies a day is a good read.
> They pass these laws so when you get out of hand, they can shut you up. Here is a list of what makes you a potential terrorist based on DHS guidelines:
> 
> 1. Those that talk about "individual liberties"
> 
> 2. Those that advocate for states' rights
> 
> 3. Those that want "to make the world a better place"
> 
> *4. "The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule"*
> 
> - mrjinx007
> 
> DHS is punishing colonists retroactively? It must be hard to carry out the sentencing.
> 
> - RobS888


You missed the concept totally..



> Kind of a sobering thought - ehh?
> 
> (pronounced as a long or hard "A", like the letter "A") (the folks in Toronto say this and it is so appropriate)
> 
> - dbray45
> 
> Do you know how to spell Canada? C eh?, N eh?, D eh?
> 
> Bob and Doug Mckenzie.
> 
> http://m.memegenerator.net/instance/63328769
> 
> - RobS888


When I was touring Canada, I stopped in a gas station to get a tuneup for my bike. The guy said, " I'll give your bike a good blow job and check everything else" What does "blow job" means in this context? Needless to say I was concerned for my bike at that time. Stupid of me.
Can you for once evaluate the context instead of challenging the semantics.. Anyone who has read your comments so far can testify that you are more interested in arguments than substance. 
This doesn't mean I don't like you or resent your personality or your perverted lies and concepts. I have worked with deranged geniuses all my life.


----------



## Mahdeew

So before you ask for an apology, I am sorry.


----------



## RobS888

> So before you ask for an apology, I am sorry.
> 
> - mrjinx007


Never asked for an apology from dr dirt, so why should your attack bother me?

If you are shown something is wrong over many posts and eventually agree that the employment ratio includes students and millions of retirees. And that the employment ratio is pretty meaningless when the largest cohort is retiring… then a month later try using it again it is *the same crap different day.* 
Oh, the chart says full time employed is 54% near the beginning of your chart. 54% of what? 54% of civilian, non-institutionalized population with full time jobs.

You have used that list of 72 supposed infractions (several of which would appear to need a mental issue to believe) before. So again, *same crap different day.*

My agenda is keeping you guys honest. I try to support most posts. When I read something that sounds wrong, I research it and contest it if it is wrong or misleading.

So other than a serious liberal bent, I don't have an agenda other than the truth.


----------



## RobS888

> The 3 felonies a day is a good read.
> They pass these laws so when you get out of hand, they can shut you up. Here is a list of what makes you a potential terrorist based on DHS guidelines:
> 
> 1. Those that talk about "individual liberties"
> 
> 2. Those that advocate for states' rights
> 
> 3. Those that want "to make the world a better place"
> 
> 4. "The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule"
> 
> 5. Those that are interested in "defeating the Communists"
> 
> 6. Those that believe "that the interests of one's own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations"
> 
> 7. Anyone that holds a "political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable"
> 
> 8. Anyone that possesses an "intolerance toward other religions"
> 
> 9. Those that "take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals"
> 
> 10. "Anti-Gay"
> 
> 11. "Anti-Immigrant"
> 
> 12. "Anti-Muslim"
> 
> 13. "The Patriot Movement"
> 
> 14. "Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians"
> 
> 15. Members of the Family Research Council
> 
> 16. Members of the American Family Association
> 
> 17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States "are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the 'North American Union "
> 
> 18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
> 
> 19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
> 
> 20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
> 
> 21. Members of the Christian Action Network
> 
> 22. Anyone that is "opposed to the New World Order"
> 
> 23. Anyone that is engaged in "conspiracy theorizing"
> 
> 24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
> 
> 25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
> 
> 26. Anyone that "fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations"
> 
> 27. The militia movement
> 
> 28. The sovereign citizen movement
> 
> 29. Those that "don't think they should have to pay taxes"
> 
> 30. Anyone that "complains about bias"
> 
> 31. Anyone that "believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia"
> 
> 32. Anyone that "is frustrated with mainstream ideologies"
> 
> 33. Anyone that "visits extremist websites/blogs"
> 
> 34. Anyone that "establishes website/blog to display extremist views"
> 
> 35. Anyone that "attends rallies for extremist causes"
> 
> 36. Anyone that "exhibits extreme religious intolerance"
> 
> 37. Anyone that "is personally connected with a grievance"
> 
> 38. Anyone that "suddenly acquires weapons"
> 
> 39. Anyone that "organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology"
> 
> 40. "Militia or unorganized militia"
> 
> 41. "General right-wing extremist"
> 
> 42. Citizens that have "bumper stickers" that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
> 
> 43. Those that refer to an "Army of God"
> 
> 44. Those that are "fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)"
> 
> 45. Those that are "anti-global"
> 
> 46. Those that are "suspicious of centralized federal authority"
> 
> 47. Those that are "reverent of individual liberty"
> 
> 48. Those that "believe in conspiracy theories"
> 
> 49. Those that have "a belief that one's personal and/or national 'way of life' is under attack"
> 
> 50. Those that possess "a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism"
> 
> 51. Those that would "impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)"
> 
> 52. Those that would "insert religion into the political sphere"
> 
> 53. Anyone that would "seek to politicize religion"
> 
> 54. Those that have "supported political movements for autonomy"
> 
> 55. Anyone that is "anti-abortion"
> 
> 56. Anyone that is "anti-Catholic"
> 
> 57. Anyone that is "anti-nuclear"
> 
> 58. "Rightwing extremists"
> 
> 59. "Returning veterans"
> 
> 60. Those concerned about "illegal immigration"
> 
> 61. Those that "believe in the right to bear arms"
> 
> 62. Anyone that is engaged in "ammunition stockpiling"
> 
> 63. Anyone that exhibits "fear of Communist regimes"
> 
> 64. "Anti-abortion activists"
> 
> 65. Those that are against illegal immigration
> 
> 66. Those that talk about "the New World Order" in a "derogatory" manner
> 
> 67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
> 
> 68. Those that are opposed "to the collection of federal income taxes"
> 
> 69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
> 
> 70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag ("Don't Tread On Me")
> 
> 71. Those that believe in "end times" prophecies
> 
> 72. Evangelical Christians
> 
> http://thetruthwins.com/archives/72-types-of-americans-that-are-considered-potential-terrorists-in-official-government-documents
> 
> - mrjinx007


I followed the link and it took me to more links that connected to army memos and training presentations. Didn't see anything about DHS or it targeting anyone. In fact the few I looked at said avoid people that…. nothing about targeting them. So there seems to be a disconnect between how you presented this data and the supporting documents.

As a former member of the Air Force I can tell you that military personnel are required to be apolitical. You aren't allowed to proselytize or recruit for political groups, so getting involved with any fringe group would be frowned upon.


----------



## DrDirt

Not about distribution… sorry - - -but it is about value of the trades…..
This showed up at the bottom of a news story link…. the pic got me becuase it had a guy with a handplane.

*Job Growth Through 2022* AARP article.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics just came out with projections for the fastest-growing jobs between now and 2022. Not surprisingly, the demand for workers in the health care field continues to grow as the population ages. Here are the top 10 jobs with the most growth between 2012-2022. - Istock

But Slide #9 was interesting.
http://www.aarp.org/work/job-hunting/info-2014/future-job-growth-photo.html?cmp=BAC-OUTBRAIN-WORKJOBS-SLIDE-TITLESDSO_37772919_Growing+Job+Fields_1534129#slide1
Carpenter is on the top 10 growth market jobs


----------



## dbray45

The carpenters where I work tell me that their positions' pay scales do not keep up with the economy. HVAC in this area is $35 - 55 an hour (for good ones) and a master carpenter is only $30. Big disconnect but when the entire growth of a country is now based upon housing and the most important job is carpentry, there is a lot of competition for those jobs - eating is required.

I work in IT and it isn't keeping up either.


----------



## RobS888

That is what this thread is about, the middle class is not progressing because most of the money is going to the top. The dot com bust (thanks wall street), The Great Recession (thanks wall street), and the housing bust (thanks wall street) wiped out savings and stole 10 years of growth. I work with software and my company stopped raises and 401k matching for 4 years. At least no one was laid off.

At the debate Bernie Sanders (the next president) said "congress does not regulate Wall Street, Wall Street regulates congress" massive applause. I think he is 100% correct.


----------



## dbray45

THE problem is that the government has effectively moved ALL of our manufacturing off of our shores taking away ALL of the industries that WE need to prosper. They actively make it impossible to hire people and compete with offshore companies and the offshore companies have their country's government make it impossible to compete with them in their country.

The result, we move our manufacturing offshore and get almost the same perks the competition. It is your liberal government that is killing our jobs, economy, and country.

They would have the housing outsourced if they could!


----------



## RobS888

I disagree, outsourcing is allowed by the laws, the laws are made by congress. Da evil gubment doesn't make the laws.

Why hasn't the republican house and senate taken up the issue? I can't see the Dems blocking it. They would welcome it. The could take a break between trying to shutdown the ACA and have a quick vote on disincentivizing offshoring.

Hmmm during the 2012 debate between President Obama and Rmoney, this exact topic was brought up and you had the democrat criticizing the laws that benefitted offshoring (sp) and the rich guy that was a corporate raider saying that wasn't the case. The rich guy was proven wrong.

If you feel strongly that that is the problem, vote for Sanders.


----------



## dbray45

Ok - Congress is NOT part of the government.

The President, who creates the "treaty" agreements that we are the only ones that follow - is NOT part of the government.

The EPA, that creates ridiculous laws and fines - is NOT part of the government.

Sanders says what ever he thinks will sell - if you are a SOCIALIST.


----------



## RobS888

EPA is doing what the laws that created it mandated it to do.

Aren't treaties ratified by congress?

None of the problem you decry are recent, they started under and flourished under republicans. Elect people that get into bed with businesses and this is what you get.

People get the government they deserve.

Now, now if you continue with name calling you will get this thread closed like the dirty one did in the DKV thread.


----------



## dbray45

it is to obligatory "you". If a person considers it to be them, so be it. It is not specifically directed to anyone specific.


----------



## RobS888

Good try, but you tried to insult a group that you know includes me. That makes it specific to me.


----------



## dbray45

If that is the way you want to take it - it is your option exclusively. If I am directing something to you directly Rob, I will tell you specifically. We have had discussions before and you (Rob) know when I am saying something to you specifically - probably because I start out with (Rob-).


----------



## DrDirt

> EPA is doing what the laws that created it mandated it to do.
> 
> Aren t treaties ratified by congress?
> 
> None of the problem you decry are recent, they started under and flourished under republicans. Elect people that get into bed with businesses and this is what you get.
> 
> People get the government they deserve.
> 
> Now, now if you continue with name calling you will get this thread closed like the dirty one did in the DKV thread.
> 
> - RobS888


Treaties USED to be ratified. Now the iran nuke treaty is an "automatic" pass unless they had the 2/3 veto
It used to be that congress ratified things versus needing 67 votes to stop a treaty

There was no mandate for the EPA to expand pollutants to include CO2


----------



## DrDirt

> The carpenters where I work tell me that their positions pay scales do not keep up with the economy. HVAC in this area is $35 - 55 an hour (for good ones) and a master carpenter is only $30. Big disconnect but when the entire growth of a country is now based upon housing and the most important job is carpentry, there is a lot of competition for those jobs - eating is required.
> 
> I work in IT and it isn t keeping up either.
> 
> - dbray45


Indeed a 40K salary is roughly 20 bucks an hour

Surprised it was selected as a top 10 growing field. Certainly aligns with discussion of the average age in the trades being 45. People that know how to fix stuff and are willing to get dirty will have opportunities.

40k is a national average though. 40k in a rural area may be pretty good. But would be awful in gaithersburg - - you couldn't afford to have a work van and park it daily in NYC with a 40K gross salary


----------



## dbray45

It may be the average but here in the DC metro area, incomes are higher because the cost of living is much higher.


----------



## RobS888

> If that is the way you want to take it - it is your option exclusively. If I am directing something to you directly Rob, I will tell you specifically. We have had discussions before and you (Rob) know when I am saying something to you specifically - probably because I start out with (Rob-).
> 
> - dbray45


Sorry, if I mistook your response to me as a response to me.

Did I waste my time apologizing to you? I hope not.

Does your daughter speak Arabic? If so, ask her how to say "think about winter". That is my favourite phrase of all time.


----------



## RobS888

Who gave the President the right to fast track treaties? Oh yeah it was this summer, so it must have been a republican congress. So you see they tacitly approved all ongoing negotiations at that time. The Iran deal was announced in April, so why did they authorize fast track if not for this treaty?

Also, congress did vote on the Iran deal. They just couldn't get enough votes to stop it, so sad too bad…That is sad for them, but they knew it was coming up. They only needed 60 votes to stop it by overriding the filibuster.

It must really suck to lose by 1 or 2 votes against something you pre approved. It is like when Mitch McConnell or that guy from CT vetoed their own bills

The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 that the EPA could regulate co2 in the atmosphere.

This is their mission:

EPA's basic mission is to protect human health and the environment-air, water, and land. EPA, state, local and tribal agencies work together to ensure compliance with environmental laws passed by Congress, state legislatures and tribal governments. These laws cover four types of environmental regulations: controlling the emission discharge of pollution; regulating certain industrial waste and products; public information requirements; and cleanup of contaminated sites.

http://www3.epa.gov/region9/enforcement/intro.html

http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/24/supreme-court-the-epa-can-and-will-regulate-co2/


----------



## RobS888

> It may be the average but here in the DC metro area, incomes are higher because the cost of living is much higher.
> 
> - dbray45


You can't prove it to him, he knows he is right. How can 1/2 million government workers have that much of an affect on our area? I mean it is only 1/2 million workers and he said they average 120k. How could that many highly paid (that was the point, eh? How much more they made) people affect costs in a relatively small area.


----------



## dbray45

Rob - couple of points
The President has done these things under what he calls "Executive Order" the legality is under question and there are lawsuits pending but for some reason that I do not know, the things are allowed to become law until ruling.

The Republican Congress has been completely worthless (unless you are a Democrat) - and that is a problem. The best case scenario is when there is total grid lock and nothing gets done. Then they leave the people alone.

In DC, you have the government, then you have the lobbies and lobbyists, the contractors and there is the supporting research people (I think that all of the drug, and countless other companies have offices here too) - these are the people that drive the costs up by their shear numbers (millions of people). All of these people want their people near to the folks in the government that make decisions that affect them. Anybody that sells to the government have offices (and people) here as well - because the government can and does order anything from quantities of one to many millions with the stroke of a pen.


----------



## dbray45

As for CO2 - plants require CO2 to live. The more CO2, the more plants turn green and leafy - so they can produce more oxygen. The idea that the EPA is going to "regulate" what people do when in nature (lets say when Mt. St. Helen popped off over 4 hours) the amount of CO2 (or anything else) that is generated far exceeds what the entire American continent produces in a year.

Nature provides many checks and balances that are so beyond what people can comprehend. There is evidence that shows where the prairie caught fire and 100 of miles (if not more) of charred wasteland were created and then, it all grew back. Do you think there was no smoke, and CO2 created - thank goodness the EPA was not there - the US would have been taxed and fined for "letting this happen!" Did you know that the Sequoia requires a substantial fire to release the seeds from their cones? Did you know that there is an Eastern Sequoia that requires their sprouting bush to burn off before the tree will grow?

All the EPA is for is to "control" and reduce the ability for companies to survive in this country.


----------



## dbray45

I know that this will be construed as a "not caring …" Do I think that companies should be responsible and make adjustment to what they do - absolutely.

The problem is that the EPA attitude (along with the Democrats and Unions) is that companies and businesses "need to pay for being successful" right up until they either go out of business or leave the country - and take their jobs with them-and that is exactly what they have done.


----------



## dbray45

Another example - let's look at Maryland. They decided that they wanted to clean up the air quality. They passed a whole bunch of laws and taxes that targeted businesses that produced anything. We do have cleaner air and almost all of the major employers have left the state. Our schools, for vocational training, teach how to build a house, and restaurant management - woodworking and metal shop is no longer taught.

Oh, and when all those companies left or shutdown, they took their tax paying employees as well. When property taxes are not paid, government infrastructure is not paid - like schools, police, fire, ambulance and other services.

This has been going on for a many years but O'Malley stepped it up a few notches. Now, we are a "safe haven" state and pay out to people that actively break the law, do not pay into the system and as a result crime is escalating, the police are told they cannot touch certain ethnic groups or they are "profiling" (which I think is a good thing), the schools have gone from the best in the country to "maybe not so good", the welfare costs are through the roof, and the list just keeps going - all the while, the people that are paying for it are doing so because they cannot afford to leave.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob - couple of points
> The President has done these things under what he calls "Executive Order" the legality is under question and there are lawsuits pending but for some reason that I do not know, the things are allowed to become law until ruling.
> 
> The Republican Congress has been completely worthless (unless you are a Democrat) - and that is a problem. The best case scenario is when there is total grid lock and nothing gets done. Then they leave the people alone.
> 
> In DC, you have the government, then you have the lobbies and lobbyists, the contractors and there is the supporting research people (I think that all of the drug, and countless other companies have offices here too) - these are the people that drive the costs up by their shear numbers (millions of people). All of these people want their people near to the folks in the government that make decisions that affect them. Anybody that sells to the government have offices (and people) here as well - because the government can and does order anything from quantities of one to many millions with the stroke of a pen.
> 
> - dbray45


I was going to point out how much that many people live here to be near the Capitol for various reasons, but have no numbers on it, so I left it out.

The fast track authority wasn't an executive order, and the EPA was created by executive order but was approved by congress, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Since 2008 the republicans have not been trying to govern, but to make Obama a failure. See Mitch Mcconnels job 1 comment. All they have succeeded in doing is punishing the entire country.

Our welfare should be first and foremost, not trying to cause a reverse Midas touch for the president.


----------



## Bonka

A good read just out. "Wealth, Poverty and Politics," by Thomas Sowell.


----------



## RobS888

> As for CO2 - plants require CO2 to live. The more CO2, the more plants turn green and leafy - so they can produce more oxygen. The idea that the EPA is going to "regulate" what people do when in nature (lets say when Mt. St. Helen popped off over 4 hours) the amount of CO2 (or anything else) that is generated far exceeds what the entire American continent produces in a year.
> 
> Nature provides many checks and balances that are so beyond what people can comprehend. There is evidence that shows where the prairie caught fire and 100 of miles (if not more) of charred wasteland were created and then, it all grew back. Do you think there was no smoke, and CO2 created - thank goodness the EPA was not there - the US would have been taxed and fined for "letting this happen!" Did you know that the Sequoia requires a substantial fire to release the seeds from their cones? Did you know that there is an Eastern Sequoia that requires their sprouting bush to burn off before the tree will grow?
> 
> All the EPA is for is to "control" and reduce the ability for companies to survive in this country.
> 
> - dbray45


Yes and too much co2 is bad for mammals. As I understand it foresters try to let Forrest fires burn periodically. Not sure what it matters if some plants need fire/heat shock to germinate. There will be sequoias on the east and west coasts, but nothing in between?

Do you have data on mt St. Helens eruption co2 production vs NA yearly production? I find that to believe. In a previous thread we saw that man made co2 equaled 11 krakatoas every year. Krakatoa was much bigger than mt St. Helens.


----------



## RobS888

> I know that this will be construed as a "not caring …" Do I think that companies should be responsible and make adjustment to what they do - absolutely.
> 
> The problem is that the EPA attitude (along with the Democrats and Unions) is that companies and businesses "need to pay for being successful" right up until they either go out of business or leave the country - and take their jobs with them-and that is exactly what they have done.
> 
> - dbray45


Perhaps you should start a thread on the EPA, it is at best a side issue to unequal wealth distribution.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> That is what this thread is about, the middle class is not progressing because most of the money is going to the top. The dot com bust (thanks wall street), The Great Recession (thanks wall street), and the housing bust (thanks wall street) wiped out savings and stole 10 years of growth. I work with software and my company stopped raises and 401k matching for 4 years. At least no one was laid off.
> 
> At the debate Bernie Sanders (the next president) said "congress does not regulate Wall Street, Wall Street regulates congress" massive applause. I think he is 100% correct.
> 
> - RobS888


It is beginning to boil do to voting either socialist vs corporatist (fascist). Since there is little point in voting to ship more jobs overseas, lower taxes for the billionaires, ending Social Security and Medicare, I guess socialist is the only option for about 95% of us, US. There is probably about 5% that won't feel the pinch too bad as the deterioration continues.


----------



## RobS888

> That is what this thread is about, the middle class is not progressing because most of the money is going to the top. The dot com bust (thanks wall street), The Great Recession (thanks wall street), and the housing bust (thanks wall street) wiped out savings and stole 10 years of growth. I work with software and my company stopped raises and 401k matching for 4 years. At least no one was laid off.
> 
> At the debate Bernie Sanders (the next president) said "congress does not regulate Wall Street, Wall Street regulates congress" massive applause. I think he is 100% correct.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> It is beginning to boil do to voting either socialist vs corporatist (fascist). Since there is little point in voting to ship more jobs overseas, lower taxes for the billionaires, ending Social Security and Medicare, I guess socialist is the only option for about 95% of us, US. There is probably about 5% that won t feel the pinch too bad as the deterioration continues.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


A little socialism isn't bad, especially since we have been sort of on the corporate path since RayGun anyway. It is time for a change.

I saw the CEO of go pro the other day on the late show and decided that since he is a billionaire from selling little cameras, I'll never buy one because either he is charging too much or not sharing some of the wealth within his company or both.

I don't by Apple stuff for the same reason.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Most of the popular gov't programs of the 20th century are democratic socialist; Social Security, Medicare, Interstate Highway System, fire departments, police, public transportation, ~ nearly everything the oligarchy needs to facilitate their business activities that they do not want to help pay for or maintain that are deteriorating beyond repair.


----------



## RobS888

> Most of the popular gov t programs of the 20th century are democratic socialist; Social Security, Medicare, Interstate Highway System, fire departments, police, public transportation, ~ nearly everything the oligarchy needs to facilitate their business activities that they do not want to help pay for or maintain that are deteriorating beyond repair.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


No argument from me at all, they didn't build that.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Oppression of the peons requires an ignorant electorate. The Texas Board of Education has been leading the charge providing dumbed down history books attempting to force feed obedience to students. They even went on strike last year in Denver Removing labor history and civil disobedience has been in process for years. Thom Hartmann explained why so many of the nations textbooks are from that source, but I do not recall his explanations.

Last week, on Thursday or Friday on Hartmann's radio show, they talked about Texas Board of Education removing "slavery" from our history claiming the "workers" were imported from Africa.


----------



## RobS888

Pretty sad, I remember seeing a few years back that many school districts just buy the Texas text books. It seems that they are large and have done the work in assembling it.

Would that explain why students are doing so poorly, they are taught as republicans (stupidly) but tested as democrats?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Would that explain why students are doing so poorly, they are taught as republicans (stupidly) but tested as democrats?
> 
> - RobS888


I remember seeing a turn of the 20th century test to graduate from grammar school (8th grade). I do not believe most of the kids I graduated high school with in the 60s could have passed it. When I started college, one of the kids who graduated a year ahead of me was in quite a few of the same classes. He had spent the first year catching up on what he missed in high school. It seemed quite obvious a turn of the century grammar school diploma was equal to a late 20th century high school diploma. Just the other day I heard a comment on a radio discussion indicating a college degree is now equal to a high school diploma of 50 years ago. How much further will the fall from grace for us, US, go?


----------



## RobS888

We need to drop the (unjustified, at this point) hubris and look at how Finland and Canada teach their kids.

I read that Finland puts a lot of money into teacher training including pay, so they can get good people into teaching.

Ontario consolidates all the money at the provincial level and distributes it evenly amongst all schools. Ontario has the third largest school system in NA, so they are certainly large enough to have faced many issues.

EDIT:
Here is the article, I was wrong ON has more students than 45 states, so they are 5th largest in NA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/opinion/why-students-do-better-overseas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Redoak49

I read most of the posts concerning education and in general do not agree with much that has been written. The kids today have the opportunity to get a much better education than I did a generation ago. What is missing in the comments is that the primary responsibility for a kids education is the parents. Do they monitor the kids and their grades? Do they check and make certain that the homework is done?

My kids graduated with a much better education than I did. Coming out of high school, they had already taken freshman college level Calculus, chemistry and physics. Based upon their high school education they got into one of the best engineering schools in the country and got great jobs after graduating. My kids were much better educated than I was coming out of high school.

We should not put this all on the schools or the teachers. Certainly there are ways to make the schools better. One would be to pay the really good teachers more than the not so good ones. The opportunities for a very good education are there in most high schools, the kids just need to take advantage of it and parents need to be parents and make certain the kids are doing the best they can.


----------



## RobS888

Redoak49,

I agree, parents are very important to the child's desire and drive for an education. A couple of ethnic groups have come to the US with nothing and within a generation or two are winning national spelling bees and producing musical prodigies.

On the other hand, many people will credit a certain teacher with spurring them on to do better.

I think the playing field should be completely level, all students get the same money spent on them and it should be a priority to get kids the best education we can.

Smaller classes, better trained teachers. Can't imagine why anyone would disagree with that.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

One of the biggest problems is the lack of responsibility which has roots in two sources; politically motivated teaching instead of focus on the basics and family economic issues. 2 parents working leaving the kids to fend for themselves started the downward spiral. It has progressed to large populations of working poor whose kids have no stable base of operations. The school my wife works at has a turnover of about 25% of the students during the school year.

There are definitely more opportunities than in the past for those who are capable and motivated to take advantage. The largest problem is kids reporting to school for kindergarten who have not had a conversation with an intelligent adult yet! ;-( That statement was from the superintendent of a local school district. He had a background in business. When he took the job, he expected to bring efficiency to the system and straighten it out getting stellar results in short order. What he found were so many mandates and restrictions, there was very little he could do.


----------



## RobS888

Perhaps it is time to start again, with larger state-wide districts and new curriculum.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Certainly removing all the social guidance, maintaining discipline in the classroom, and focusing on the basics we were taught 50 years ago would go a long way.

There was a kid who was hitting other kids every day at recess. When he did, she made him walk with her and talked about his behavior. In a few weeks she had him behaving most of the time. Then the hammer fell. He is supposed to be some kind of special behaviour case. That was not in his education plan. Back to hitting other kids everyday ;-(


----------



## dbray45

Bob - I have to take issue with the conversation. Earlier you stated:

It is beginning to boil do to voting either socialist vs corporatist (fascist).

Your terms are incorrect-

Fascism by definition - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Examples of FASCISM
1. the rise of Fascism in Europe before World War II
2. From the first hours of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, the propagandists on both sides of the conflict portrayed the struggle in stark, Manichaean language. The totalitarian nature of both regimes made this inevitable. On one side stood Hitler, fascism, the myth of German supremacy; on the other side stood Stalin, communism, and the international proletarian revolution. -Anne Applebaum, New York Review of Books, 25 Oct. 2007

I am not a fascist nor will ever be, quite the contrary, I want less government, more accountability (individual and government), and to be left alone. People should be responsible for their own actions and not have everything they do be someone else's fault. Your entire conversation above is a conversation that totally promotes socialism and the, "Most of the popular gov't programs of the 20th century are democratic socialist…" You are getting these from people that collectively have no desire to do anything with their lives.

Their attitude of going to work, put this widget on the widget and pay me a millionaire salary doesn't work, the USSR proved that the Utopia may be a great idea - if you are a colony of ants. Even in our country, all of those communes in the '60s - where are they now? Great idea but people do not work and think that way. What you find is people want the "equal everything" - as long as it suits them and then, they want better. The only way that "better" can happen is when YOU have the control to make it so - at which time the commune fell apart.

Our country was built on the premise that in spite of overwhelming odds - we can do it and succeed. I am sorry that you do not have that spark, I do. When I found myself unemployed, I did not take unemployment, I started a company with $200 in my account and a $600 mortgage payment due - and I have paid all my bills since. The stuff that I see here is the attitude of, "Oh well, its not my fault that I cannot pay my obligations, let the government pay for it because they have lots of money!" Even more sadly, this attitude seems to be more the norm.

Once you surrender your control of any situation to someone else - they have the control, end of story. They allow you to have what you want for a while - until there is no going back, then everything that you want is irrelevant - it is what they want. You and your loved ones will be told what jobs they will have, based upon what they think you should be doing, you will get the "benefits" that they think you should have, you will get the education based upon what they think you should get, you will live in the house that they think you should be living. (oh wait, the transformation is almost complete, isn't it). Unlike in the '60s and people walked away from the commune, once the government has complete control (if it isn't too late already), you cannot walk away and do better - you are going to stay right where THEY want you!

I have no desire to fall into that trap, and it is a trap!

You have, I guess, decided that someone that chooses to think and do things based upon their ideals is a fascist but that is greatly incorrect. Where our government is headed is Socialism and as a result, you are correct in that being a fascist government.

I am done with this thread. I am truly sorry that you feel the way do. The really sad part is that I fear that your thoughts have caught on AND may be the path that we are headed. I have tried to offer a different way of looking at the situation but all I have gotten is grief - just plain tired of it.

Rob - you want proof of everything that anybody tries to tell you that is not the same as your mindset but if it falls into what you want to hear, you take it as gospel. Like I said before, be very careful of what you ask, you may get it.

Take good care - all you!


----------



## RobS888

Any proof would have been nice. You want to say what you think is correct without any proof that is fine, you have the right to be wrong and outspoken (wrongspoken), however, I have the right to challenge. Weird that the challenging seems to make you leave.

You confuse socialism with communism.

You grew up with the benefits of socialism, but reject it now and most likely just because you don't want to pay your share.

What did I accept as "gospel" that you feel is wrong? Let's see if I am one-sided.


----------



## Redoak49

I would try to rescue anyone even if I did not care for them. But…....I would be cautious jumping into debris filled flood water. I do not want to die on an impossible situation.


----------



## Mahdeew

Redoak49, I agree. Sometimes you just have to use common sense and logic in a crisis situation. Easier said than done. As far as the picture taking goes, the logic works both ways I suppose.


----------



## RobS888

Classic case of cognitive dissonance!

A guy works (excels based on rank) for and retires from a socialistic organization then decries socialism. How funny is that, bet he doesn't mind his retirement pay at what 50?

I'll add this to the growing list of fantasies about this country: we aren't a democracy, we were founded by Christians, we were created as a capitalist country.


----------



## Mahdeew

Yep. My neighbor served in WWII and has been retired since 1972. Aside from a few candidates, most of them want to raise military spending and cut the rest.


----------



## Mahdeew

If we have had mandatory draft, I bet we would have 1/10 of the wars we engage in mainly because of public outrage.


----------



## RobS888

You sound like Michael Moore now. He was not happy that no senators had sons fighting in Iraq.

We should have national service for 2 years. Serve in military for everyone, no exceptions.


----------



## DanYo

> !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Dan um Style


Bump


----------



## Mahdeew

> You sound like Michael Moore now. He was not happy that no senators had sons fighting in Iraq.
> 
> We should have national service for 2 years. Serve in military for everyone, no exceptions.
> 
> - RobS888


I like that idea.


----------



## RobS888

Of course that would be socialistic to make everyone, best leave off the rich, so it doesn't sound socialistic.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*Bob - I have to take issue with the conversation. Earlier you stated:

It is beginning to boil do to voting either socialist vs corporatist (fascist).*

They have been arguing over the definition of Fascism since WWII after the Nazis adopted it. Fascism being defined as Mussolini invented it; having the corporations send their representatives to parliament rather than the people voting on them. Today, the representatives should be required to wear overalls like NASCAR and NHRA drivers do. Everywhere they go, all their sponsors are readily identifiable including foreign interests and governments.

Even Mussolini himself said "corporatism" would be a better term than "fascism." These are current choices boiled down to the most basic terms.

I never said anyone on here is a fascist. I said those are the choices you can vote for. I will never vote for expansion of (corporatism) fascism; therefore, by default I will be voting socialist even thought I will never support the Socialist Party.

*I am not a fascist nor will ever be, quite the contrary, I want less government, more accountability (individual and government), and to be left alone.*

Since corporations are people too and they refuse to behave themselves you need a means of enforcement; ie, government enforcement of criminal law and safety standards. Since Wall Street adopted fraud as a business model in the late 80s or 90s, shall we them to continue stealing people's homes and retirement accounts, shall we use government law enforcement, or shall we allow vigilante committees to regulated them? A vigilante committee introduced law and order to Beaverhead County, MT in the 1860s. Do you think that would work on a national scale? Bush 43/Cheney's model of libertarianism introduced to Iraq with less government leaving everyone alone hasn't worked out too well for them. I certainly hope The Tea Party looses its battle to bring it to us, US.

Of course everyone hates gov't regulations, but every time there is a story about salmonella in the news, everyone seems to hate that worse. How many rat turds or hairs should be in a Wheaties box? Maybe we should fund enough gov't to enforce food safety laws, eh?

*"Most of the popular gov't programs of the 20th century are democratic socialist…" You are getting these from people that collectively have no desire to do anything with their lives.*

Look at the list. It is Social Security, public education, the Interstate Highway System. Those were not provided by capitalists, they were build by all of us, US, collectively. Those are socialist as opposed to capitalist programs by definition. They have nothing to do with the few people who are too lazy to work.

*Even in our country, all of those communes in the '60s - where are they now? Great idea but people do not work and think that way. What you find is people want the "equal everything"*

Everything will never be equal, but it needs to return to the premise that if you work hard you will be able to earn a decent living and eventually retire. Obviously you are unable to see that is slipping away from what was the middle class. Not sure how anyone can maintain that myopic view if they are paying any attention to the world around them.

Today on the radio I heard a fellow talking about how Wednesdays are his day to open his United Methodist Church at 6:30 AM. They open every morning for people who live in their cars to have a place to get their kids ready for school and get ready for work. These are not people living off the "fat of the land." It is a sad day in America when the oligarchs are able to suppress enough of the peons to that level that it is common in the richest nation in the world.

*Our country was built on the premise that in spite of overwhelming odds - we can do it and succeed. I am sorry that you do not have that spark, I do. When I found myself unemployed, I did not take unemployment,*

I'm not sure where you got the idea I lacked any spark? I have never set around waiting for Meals on Wheels to deliver to my door although my mother was instrumental in starting one of the first programs to serve elderly poor folks. I believe she said it was one of her elderly Home Health patients who had nothing in the kitchen cupboard but dog food that inspired her to take up collections for groceries and eventually get involved starting that program. I have been very fortunate. I was never unemployed until I was malpracticed on with Topamax. At that point, we had sufficient assets unemployment benefits would not have changed my life one way or the other. I was very blessed, nobody ever laid me off. When they ran out of work, I had to quit to take one of the standing offers others had on the table. After I became self-employed, I paid Uncle Sam more than the median family grossed many years and I did it without exploiting peons. My employees, when I had them, were paid union wages and benefits. I didn't have time to screw around putting up an ad and trying to sort and train applicants!

*Where our government is headed is Socialism and as a result, you are correct in that being a fascist government.*

Sorry, but those two terms are at the opposite ends of the political scale.

*I am done with this thread. I am truly sorry that you feel the way do. The really sad part is that I fear that your thoughts have caught on AND may be the path that we are headed. I have tried to offer a different way of looking at the situation but all I have gotten is grief - just plain tired of it.*

It is too bad you are unable to recognize the US has changed drastically in the last 40 years. There is no way my kids have had anywhere near the opportunities I had and my grandkids are totally screwed! Today, I could not repeat what I did then; the market is not there. If Bernie Sander's populist movement fails to turn us, US, around, the results will be worse than the Great Republican Depression of the 30s. That is what it was commonly referred to up until Eisenhower was elected. The banksters may have put us beyond repair. The populist movement may have to be the rebuilding crew ;-(


----------



## Mahdeew

Retired truck drivers could see their pension checks cut in half


----------



## Mahdeew

Credit Suisse: with just $10 "you're wealthier than 25% of Americans"
Simon Black October 20, 2015 Denver, Colorado
Last week Credit Suisse released its annual Global Wealth Report.

The big headline grabber was their analysis showing that the top 1% of people now own 50% of the world's wealth.

That is true and rather astonishing.

However, the report had another finding that was even more astonishing and largely overlooked.

What they found was that, as a percentage of the world's population, there are now more poor people in the United States and Europe than there are in China.
Source


----------



## Mahdeew

You can find the report that the Social Security Administration just released right here. The following are some of the numbers that really stood out for me…

-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
Source


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It is totally beyond my comprehension how anyone in this country can deny this is happening.


----------



## RobS888

> You can find the report that the Social Security Administration just released right here. The following are some of the numbers that really stood out for me…
> 
> -38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.
> 
> -51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.
> 
> -62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.
> 
> -71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
> Source
> 
> - mahdee


So mahdee,

Are you coming over to the "this ain't right" camp? Are you for taxing the millionaires more?


----------



## Mahdeew

Rob,
I have said it many times, I have no sides and I truly believe the concept of taking a side is the root of all the problems we have brought on ourselves. Call me a flip flop if you like, but I choose to be on whatever side that makes sense to me. There is no doubt both sides having literally taking advantage of this nation that has turned into blue or red. That how one conquers and exploit. It is almost like shiiat and suni thing in the middle east. They always mostly lived side by side peacefully until recent events. I guess I am on the side of "us US" as Bob puts it.


----------



## RobS888

We all come to enlightenment in our own time.

I'm not on a side. I'm fiscally conservative and I see nothing wrong with tightening up the border, so I'm not spewing a party line…in fact, I'm not even a member of the Democratic Party. I never voted until 2008, didn't really care. Bush the dumber made me care.

I do see some things as being wrong, this thread concerns a big problem, if not the biggest in this country. Too much money in too few hands.


----------



## RobS888

> It is totally beyond my comprehension how anyone in this country can deny this is happening.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


No wonder it takes 2 incomes for a family to survive.


----------



## Mahdeew

I really don't see how taxing the rich is going to take that money out of their hand and distribute it among the masses. Normally, governments use taxes to bloat themselves and throw a few crumbs to the people. If there is going to be a true income distribution it has to come from the business community. Yes, go ahead and raise minimum wage to $15/hour but at the same time don't replace people with machines and raise the price of goods and services (create inflation). That doesn't do anything for the average citizen and the middle class. If minimum wage raised to $15 tomorrow, it would take months for the person who was making $15 to get an adjust salary to maybe $20/hour. This will further erode the middle class because no one is going to double their salary. At the same time, if the cost of goods and services double, the savers and elderly on fixed income will suffer a huge loss since their purchasing power would have been cut in half. There will be no cost of living raise for social security recipients again this year because according to the Fed "there is no inflation". 
So, what good is it if the rich pay to bloat the government, business community double the minimum wage while replacing workers with machines and increases the lower and middle management salaries by 1/4th and cost of every goods and services doubles at the same time? 
It would be a worse situation than we are in. The problem as I see it is the bloated government. If they can do away with federal taxes and cap federal spending (connect it to the GDP like they are doing with social security recipients). Have an outside watchdog to police and prosecute to full extend government corruption and focus, do away with super packs and other bribes, maybe our "representatives" will run based on how they can help those who elected them instead seeing the job as an opportunity to line their pockets and exclusivity they currently enjoy.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> We all come to enlightenment in our own time…...................I do see some things as being wrong, this thread concerns a big problem, if not the biggest in this country. Too much money in too few hands.
> 
> - RobS888


It is the cycle. As Hartmann so aptly points out, it happened in the 1770s, 1850s, 1920s and here we are again today. Previously, we always came out stronger and better, but the revolution has no guaranteed outcome. With modern globalization starting in 1492, each cycle has broader and more severe impacts. In the 20s the US burped, Britain got the flu and Germany nearly died. The greed of the oligarchy definitely has had increasingly severe global implications. Is it reasonable to expect amicable resolution rather than revolution?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

mahdee, In a word; the New Deal. It was corrected last time.


----------



## Mahdeew

> mahdee, In a word; the New Deal. It was corrected last time.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I agree with that. There will be a reset and a new beginning. It may come with a huge cost to human life. It seems like everyone is gathering in Syria which could produce an ignition for a global conflict before everyone go home to lick their wounds and rebuild.


----------



## RobS888

> I really don t see how taxing the rich is going to take that money out of their hand and distribute it among the masses. * Normally, governments use taxes to bloat themselves and throw a few crumbs to the people*. If there is going to be a true income distribution it has to come from the business community. Yes, go ahead and raise minimum wage to $15/hour but at the same time don t replace people with machines and raise the price of goods and services (create inflation). That doesn t do anything for the average citizen and the middle class. If minimum wage raised to $15 tomorrow, it would take months for the person who was making $15 to get an adjust salary to maybe $20/hour. This will further erode the middle class because no one is going to double their salary. At the same time, if the cost of goods and services double, the savers and elderly on fixed income will suffer a huge loss since their purchasing power would have been cut in half. There will be no cost of living raise for social security recipients again this year because according to the Fed "there is no inflation".
> So, what good is it if the rich pay to bloat the government, business community double the minimum wage while replacing workers with machines and increases the lower and middle management salaries by 1/4th and cost of every goods and services doubles at the same time?
> It would be a worse situation than we are in. The problem as I see it is the bloated government. If they can do away with federal taxes and cap federal spending (connect it to the GDP like they are doing with social security recipients). Have an outside watchdog to police and prosecute to full extend government corruption and focus, do away with super packs and other bribes, maybe our "representatives" will run based on how they can help those who elected them instead seeing the job as an opportunity to line their pockets and exclusivity they currently enjoy.
> 
> - mahdee


I find that grossly inaccurate. There is waste, especially with earmarks, but characterizing the entire government efforts as crumbs seems silly.

If you want to see waste look at the Benghazi trial, sorry hearing. That is a waste of 5 million dollars. They look like children trying to catch an adult saying a bad word.


----------



## Mahdeew

You mean to tell me that government will tax the rich and distribute it to the citizens by writing them a check? Is that legal?


----------



## RobS888

Bush did it, so I guess it is legal for the federal government to write a check, but that isn't what I would expect. I would expect that the middle class and below would get a tax break.


----------



## Mahdeew

Bush taxed the rich and and gave me $500 of my own money back to me?? I don't think that money came from the rich. It came from the printing press.


----------



## Mahdeew

The Real Trouble Begins When Rising Inequality Splinters the Elites


----------



## Mahdeew

BREAKING DOWN 'Financialization'
In the United States, the size of the financial sector as a percentage of gross domestic product has grown from 2.8% in 1950 to 7.9% in 2012. Financialization has also caused incomes to increase more in the financial sector than in other sectors of the economy. Individuals working in the U.S. finance sector have experienced a 70% increase in their incomes relative to workers in other sector since 1980.

Financial services are also an important source of exports for the United States. But while the United States has the world's largest and most liquid financial markets, financialization has also occurred in many other countries around the world, even in emerging markets such as Mexico and Turkey.

In the United States and abroad, the growth of banking, asset management, insurance and venture capital-the components that make up the financial sector-can contribute to growth in other sectors of the economy as well. Large and liquid financial markets with a diverse offering of financial products make it easier to fund investment and growth and protect purchases and investments through insurance. They also facilitate international trade: The daily volume of foreign exchange transactions has increased from $570 billion in 1989 to $5.3 trillion in 2013. Financialization has also led to significant job growth in the financial sector, and this job growth is expected to continue.


----------



## RobS888

Well, then they can tax the rich more and give the middle class and below some of their own money back.


----------



## RobS888

> BREAKING DOWN Financialization
> In the United States, the size of the financial sector as a percentage of gross domestic product has grown from 2.8% in 1950 to 7.9% in 2012. Financialization has also caused incomes to increase more in the financial sector than in other sectors of the economy. Individuals working in the U.S. finance sector have experienced a 70% increase in their incomes relative to workers in other sector since 1980.
> 
> Financial services are also an important source of exports for the United States. But while the United States has the world's largest and most liquid financial markets, financialization has also occurred in many other countries around the world, even in emerging markets such as Mexico and Turkey.
> 
> In the United States and abroad, the growth of banking, asset management, insurance and venture capital-the components that make up the financial sector-can contribute to growth in other sectors of the economy as well. Large and liquid financial markets with a diverse offering of financial products make it easier to fund investment and growth and protect purchases and investments through insurance. They also facilitate international trade: The daily volume of foreign exchange transactions has increased from $570 billion in 1989 to $5.3 trillion in 2013. Financialization has also led to significant job growth in the financial sector, and this job growth is expected to continue.
> 
> - mahdee


So more rich people, oh good.


----------



## RobS888

> The Real Trouble Begins When Rising Inequality Splinters the Elites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - mahdee


Do you notice the only time the inequality was this bad was about 1929, looks like they are touching… that worked out well didn't it?


----------



## patcollins

> Redoak49,
> 
> I agree, parents are very important to the child s desire and drive for an education. A couple of ethnic groups have come to the US with nothing and within a generation or two are winning national spelling bees and producing musical prodigies.
> 
> On the other hand, many people will credit a certain teacher with spurring them on to do better.
> 
> I think the playing field should be completely level, all students get the same money spent on them and it should be a priority to get kids the best education we can.
> 
> Smaller classes, better trained teachers. Can t imagine why anyone would disagree with that.
> 
> - RobS888


Rob

I completely agree, but lets go to the shining example that is Baltimore. They spend way more per student than Calvert or St Marys county does per student and how does that turn out?


----------



## Redoak49

The recent studies show that there is little relationship between amount spent per student and achievement.

We not only need better training for teachers but better teachers.


----------



## DanYo

*
THIS is why your Co-Pay and your Deductible are so High!*


----------



## Mahdeew

I was trying to illustrate that the banksters are the problem and they own the politicians on both sides. Corporations have to be able to do business and make profits or they are toast. 
Here are some quotes from our founding fathers:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

"To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude."-Jefferson 1816

"I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes." - Jefferson 1816

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson

"… The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating." -Thomas Jefferson

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." -James Madison

"If congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations." -Andrew Jackson

"The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity." -Abraham Lincoln

And here is our debt:


----------



## Mahdeew

> The Real Trouble Begins When Rising Inequality Splinters the Elites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - mahdee
> 
> Do you notice the only time the inequality was this bad was about 1929, looks like they are touching… that worked out well didn t it?
> 
> - RobS888


Yes. looks like one fish right now and I bet they like to make it look like two fish kissing!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The Real Trouble Begins When Rising Inequality Splinters the Elites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - mahdee


So merry are the oligarchs with their hordes of gold, 
So fathomless the depths of misery they unfold, 
So dependent on the ignorance of the blind who cannot be told, 
So soon nothing they produce can be sold?

About 10 or 15 years ago my mother who grew up in the Great Republican Depression of the 30s said she hoped none of her grandkids had any more kids. She did not want them to have to suffer through what is coming. That collective memory has escaped us, US ;-((


----------



## Mahdeew

This is an excellent education on how our banking system work.


----------



## RobS888

> Redoak49,
> 
> I agree, parents are very important to the child s desire and drive for an education. A couple of ethnic groups have come to the US with nothing and within a generation or two are winning national spelling bees and producing musical prodigies.
> 
> On the other hand, many people will credit a certain teacher with spurring them on to do better.
> 
> I think the playing field should be completely level, all students get the same money spent on them and it should be a priority to get kids the best education we can.
> 
> Smaller classes, better trained teachers. Can t imagine why anyone would disagree with that.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Rob
> 
> I completely agree, but lets go to the shining example that is Baltimore. They spend way more per student than Calvert or St Marys county does per student and how does that turn out?
> 
> - patcollins


I wish I knew. Oh, did you mean city or county?


----------



## Bonka

"The Creature Form Jekyll Island," by G. Edward Griffin is an older book but still informative for today.


----------



## Mahdeew

> "The Creature Form Jekyll Island," by G. Edward Griffin is an older book but still informative for today.
> 
> - Gerald Thompson


Yes. Good book to read. Most people don't realize it is the interest rate manipulation that make rich people more rich. If you understand the concept, if you have money to invest when rates are low (like now) you can make a ton of money when inflation kicks in and price of everything tangible increases. "It takes money to make money" as they say.


----------



## RobS888

if you have money to invest…


----------



## RobS888

So is everyone in agreement that the situation is wrong and we need to fix it?


----------



## Mahdeew

> So is everyone in agreement that the situation is wrong and we need to fix it?
> 
> - RobS888


I think everyone, well, maybe the 80% or so know there is something wrong. However, majority are looking at the source of the problem as well as the solutions for it in the wrong places. The system has been broken for many, many years and the wealth of the nation has been squandered by the few. Now, the population is shackled with debt and the national debt has reached a critical point. 
National debt *18,416,298,764,443*
Federal spending 3.7 trillion up 107%
US total Debt 65,655,456,437,675
Mortgage debt 13.3 trillion
student debt 1.3 trillion
Money creation up 572%
Credit derivatives up 510% 
*Global drivities stands at 1.5 Quadrillion.* 
Watching this makes your head spin#
If a person is born into slavery, he may think his existence to be normal.


----------



## patcollins

> Redoak49,
> 
> I agree, parents are very important to the child s desire and drive for an education. A couple of ethnic groups have come to the US with nothing and within a generation or two are winning national spelling bees and producing musical prodigies.
> 
> On the other hand, many people will credit a certain teacher with spurring them on to do better.
> 
> I think the playing field should be completely level, all students get the same money spent on them and it should be a priority to get kids the best education we can.
> 
> Smaller classes, better trained teachers. Can t imagine why anyone would disagree with that.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Rob
> 
> I completely agree, but lets go to the shining example that is Baltimore. They spend way more per student than Calvert or St Marys county does per student and how does that turn out?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I wish I knew. Oh, did you mean city or county?
> 
> - RobS888


City, they spend about $4k more per student that Baltimore county but that definitely does not help does it? How much more should they spend, there has to be a point of diminishing returns doesn't there? Why should someone from a county that has much higher achievement of its students but spends less per student than Baltimore believe it is all about how much money is spent per student?

The interesting thing about the Finish model of education is the kids don't start until they are 7 years old and they spend far less time in the classroom than our own students.


----------



## Mahdeew

Education as is defined:
*Education is the process of facilitating learning. Knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits of a group of people are transferred to other people, through storytelling, discussion, teaching, training, or research. Education frequently takes place under the guidance of educators, but learners may also educate themselves in a process called autodidactic learning.[1] Any experience that has a formative effect on the way one thinks, feels, or acts may be considered educational.*
There is a problem with this definition. "Education is the process of facilitating learning". But what if that "learning" is a farce or distortion? The old saying goes something like this "history is told by those who win". So, at least history can be distorted in that regard. Nevertheless, others write their own history based on their own bias. Which one is true? History has basically has become another propaganda tool to tell our children what a wonderful people we are. That applies to the Taliban telling their version of history of their resistance to Alexander the great, Kisangani, soviet union, and so on. So, even learning is relevant based on who is telling the story. This practice is all about building confidence in one's mind as their story is the best representation of what actually occurred. We all know (or should know by now) that stories tend to be bias.


----------



## Mahdeew

And if history is relative, does it worth repeating or reciting it by the other side?


----------



## RobS888

> Redoak49,
> 
> I agree, parents are very important to the child s desire and drive for an education. A couple of ethnic groups have come to the US with nothing and within a generation or two are winning national spelling bees and producing musical prodigies.
> 
> On the other hand, many people will credit a certain teacher with spurring them on to do better.
> 
> I think the playing field should be completely level, all students get the same money spent on them and it should be a priority to get kids the best education we can.
> 
> Smaller classes, better trained teachers. Can t imagine why anyone would disagree with that.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Rob
> 
> I completely agree, but lets go to the shining example that is Baltimore. They spend way more per student than Calvert or St Marys county does per student and how does that turn out?
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I wish I knew. Oh, did you mean city or county?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> City, they spend about $4k more per student that Baltimore county but that definitely does not help does it? How much more should they spend, there has to be a point of diminishing returns doesn t there? Why should someone from a county that has much higher achievement of its students but spends less per student than Baltimore believe it is all about how much money is spent per student?
> 
> The interesting thing about the Finish model of education is the kids don t start until they are 7 years old and they spend far less time in the classroom than our own students.
> 
> - patcollins


From what I could find in 2012, teachers in Baltimore city, Calvert, & st Mary's counties all start around $44,500. Baltimore county is $1,800 less. 
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/nr/rdonlyres/cafe5c56-843c-4d45-8ddb-d7d26146e60f/25636/salsch12.pdf

There must be other factors contributing to the cost.

I think teachers should get around $60 after training.


----------



## patcollins

> From what I could find in 2012, teachers in Baltimore city, Calvert, & st Mary s counties all start around $44,500. Baltimore county is $1,800 less.
> http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/nr/rdonlyres/cafe5c56-843c-4d45-8ddb-d7d26146e60f/25636/salsch12.pdf
> 
> There must be other factors contributing to the cost.
> 
> I think teachers should get around $60 after training.
> 
> - RobS888


That is a big part of the problem, every time education gets more money it never goes to the teachers, it goes to administration and other "toys" for the classroom or administration to gloat over such as the artificial turf football fields popping up all over the country at highschools.

I say increase teacher pay to the median college graduate hourly rate but get rid of the special pensions and have them contribute to a 401k with matching up to 5% like most of the other college graduate jobs.


----------



## DrDirt

> From what I could find in 2012, teachers in Baltimore city, Calvert, & st Mary s counties all start around $44,500. Baltimore county is $1,800 less.
> http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/nr/rdonlyres/cafe5c56-843c-4d45-8ddb-d7d26146e60f/25636/salsch12.pdf
> 
> There must be other factors contributing to the cost.
> 
> I think teachers should get around $60 after training.
> 
> - RobS888


http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-10-10/news/bs-md-co-school-salaries-20111010_1_new-teachers-teachers-fall-average-teacher-salary

Baltimore County's average teacher salary is the lowest among large school systems in Maryland, *but its two top officials are some of the highest-paid,* according to data collected by the state.

*On average, teachers in the county earn $60,272 *- less than the averages for Montgomery, Howard, Anne Arundel, Frederick and Prince George's counties. The highest average teacher pay in the state is $75,000 in Montgomery and the lowest is $52,594 in Dorchester County.

So they are getting 60 now.


----------



## RobS888

Ladies and Gentleman,

Look at the classic case of lying with statistics above.

The original post was about a starting wage for teachers, but someone pulls out the average for all teachers in the state (hmmm does the confusion also apply to minimum and average wages in general?).

The average for teachers should be in the 80K range.

As mentioned, teachers need to make more to attract the best and they need to be well trained in teaching. It is a difficult job, never the same as the day before.


----------



## DrDirt

60 is not the average for all teachers in the state - - that is for BALTIMORE COUNTY. the post points out 75K high in Montgomery county to lows of 52K in Dorchester….

That is why the BALTIMORE SUN… article said "teachers in the *COUNTY* earn $60,272 "

Perhaps you need to switch to decaf

The first part of the article was the key… of the large systems… Teacher Pay in Baltimore is the lowest, but Admin salaries are among the highest.
so as Pat pointed out - - the Money doesn't go to the teachers… so the "spend more on education pushes" seldom trickle down to make an impact in the classroom.

I don't have a problem with teachers making more. Salary could help recruitment, but so could recognition and pay for performance.
If it doesn't matter if you are the best/energetic/engaged teacher, or just marking the days til retirement and passing illiterates on to graduate, you will both get the same pay….then, after a few years, the best stop really trying so hard.

WE should prepare for kids to sit and watch the monitors as the schools will record the best teacher, and pipe their lessons into the classrooms.. Then only pay that one teacher. e.g. Khan Academy

Online high schools are picking up students… just like online university has grown.


----------



## RobS888

Still, your claim that teachers already make 60k is disingenuous at best. Some do and many don't. Ignoring the fact it was a starting wage shows you are just arguing to argue.

Perhaps they should rotate them on a yearly basis to other schools in the county or state, so they don't get complacent. Possible in MD, not too easy in other states.


----------



## DrDirt

> Still, your claim that teachers already make 60k is disingenuous at best. Some do and many don t. Ignoring the fact it was a starting wage shows you are just arguing to argue.
> 
> Perhaps they should rotate them on a yearly basis to other schools in the county or state, so they don t get complacent. Possible in MD, not too easy in other states.
> 
> - RobS888


60K average also means that there are a lot of folks making MORE than 60K… Max Pay for a PHD teacher is in teh 90's so to have a starting pay at 43 and a MAX of 90, with an average of 60 would indicate that it cannot be just a couple high earners skewing the stats.

I have found that not every teacher is gods gift to the profession. there are good and bad ones… while starting pay may be fixed, we should actually reward excellence.

I think complacency is driven by lack of recognition of going out of your way or being rewarded, not just boredom with a particular school.

Also I think that being a high school teacher in Baltimore should pay more than being a Kindergarten teacher in Gaithersburg….
Teaching 5 year olds to write their letters is a lot easier than having to defend your self from teenagers…
Baltimore schools:
http://www.abc2news.com/news/region/baltimore-city/student-on-teacher-assaults-on-rise
Slattery's assault by a student was just one of *seven hundred that school year* in Baltimore City Public Schools where its own data shows a*n average of four school personnel were assaulted each day in 2010*.


----------



## RobS888

Are you sure the administrators are counted in the average? I'm not, I suspect principals may be included. The disparity and probably the highest wages would go away if the education system was administered at a state level and not the county. We are a tiny state and have at least 24 board of education fiefdoms.

If Ontario can manage such a large system effectively why can't MD? Spread the money evenly per student, pay the teachers well. Make it harder to be a teacher, so only the really dedicated go into teaching.


----------



## RobS888

The average means nothing in this case, especially when the topic was starting salary. Enough of your silly arguing.

I think since kindergarten teachers have a huge impact on kids they should get more than most. I suspect better kindergarten teachers could help reduce the attacks later on. If you have kids, you should realize they are like soft clay at that age. I bet many troubled students could have/should have been helped more at the start.


----------



## DrDirt

> Are you sure the administrators are counted in the average? I m not, I suspect principals may be included. The disparity and probably the highest wages would go away if the education system was administered at a state level and not the county. We are a tiny state and have at least 24 board of education fiefdoms.
> 
> If Ontario can manage such a large system effectively why can t MD? Spread the money evenly per student, pay the teachers well. Make it harder to be a teacher, so only the really dedicated go into teaching.
> 
> - RobS888


Cant say - - the Baltimore Sun only pointed to TEACHERS… so I assume the excluded principals but ??? 
you have a 'allowed pay range of 43-90.4'... an average of 60 is basically the line between the bottom third and top two thirds of the scaler. (43-60, 60-75 and 75-90) so to me the 60 average doesn't raise flags as being skewed too high.
----------

If you have kids you would realize that the friends they run around with in middle school and high school do a lot more to influence your kids than their memories of the kindergarten teacher will.

I think it is relatively "easier" to teach little kids to finger paint, than to teach introductory Physics to hormonal teenagers.
For influence - and career choice and college preparation, we remember a high school teacher that shaped our interests, and few even remember their kindergarten teachers name. Getting into trouble as a teenager has more to do with role models and a strong family keeping you on the 'straight and narrow' than anything you learned in grade school… regardless of the posters that state "everything I need to know in life I learned in kindergarten"


----------



## RobS888

Not memories, puppy, actual personality changes and habits are formed at that age. Like your inability to accept facts and squirm onto another topic when you are wrong was learned at a young age.

Your idea of an acceptable average means nothing when the average is not germane.

Isn't Kindergarten before the 1st grade?

http://www.livescience.com/8432-personality-set-life-1st-grade-study-suggests.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22554554/ns/health-childrens_health/t/personality-may-be-set-preschool/

http://education-consumers.org/issues-public-education-research-analysis/childrens-behavioral-styles/

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Our-Personality-Is-Fully-Developed-By-the-Age-of-7-151093.shtml

Don't you get tired of being wrong, ... all the time?


----------



## patcollins

I think starting salary of 40k/year with two months off in the summer is pretty damn good.

I've often thought about becoming a teacher when fed up with my job, many states have a fast track for people with scientific and math based degrees. There were quite a few times I would have either gone back to school to get my PhD or become a teacher if I didn't have an underwater mortgage here.


----------



## patcollins

> For influence - and career choice and college preparation, we remember a high school teacher that shaped our interests, and few even remember their kindergarten teachers name. Getting into trouble as a teenager has more to do with role models and a strong family keeping you on the straight and narrow than anything you learned in grade school… regardless of the posters that state "everything I need to know in life I learned in kindergarten"
> 
> - DrDirt


Nothing else comes close to the correlation parental/guardian involvement has to a child's future success. There are exceptions but by and large you can figure out who will be successful in life when you meet their parents.


----------



## RobS888

I always thought they got paid 10/12ths if they don't work the summer or 12/12ths of their salary if they do. If they had to teach all year the attrition would be pretty bad.

It is a very difficult job and they need to be paid well with less than 20 kids in a class. The Atlantic says nationwide the starting salary is $36,000. Isn't that pretty low for a person with a bachelors degree and specialized training?

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/07/myth-of-teacher-summer-vacation/397535/


----------



## RobS888

> For influence - and career choice and college preparation, we remember a high school teacher that shaped our interests, and few even remember their kindergarten teachers name. Getting into trouble as a teenager has more to do with role models and a strong family keeping you on the straight and narrow than anything you learned in grade school… regardless of the posters that state "everything I need to know in life I learned in kindergarten"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Nothing else comes close to the correlation parental/guardian involvement has to a child s future success. There are exceptions but by and large you can figure out who will be successful in life when you meet their parents.
> 
> - patcollins


Exactly why kids need many positive supportive adults in their lives… So they can be helped past any, uh deficiencies at home.

That is sad to think that the child is condemned by the parents ignorance.


----------



## DrDirt

When it comes to income inequality and poverty. Lack of fathers at home, and the resulting financial turmoil help to ensure that the cycle of poverty will continue.

Family is more important than government programs


----------



## RobS888

Again with that crap? As you were shown many times in this thread even the UK has more upward mobility than we do.

Yes, family is important, but if there isn't one do we just give up and let them falter or give them as much help as needed? I thought you guys were supposed to be compassionate.

Pay the teachers really well, give them small classes and watch our PISA scores climb.


----------



## patcollins

> For influence - and career choice and college preparation, we remember a high school teacher that shaped our interests, and few even remember their kindergarten teachers name. Getting into trouble as a teenager has more to do with role models and a strong family keeping you on the straight and narrow than anything you learned in grade school… regardless of the posters that state "everything I need to know in life I learned in kindergarten"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Nothing else comes close to the correlation parental/guardian involvement has to a child s future success. There are exceptions but by and large you can figure out who will be successful in life when you meet their parents.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Exactly why kids need many positive supportive adults in their lives… So they can be helped past any, uh deficiencies at home.
> 
> That is sad to think that the child is condemned by the parents ignorance.
> 
> - RobS888


What is sad is that their parents condemned them to that life.


----------



## patcollins

> It is a very difficult job and they need to be paid well with less than 20 kids in a class. The Atlantic says nationwide the starting salary is $36,000. Isn t that pretty low for a person with a bachelors degree and specialized training?
> - RobS888


Well in 2000 as an engineer with a masters degree I started out at 40k and I had to work the full year.

I just looked up what I would start at today and it would be between $42k-$55k/year.

One thing to note is that as a teacher progresses in their career they still have the exact same responsibilities they did in their first year. My first year on the job I was responsible for some small $20k-$30k projects and now it is 100x that.


----------



## DrDirt

> Again with that crap? As you were shown many times in this thread even the UK has more upward mobility than we do.
> 
> Yes, family is important, but if there isn t one do we just give up and let them falter or give them as much help as needed? I thought you guys were supposed to be compassionate.
> 
> Pay the teachers really well, give them small classes and watch our PISA scores climb.
> 
> - RobS888


What does the UK mobility have to do with educational success of broken homes in Baltimore?

No we don't just let them falter… but again… Family is more important and effective. Government programs are a bandaid, why not encourage responsibility instead of dependence upon the state?

Liberal arts and humanities majors starting salary is 36K (working 12 months)
Engineers median starting pay is now 64K

for 2014
http://time.com/money/3829776/heres-what-the-average-grad-makes-right-out-of-college/
So it seems NO…. 36 K isn't low for a starting salary for teachers.

The starting pay in Baltimore is on par with average pay for STEM degree for science - according to American Chemical Society

By degree, newly graduated bachelor's earned $40,000, master's $52,000 and PhD's $62,900 (Table 1a). The median starting salary for new chemistry graduates with a bachelor's degree improved +2.6% ahead of inflation.
That is 12 month pay. so take your 36K for 10 months and multiply by 120% (12/10 months) and you have just over 43K.
Not so out of line.

Fact is if you go into teaching in Baltimore inner city- - like North Ave./Belair Rd. you would find that just because you gave the teacher a buttload of cash, doesn't mean PISA is going to be affected. If nobody shows up - - - the best teacher in the world cannot help in the face of such odds.

It is someone at home pushing them to do their homework instead of watch TV and hang out with friends… to actually show up for school… to resist the lure of fast cash and crime that have the greatest chance of success.
But we don't talk about that because that is "Being judgemental" So throwing cash at it and pretending to care is teh policy of the last dozen administrations since making Hoovervilles.

It is doable - but that isn't driven by the teacher pay.

You like to scream about spending on Iraq…. but EVERY year the breakdown is like this… How much more money does it take?

Iraq was 2 Trillion… so we are basically waging 1/2 the cost of a decade long war EVERY YEAR and things are getting worse not better.
Maybe throwing money at problems is not a universal solution… beyond winning over the ignorant masses at election time.


----------



## RobS888

> For influence - and career choice and college preparation, we remember a high school teacher that shaped our interests, and few even remember their kindergarten teachers name. Getting into trouble as a teenager has more to do with role models and a strong family keeping you on the straight and narrow than anything you learned in grade school… regardless of the posters that state "everything I need to know in life I learned in kindergarten"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Nothing else comes close to the correlation parental/guardian involvement has to a child s future success. There are exceptions but by and large you can figure out who will be successful in life when you meet their parents.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Exactly why kids need many positive supportive adults in their lives… So they can be helped past any, uh deficiencies at home.
> 
> That is sad to think that the child is condemned by the parents ignorance.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> What is sad is that their parents condemned them to that life.
> 
> - patcollins


And theirs before them and theirs before them?

I see you pointing a finger, but what is the solution?

As an engineer, would you give up on something that didn't work or start at the basics and work your way up until you found the problem?


----------



## RobS888

> It is a very difficult job and they need to be paid well with less than 20 kids in a class. The Atlantic says nationwide the starting salary is $36,000. Isn t that pretty low for a person with a bachelors degree and specialized training?
> - RobS888
> 
> Well in 2000 as an engineer with a masters degree I started out at 40k and I had to work the full year.
> 
> I just looked up what I would start at today and it would be between $42k-$55k/year.
> 
> One thing to note is that as a teacher progresses in their career they still have the exact same responsibilities they did in their first year. My first year on the job I was responsible for some small $20k-$30k projects and now it is 100x that.
> 
> - patcollins


Teachers usually have to continue training as well. You had to prove you could do your job. They do that on a daily basis.

Has your pay progressed at the same rate as a teacher or quicker?


----------



## lightcs1776

Wow, I didn't realize this thread was still going. Amazing.


----------



## RobS888

I don't live in Baltimore and I'm not from the east coast! I spend more time outside of MD than in it, so attacking B'more means nothing to me. Well except you can't win an argument with facts, just those vivid fallacies.

Did you see the mother lay down a smacking on her son when she caught him rioting?

My apologies, the U.K. Is the *only* developed nation with less social mobility than the US, but they do have an aristocracy (you know a stratified society) yet have only slightly less social mobility than the US. Imagine that, we are only slightly more upwardly mobile than a country with 1,300 years of royalty.

So if you are poor here it is harder to not be poor anymore than in most developed countries, except the UK. I wonder why that is?

Heritage foundation is a joke and any data from them has the smell of Chaffetz about it.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/lying-charts-anti-abortion-edition


----------



## patcollins

> And theirs before them and theirs before them?
> 
> I see you pointing a finger, but what is the solution?
> 
> As an engineer, would you give up on something that didn t work or start at the basics and work your way up until you found the problem?
> 
> - RobS888


The most sure fire way would be to simply take the kids away from the parents and put them with guardians that care for them and that want them to excel.

Many of those parents we are talking about either don't care at all or don't want better for their kids.

You keep mentioning the Finish education system, one thing they do is to program children more as a collective than as individuals and they hold them far more accountable than Americans do.

http://www.openeducation.net/2008/03/10/several-lessons-to-be-learned-from-the-finnish-school-system/

Notice they point out how homogeneous the population is and that nearly every student there speaks the same language, that has to play a large role in things. I am pretty sure that teachers there are allowed to discipline a student when they deserve it.

You will find that parents that hold their children accountable for things such as grades will have the kids that succeeded in life.

I use Baltimore as an example simply because it is the money pit of Maryland, so much of the local tax base here gets dumped into Baltimore instead of southern maryland. We have been waiting for a much needed new bridge over the Patuxent River for years and can only seem to get funded for studies.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> - DrDirt


I am surprised Heritage Foundation did not include Social Security as a welfare program. Seems I recall paying insurance premiums into the Medicare since I was a teenager.


----------



## DrDirt

> I am surprised Heritage Foundation did not include Social Security as a welfare program. Seems I recall paying insurance premiums into the Medicare since I was a teenager.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


They show that spending with Medicare as part of the 'mandatory' vs discretionary budget.

Here they just isolated the 'war on poverty' not to include retiree benefits…it is State + Federal though


----------



## RobS888

Pat you using Baltimore is fine, others not so much. Your opinion is honest, others not so much.

Finland is a good example because they went from very poor to the best in 40 years.

I think Ontario is a better example because it is not homogenous as we saw previously Toronto is 47% non Caucasian and 52% were born outside of Canada. That is some multi-culturalism there, more so than in the US.

I'm not suggesting adopting the Finnish model or Canadian model, but look at them and take some aspects of them.

I believe the approach in earlier generations was to remove kids from the parents in bad situations, but that didn't work out so well for the kids. Better to give them positive role models during the day. Also, the possibility of a future might help.


----------



## DrDirt

> You will find that parents that hold their children accountable for things such as grades will have the kids that succeeded in life.
> 
> - patcollins


WINNER!!

The school system can never overcome absent parents or those that don't give a crap about education.

We need a system that rewards good teachers - but the NEA doesn't allow pay for performance.
A pay system that doesn't reward excellence… shouldn't be surprised if the students don't excel either.

Ongoing education is a part of EVERY profession. Doctors maintain board certifications and learn NEW drugs and DaVinci robotic Surgery, etc.
Engineers must maintain their PE licensure.
Accountants need the "C" in CPA and to stay current on tax law.

Primary education requires teachers learn technology in teh electronic classroom - - but the material hasn't changed. You still learn spelling, capitalization, your alphabet, penmanship, and the multiplication table. For the teachers the "subject" has changed very little.

For welfare….there are many sources that make the same graphs showing what teh spend on welfare programs are.
However you post a "mother jones" abortion editorial to refute OPM spending numbers? (SMH)

It is funny that the MJ article you cite only complains that the *graph was zoomed in, *rather than starting at "0" 
Kind of how Global Warming zooms in - -are they lying when they show this:.









Instead of This?:









Neither is a lie (maybe Mother Jones need english lessons) - - but one is easier to create buzz/panic etc with.


----------



## RobS888

Could someone show me where something was offered as being more important than the parents? The parents have the biggest affect as recent migrants groups have shown and as children of professors have shown that don't necessarily have a higher IQ, but attain more.

So, stop going back to the parents, that is a given (with some exceptions), however when the parents aren't enough, the educational system should provide some help.

If kids come to school hungry should they be fed or would you just tsk, tsk and walk away?

That is all I'm hearing, blame the parents and let the kids suffer.


----------



## RobS888

Interesting when I read the article they say the biggest problem is no Axis data:

"How did this happen? Well, it turns out that Americans United for Life, which made the chart, decided to ignore the y-axis."

Overlaying the two plots was lying. Not surprised you would defend him, but I suppose it is just to argue, no rational human can defend that chart. I especially like how Chaffitz was caught lying about creating the chart himself.

Cue squirms about what a chart is and how it can be used. Go on without me on that, I bow to your expertise in the lying with statistics arena.

P.S.
Murphry's law got yah here.
"Neither is a lie (maybe Mother Jones need english lessons) - - but one is easier to create buzz/panic etc with."


----------



## DrDirt

> Could someone show me where something was offered as being more important than the parents? The parents have the biggest affect as recent migrants groups have shown and as children of professors have shown that don t necessarily have a higher IQ, but attain more.
> 
> So, stop going back to the parents, that is a given (with some exceptions), however when the parents aren t enough, the educational system should provide some help.
> 
> If kids come to school hungry should they be fed or would you just tsk, tsk and walk away?
> 
> That is all I m hearing, blame the parents and let the kids suffer.
> 
> - RobS888


Is there/Should there be a difference between Food Stamp and SNAP… vs the School budget?

I think there should be - - that the welfare and nutrition of kids is part of the Food Stamp program and HHS…

hunger indeed affects how well you learn… but is it really the role of the school to feed kids Breakfast before school and Lunch… as well as Lunch all summer when school is out? Also backpacks of food for the weekends?

If you belive the local school should also be the food pantry - - then it is hard to complain that education dollars don't make it to teacher salaries.

EBT cards should not be redeemable or cash at an ATM machine to spend on things other than food, nor should it work at McDonalds.


----------



## DrDirt

> Interesting when I read the article they say the biggest problem is no Axis data:
> 
> "How did this happen? Well, it turns out that Americans United for Life, which made the chart, decided to ignore the y-axis."
> 
> Overlaying the two plots was lying. Not surprised you would defend him, but I suppose it is just to argue, no rational human can defend that chart. I especially like how Chaffitz was caught lying about creating the chart himself.
> 
> Cue squirms about what a chart is and how it can be used. Go on without me on that, I bow to your expertise in the lying with statistics arena.
> 
> P.S.
> Murphry s law got yah here.
> "Neither is a lie (maybe Mother Jones need english lessons) - - but one is easier to create buzz/panic etc with."
> 
> - RobS888


pfft = = you don't like it is not the same as "it is a lie"

You do realize that "Americans United for Life" (the graph maker) is not the Heritage Foundation right? Hate that you would intentionally mislead like that - - to attack one using a claim of a totally different organization?? Right???

So you go to some whack job website and quote their spin.

Interesting that you choose some abortion discussion because you have no evidence that *the spend on welfare is incorrect*... likely because you KNOW it is true that we spend nearly a trillion per year on entitlement. NOBODY denies it. so you merely attack the source.

At least read the WHOLE article (your link) and what they claim SHOULD have been on the graph… they wanted a graph starting from 0 so that the slope (just like global warming) would look like nothing - - because they don't like how the graph "LOOKED" not because the numbers were wrong..

You seem to believe when the libs "zoom in" it is drawing attention to a looming crisis… when the conservatives do the same it is lying.


----------



## RobS888

yup, two different graph "makers", similar view points they are trying to make about how terrible something is.

Squirm all you want, but those two items with different values shouldn't be on the same chart without a "y" axis. It is a lie to show them that way.

It isn't me that doesn't like it. The internet has had its way with Chaffitz and his "chart" and his lie about making it.

This is a much better version of the same data:










How is Mother Jones a whack site, they brought down Romney.


----------



## RobS888

So could we get back to education and how we are failing at it?


----------



## DrDirt

> So could we get back to education and how we are failing at it?
> 
> - RobS888


Recognize that the "more money" lever has been pulled until the handle has worn off - - and the results continue to get worse not better.

that feeding the hungry children should be managed by HHS not the Dept. of Education. Getting kids to school dressed and fed is the responsibility of the parents, and *there is substantial help to do that.* Don't bog down local school boards with the task of feeding "All children from one to 18 years old" year round on the schools back. (1 year olds… there is WIC… Women Infants and Children)
Then use the SCHOOL Budget on education including teacher salary and retention… and pay for performance.

If you get paid more for doing a GOOD job… more people try harder.

I am not saying ignore the starving - - just that *it is NOT the role of the school to feed the masses.*
here is the summer program here in Salina
http://www.ksal.com/salina-free-summer-lunch-program-begins/


----------



## DrDirt

You like Finland as an example - - 
http://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/finland-education/

After ninth grade, students attend either an academic program (53%) or vocational one (47%) - this flexibility results in a 96% graduation rate, dwarfing the United States' measly 75%.

Imagine the burning at teh stake if our schools ever said little johnny is in the 47%... here we push that everyone goes to college.

Finnish teachers enjoy an equally laid-back arrangement. They work an average of 570 hours a year, nearly half the U.S. total of 1,100 hours. They also dress casually and are usually called by their first names (Aino, Helmi, Viivi, Eetu, etc.).

Is the secret massive financial investment? No. Finland spends only $7,500 per student, considerably less than the United States' average $8,700.

So more money is not it.

Here in our district - - we are WAY above the 8700/year. at 17,779 per student… and after teacher conferences you walk away shaking your head happy it I went to school elsewhere and pissed at how unprepared kids are.










https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjsyL7B2eXIAhXIPT4KHXoAAg8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usd305.com%2Fcms%2Flib%2FKS01001292%2FCentricity%2Fdomain%2F43%2Fhomepage%2520budget%2520info%2FUSD%2520305%2520BUDGET%2520AT%2520A%2520GLANCE-2016REV.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHbmf_hfiupc3OfqcVSLuDSotW_eQ&sig2=uUDxVXMcAyq8ES1fdDYf1Q&cad=rja


----------



## DrDirt

You like Finland as an example - - 
http://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/finland-education/

After ninth grade, students attend either an academic program (53%) or vocational one (47%) - this flexibility results in a 96% graduation rate, dwarfing the United States' measly 75%.

Imagine the burning at teh stake if our schools ever said little johnny is in the 47%... here we push that everyone goes to college.

Finnish teachers enjoy an equally laid-back arrangement. They work an average of 570 hours a year, nearly half the U.S. total of 1,100 hours. They also dress casually and are usually called by their first names (Aino, Helmi, Viivi, Eetu, etc.).

Is the secret massive financial investment? No. Finland spends only $7,500 per student, considerably less than the United States' average $8,700.

So more money is not it.

Here in our district - - we are WAY above the 8700/year. at 17,779 per student… and after teacher conferences you walk away shaking your head.










https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwjsyL7B2eXIAhXIPT4KHXoAAg8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usd305.com%2Fcms%2Flib%2FKS01001292%2FCentricity%2Fdomain%2F43%2Fhomepage%2520budget%2520info%2FUSD%2520305%2520BUDGET%2520AT%2520A%2520GLANCE-2016REV.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHbmf_hfiupc3OfqcVSLuDSotW_eQ&sig2=uUDxVXMcAyq8ES1fdDYf1Q&cad=rja

So the Finnish spend way less than the US does… why is "More Money" the answer?


----------



## RobS888

You can compare costs here to costs there? Is Finland more or less expensive than the US? You can compare their teacher pay to their averages, but not across countries without some caveats puppy.

As I've said before, train the teachers well, reduce the class size, make the state the school district, and pay teachers well.

Reducing the stigma of a vocational school or preferably moving vocational training to the university would certainly help out.


----------



## RobS888

> Recognize that the "more money" lever has been pulled until the handle has worn off - - and the results continue to get worse not better.
> 
> that feeding the hungry children should be managed by HHS not the Dept. of Education. Getting kids to school dressed and fed is the responsibility of the parents, and *there is substantial help to do that.* Don t bog down local school boards with the task of feeding "All children from one to 18 years old" year round on the schools back. (1 year olds… there is WIC… Women Infants and Children)
> Then use the SCHOOL Budget on education including teacher salary and retention… and pay for performance.
> 
> If you get paid more for doing a GOOD job… more people try harder.
> 
> I am not saying ignore the starving - - just that *it is NOT the role of the school to feed the masses.*
> here is the summer program here in Salina
> http://www.ksal.com/salina-free-summer-lunch-program-begins/
> 
> - DrDirt


What masses? Just the kids.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I am surprised Heritage Foundation did not include Social Security as a welfare program. Seems I recall paying insurance premiums into the Medicare since I was a teenager.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> They show that spending with Medicare as part of the mandatory vs discretionary budget.
> 
> Here they just isolated the war on poverty not to include retiree benefits…it is State + Federal though
> 
> - DrDirt


Medicare is a retiree "insurance benefit" paid by insurance premiums through a specific tax all of one's working life. It is not a welfare program. Social Security benefits are no more discretionary than Medicare. As usual, they are trying to redefine programs for political purposes. How long until they move Social Security and military retirements into their welfare definition?


----------



## patcollins

One thing that always bugged me about the way teachers got paid was the increase in pay for being there longer. Some of the best teachers I ever had happened to be the younger ones. I don't think the ability to teach is something that can be learned in school, I think it is either something you have or don't have. It is the subjects that you can learn in school such as the math, English etc.

I think teaching as a job could be revamped by creating a heirchary, the best teachers get promoted to be the ones that do the lesson plans etc and they have teachers under them that they oversee. This would give teachers somewhere to go in terms of more responsibility for more pay and I think it would most likely ensure more accountability than a silly standardized test.


----------



## DrDirt

> I am surprised Heritage Foundation did not include Social Security as a welfare program. Seems I recall paying insurance premiums into the Medicare since I was a teenager.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> They show that spending with Medicare as part of the mandatory vs discretionary budget.
> 
> Here they just isolated the war on poverty not to include retiree benefits…it is State + Federal though
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Medicare is a retiree "insurance benefit" paid by insurance premiums through a specific tax all of one s working life. It is not a welfare program. Social Security benefits are no more discretionary than Medicare. As usual, they are trying to redefine programs for political purposes. How long until they move Social Security and military retirements into their welfare definition?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


At least their first pass used state medicaid programs for medical and not medicare in that graph. But that graph is State + Federal spending totals, which makes it hard to pick out which "government" spending you are focused on.

they already are trying (Chris Christie as candidate for POTUS, and the Paul Ryan budget proposals) to move SS into the entitlement category and begin 'means testing' to receive benefits. Admittedly they are settin a high bar… but that is today. Once they start they will continue lowering the bar of what is "too rich" for payments.


----------



## RobS888

> One thing that always bugged me about the way teachers got paid was the increase in pay for being there longer. Some of the best teachers I ever had happened to be the younger ones. I don t think the ability to teach is something that can be learned in school, I think it is either something you have or don t have. It is the subjects that you can learn in school such as the math, English etc.
> 
> I think teaching as a job could be revamped by creating a heirchary, the best teachers get promoted to be the ones that do the lesson plans etc and they have teachers under them that they oversee. This would give teachers somewhere to go in terms of more responsibility for more pay and I think it would most likely ensure more accountability than a silly standardized test.
> 
> - patcollins


I agree somewhat that teachers need something that can't be trained, the desire to teach. However, like a runner, or most athletics, or really any endeavour, training is required to hone the skills. I've seen so many people read Power-point slides during "training" to know that most people don't have a clue about training.

Training is nothing compared to teaching kids.

I don't think promoting the good teachers out of the classroom is a good idea, unless they are burned out.

I train small numbers of adults that are paid to learn, I have great respect for trying to work with kids that don't want to be there. Anybody that gets up and tries to do right by their teaching is worth a lot more than $32K.

Unless you sit with the teacher every day how do you rate them? Time seems like a good way.


----------



## patcollins

> One thing that always bugged me about the way teachers got paid was the increase in pay for being there longer. Some of the best teachers I ever had happened to be the younger ones. I don t think the ability to teach is something that can be learned in school, I think it is either something you have or don t have. It is the subjects that you can learn in school such as the math, English etc.
> 
> I think teaching as a job could be revamped by creating a heirchary, the best teachers get promoted to be the ones that do the lesson plans etc and they have teachers under them that they oversee. This would give teachers somewhere to go in terms of more responsibility for more pay and I think it would most likely ensure more accountability than a silly standardized test.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I agree somewhat that teachers need something that can t be trained, the desire to teach. However, like a runner, or most athletics, or really any endeavour, training is required to hone the skills. I ve seen so many people read Power-point slides during "training" to know that most people don t have a clue about training.
> 
> Training is nothing compared to teaching kids.
> 
> I don t think promoting the good teachers out of the classroom is a good idea, unless they are burned out.
> 
> I train small numbers of adults that are paid to learn, I have great respect for trying to work with kids that don t want to be there. Anybody that gets up and tries to do right by their teaching is worth a lot more than $32K.
> 
> Unless you sit with the teacher every day how do you rate them? Time seems like a good way.
> 
> - RobS888


It doesn't necessarily have to be promoting them out of the classroom. I am thinking older kids that have to go to specialized teachers for certain classes. Something like having a head math teacher that teaches less classes (maybe the harder ones) that oversees the others and helps them become better teachers and to ensure that the kids are learning. Otherwise it is somewhat of a crap shoot and parents hope their kids wind up in the good teachers classes. I noticed a lot of freshman college classes are like that, the ones that have many different classes taught by different professors but all take the same tests in the evening. I also think it could be worked that way so a substitute that knew nothing about the class didn't have to come in and have the kids do word search puzzles when their normal teacher was out sick, a free teacher could pick up the slack.

I taught entry level mechanical engineering classes when I was a graduate student and now I help train new engineers and non degreed technicians at work. I sort of fell into that unofficial role because I am good at explaining technical things in a way that can be understood by most.

The students always know who the good teachers are, so I don't get why it would be so hard for someone like the head math teacher to figure it out.


----------



## RobS888

Pat,

Post secondary is usually based on the theory of you want the education sit there and get it. Kind of a push system.

K-12 is different, besides most of it being legally required, children aren't capable of making decisions about their education. I'm not sure many college kids can/or do. My wife says many parents come to the university and advocate for their kids.

You can't fire them because students don't see them as the good teacher.

I'm not qualified to decide what a good teacher is, I think they have to do it. I know that no one that hasn't spent thousands of hours teaching should have a say in it.

I can tell you what a bad trainer is! I worked with a guy that repeated things louder when people didn't understand.


----------



## patcollins

> My wife says many parents come to the university and advocate for their kids.


I actually had a parent call me to discuss a grade I gave their kids group project once.


----------



## RobS888

> My wife says many parents come to the university and advocate for their kids.
> 
> I actually had a parent call me to discuss a grade I gave their kids group project once.
> 
> - patcollins


She says they often call the registrar to get their kids grades, they call to argue about grades and have been known to go on interviews with the kids. She has nothing positive to say about them.


----------



## DrDirt

> My wife says many parents come to the university and advocate for their kids.
> 
> I actually had a parent call me to discuss a grade I gave their kids group project once.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> She says they often call the registrar to get their kids grades, they call to argue about grades and have been known to go on interviews with the kids. She has nothing positive to say about them.
> 
> - RobS888


They do the same at actual job interviews - and call HR when their precious child doesn't get a '5' rating

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/06/146464665/helicopter-parents-hover-in-the-workplace


----------



## DrDirt

At least we build 43 million dollar gas stations in afghanistan….
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/02/afghanistan-43m-gas-station-colossal-waste-us-taxpayer-money/


----------



## RobS888

That is a good reason to reduce the size and scope of the DOD.


----------



## Mahdeew

Surely we can agree that we should take care of our own. I was listening on NPR about how many states are making homelessness illegal. So, if you loose everything and end up in the streets, you go to jail.
#1 The U.S. Census Bureau says that nearly 47 million Americans are living in poverty right now.

#2 Other numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau are also very disturbing. For example, in 2007 about one out of every eight children in America was on food stamps. Today, that number is one out of every five.

#3 According to Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer, the authors of a new book entitled "$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America", there are 1.5 million "ultrapoor" households in the United States that live on less than two dollars a day. That number has doubled since 1996.

#4 46 million Americans use food banks each year, and lines start forming at some U.S. food banks as early as 6:30 in the morning because people want to get something before the food supplies run out.

#5 The number of homeless children in the U.S. has increased by 60 percent over the past six years.

#6 According to Poverty USA, 1.6 million American children slept in a homeless shelter or some other form of emergency housing last year.

#7 Police in New York City have identified 80 separate homeless encampments in the city, and the homeless crisis there has gotten so bad that it is being described as an "epidemic".

#8 If you can believe it, more than half of all students in our public schools are poor enough to qualify for school lunch subsidies.

#9 According to a Census Bureau report that was released a while back, 65 percent of all children in the U.S. are living in a home that receives some form of aid from the federal government.

#10 According to a report that was published by UNICEF, almost one-third of all children in this country "live in households with an income below 60 percent of the national median income".

#11 When it comes to child poverty, the United States ranks 36th out of the 41 "wealthy nations" that UNICEF looked at.

#12 The number of Americans that are living in concentrated areas of high poverty has doubled since the year 2000.

#13 An astounding 45 percent of all African-American children in the United States live in areas of "concentrated poverty".

#14 40.9 percent of all children in the United States that are being raised by a single parent are living in poverty.

#15 An astounding 48.8 percent of all 25-year-old Americans still live at home with their parents.

#16 There are simply not enough good jobs to go around anymore. It may be hard to believe, but 51 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.

#17 There are 7.9 million working age Americans that are "officially unemployed" right now and another 94.7 million working age Americans that are considered to be "not in the labor force". When you add those two numbers together, you get a grand total of 102.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now.

#18 Owning a home has traditionally been a signal that you belong to the middle class. That is why it is so alarming that the rate of homeownership in the United States has been falling for eight years in a row.

#19 According to a recent Pew survey, approximately 70 percent of all Americans believe that "debt is a necessity in their lives".

#20 At this point, 25 percent of all Americans have a negative net worth. That means that the value of what they owe is greater than the value of everything that they own.

#21 The top 0.1 percent of all American families have about as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent of all American families combined.

Source.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Just one more thing, white middle age male mortality rate going up due to economic stress and alcoholism


----------



## RobS888

> Surely we can agree that we should take care of our own. I was listening on NPR about how many states are making homelessness illegal. So, if you loose everything and end up in the streets, you go to jail.
> #1 The U.S. Census Bureau says that nearly 47 million Americans are living in poverty right now.
> 
> #2 Other numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau are also very disturbing. For example, in 2007 about one out of every eight children in America was on food stamps. Today, that number is one out of every five.
> 
> #3 According to Kathryn J. Edin and H. Luke Shaefer, the authors of a new book entitled "$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America", there are 1.5 million "ultrapoor" households in the United States that live on less than two dollars a day. That number has doubled since 1996.
> 
> #4 46 million Americans use food banks each year, and lines start forming at some U.S. food banks as early as 6:30 in the morning because people want to get something before the food supplies run out.
> 
> #5 The number of homeless children in the U.S. has increased by 60 percent over the past six years.
> 
> #6 According to Poverty USA, 1.6 million American children slept in a homeless shelter or some other form of emergency housing last year.
> 
> #7 Police in New York City have identified 80 separate homeless encampments in the city, and the homeless crisis there has gotten so bad that it is being described as an "epidemic".
> 
> #8 If you can believe it, more than half of all students in our public schools are poor enough to qualify for school lunch subsidies.
> 
> #9 According to a Census Bureau report that was released a while back, 65 percent of all children in the U.S. are living in a home that receives some form of aid from the federal government.
> 
> #10 According to a report that was published by UNICEF, almost one-third of all children in this country "live in households with an income below 60 percent of the national median income".
> 
> #11 When it comes to child poverty, the United States ranks 36th out of the 41 "wealthy nations" that UNICEF looked at.
> 
> #12 The number of Americans that are living in concentrated areas of high poverty has doubled since the year 2000.
> 
> #13 An astounding 45 percent of all African-American children in the United States live in areas of "concentrated poverty".
> 
> #14 40.9 percent of all children in the United States that are being raised by a single parent are living in poverty.
> 
> #15 An astounding 48.8 percent of all 25-year-old Americans still live at home with their parents.
> 
> #16 There are simply not enough good jobs to go around anymore. It may be hard to believe, but 51 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year.
> 
> #17 There are 7.9 million working age Americans that are "officially unemployed" right now and another 94.7 million working age Americans that are considered to be "not in the labor force". When you add those two numbers together, you get a grand total of 102.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now.
> 
> #18 Owning a home has traditionally been a signal that you belong to the middle class. That is why it is so alarming that the rate of homeownership in the United States has been falling for eight years in a row.
> 
> #19 According to a recent Pew survey, approximately 70 percent of all Americans believe that "debt is a necessity in their lives".
> 
> #20 At this point, 25 percent of all Americans have a negative net worth. That means that the value of what they owe is greater than the value of everything that they own.
> 
> #21 The top 0.1 percent of all American families have about as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent of all American families combined.
> 
> Source.
> 
> - mahdee


We've talked about #17 extensively, it includes retired individuals from the largest generation. The numbers are probably correct, but the description/problem isn't correct and shouldn't be presented as a systemic problem. That number will start decreasing soon since the leading edge of boomers are 70.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I think the precise numbers are really immaterial at this point. Since the election of Bush the Dumbest, the US has lost millions of jobs and as we turn around we have not created enough jobs to even keep up with population growth. Millions of former well paid workers will never work again through no fault of their own. Some locations are starting to make homelessness illegal. Yet, we allow the corps to abuse the H1B visa imports and exploit them lowering wages and working conditions for us, US.

as Thom Hartmann pointed out today, one of the Koch brothers was quoted as saying he expected something in return for his political contributions. Seems like the R's are beginning to flaunt their criminal influence over the government after they admitted on live TV to using the Benghazi hearing to get Hillary.


----------



## Mahdeew

I watched the entire hearing; it was a joke.


----------



## DrDirt

> I think the precise numbers are really immaterial at this point. Since the election of Bush the Dumbest, the US has lost millions of jobs and as we turn around we have not created enough jobs to even keep up with population growth. Millions of former well paid workers will never work again through no fault of their own. Some locations are starting to make homelessness illegal. Yet, we allow the corps to abuse the H1B visa imports and exploit them lowering wages and working conditions for us, US.
> 
> as Thom Hartmann pointed out today, one of the Koch brothers was quoted as saying he expected something in return for his political contributions. Seems like the R s are beginning to flaunt their criminal influence over the government after they admitted on live TV to using the Benghazi hearing to get Hillary.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Thought the exodus of jobs started with China Favored Nation, and then NAFTA "Giant Sucking Sound" 
Bush got us into the wars, but not so much on trade policy and offshoring as a matter of policy/legislation.

Now Obama's TPP will finish the shackling of America to be China's sex toy.

Pretty sure that all of the super donors expect quid pro quo….
Of course Koch is the 'standard target'... but the Clinton Foundation, and George Soros organizations are not benevolent charities.

Fact is every donation even at the 5 dollar level, was because someone thought that THAT person was going to represent THEIR interest.


----------



## DrDirt

Based on the actual tanscript - - Haartman is twisting the story about th Koch Interview… which he gave to MSNBC on Morning Joe… 
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/koch-brothers-say-they-are-largely-failures-at-influencing-us-politics/

In an interview with MSNBC which aired on Tuesday, Koch said that in donating money to campaigns, he expects something in return -* for the government to end the corporate welfare system.
*
Asked if he thinks he is contributing to the same system by "buying influence", Koch replied, "No, no."

"Well, so far we, we're largely failures at it, as you can tell."

Koch, who was interviewed along with his brother David by Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, said that somebody has to fight the corporate welfare system.

"So if we didn't do it, who would be trying to stop this racket?" Koch said. "This is a huge racket that's wrecking the country."

So his expectation to END corporate welfare and Cronyism (Tea party??) - is a bit different than how Thom spun it as "proof or some admission of Corruption"


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The point was expectation of favors in return for political contributions, regardless of motivation, is bribery. There are no political contributions; only extortion, bribery and a hybrid combination of the two.


----------



## Mahdeew

Bob, totally agree and it will never be changed as long as those who get the bribe make the rules.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Trouble is all 3 branches and both parties are dong it ;-(


----------



## RobS888

> I watched the entire hearing; it was a joke.
> 
> - mahdee


Sure was… She couldn't pay for that kind of advertising.

It looked like kids trying to get an adult to swear. Let me try to trick her next! No no, you tried, let me try, now.


----------



## patcollins

> At least we build 43 million dollar gas stations in afghanistan….
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/02/afghanistan-43m-gas-station-colossal-waste-us-taxpayer-money/
> 
> - DrDirt


You actually think that money was spent on gas pumping station?


----------



## RobS888

Hmmm, I recall hearing about pallets of cash disappearing as soon as they came off the plane. We should search around Cheney's house for them. I bet the 43 million is there as well.


----------



## RobS888

Did Chris Christie just shame every republican?

How unusual to say all lives matter, not just the first 9 months.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It seems to be a phenomena how they abuse and exploit beynd that point, isn't it?


----------



## RobS888

Yeah, if you are 1 day old you are on your own to them.

Poor parents, Oh well… parents caught in financial disaster, Oh well… parents not the best parents, Oh well… we hate the president and want him to fail, so no Medicaid for you kid.

Never thought I would be proud of something CC said, but for the moment I am proud of him.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The long game of the Libertarians' New World Order is being opposed by Unkoch My Campus

Edit: More disgusting developments

and more


----------



## DrDirt

I think Hartmann did a better job talking about the now released text of the TPP trade deal and what a dog turd it is.

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/11/07/obamas-big-tpp-lie-is-worse-than-we-thought/


----------



## DrDirt

This phenomena of needing to create "safe spaces" and in the name of tolerance ban anything that MIGHT be deemed offensive is more scary than the concept of the Koch brothers putting money into universities.

Seattle Pacific University was holding service on Veterans Day (tomorrow) but decided that having the US Flag at VETERANS DAY… could be offensive.
And took the Pledge out of the service as well.
http://q13fox.com/2015/11/06/organizers-say-no-to-flag-no-to-pledge-during-veterans-day-service-in-spu-campus-church/
"The organizers decided not to include the pledge of allegiance and the presentation of colors during the November 10 chapel, given that there are diversity of views on campus whether such elements should be part of a Christian worship service."

Or YALE daring to allow halloween costumes

One professor didn't support banning halloween costumes. 
Here is his "DISGRACEFUL" e-mail 
---------------------------

'I don't wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation.

'I know that many decent people have proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative) exercise of implied control over college students.

'I don't, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on others. I can't defend them anymore than you could defend yours.

*'If you don't like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society.'*
-------------------------------------

Seems pretty sane/rational advice. Watch the video - this is "discourse" on campus.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308422/Students-rage-professor-sent-email-telling-students-just-look-away-offended-Halloween-costumes.html


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I think Hartmann did a better job talking about the now released text of the TPP trade deal and what a dog turd it is.
> 
> http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/11/07/obamas-big-tpp-lie-is-worse-than-we-thought/
> 
> - DrDirt


I thought about posting that too. but I didn't want to overwhelm you guys. With the TTP, Obummer and the Senate will do to us, US, what Hitler could not do by force ;-(


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

I'm not religious, but my understanding was that Christ wasn't a uh, militaristic kind of guy, so it seems that a church service is the last place for militaristic accoutrement. I don't care what happens in a church, but I'm surprised to hear any conservative complain about what happens during a service. I don't think a church should have to put up with tyranny from a special interest group.


----------



## RobS888

> I think Hartmann did a better job talking about the now released text of the TPP trade deal and what a dog turd it is.
> 
> http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/11/07/obamas-big-tpp-lie-is-worse-than-we-thought/
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I thought about posting that too. but I didn t want to overwhelm you guys. With the TTP, Obummer and the Senate will do to us, US, what Hitler could not do by force ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Hmm, other countries say the TPP is totally in the US's favor, so I've got to wonder who benefits if the US, Australia, & Canada have concerns and think the deal is too one sided.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> I m not religious, but my understanding was that Christ wasn t a uh, militaristic kind of guy, so it seems that a church service is the last place for militaristic accoutrement. I don t care what happens in a church, but I m surprised to hear any conservative complain about what happens during a service. I don t think a church should have to put up with tyranny from a special interest group.
> 
> - RobS888


(A) the Flag isn't a Militaristic Accoutrement- - unless maybe the countries flags should be banned from the Olympic Parade of Nations too?

(B) this is about the UNIVERSITY saying that the US Flag is Innappropriate for Veterans Day.

Really - - which veterans are we "honoring" and why? Seems they marched to war carrying the flag of our country - -to me it is odd that we honor US soldiers… but think the flag itself is offensive for that celebration.

Suppose that Easter Eggs will be deemed Offensive to Vegans, and should be banned as well?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I thought about posting that too. but I didn t want to overwhelm you guys. With the TTP, Obummer and the Senate will do to us, US, what Hitler could not do by force ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Hmm, other countries say the TPP is totally in the US s favor, so I ve got to wonder who benefits if the US, Australia, & Canada have concerns and think the deal is too one sided.
> 
> - RobS888


I believe their opinions may be based on the perception the multinational corporate beneficiaries are US companies. Clearly, the only winners will be in upper management in the forms of bonuses and other compensation enhancements.


----------



## DrDirt

Yep - - Bernie Sanders nailed it in his press release about the TPP…. but Hillary says "it is the gold standard of trade deals"


----------



## RobS888

> (A) the Flag isn t a Militaristic Accoutrement- - unless maybe the countries flags should be banned from the Olympic Parade of Nations too?
> 
> (B) this is about the UNIVERSITY saying that the US Flag is Innappropriate for Veterans Day.
> 
> Really - - which veterans are we "honoring" and why? Seems they marched to war carrying the flag of our country - -to me it is odd that we honor US soldiers… but think the flag itself is offensive for that celebration.
> 
> Suppose that Easter Eggs will be deemed Offensive to Vegans, and should be banned as well?
> 
> - DrDirt


*A*) In a church during a service, sure ban 'em. Did you know that flags started as a military device? The fact you carry it in a war seems kind off definitive on that point.

*B*) Inappropriate in a church, sure is. I can't believe you are advocating tyranny!

*rest of post*) Normal fallacious type argument from you, I can't decide if the easter egg comment is a Straw-man or just ad absurdum.


----------



## RobS888

> I thought about posting that too. but I didn t want to overwhelm you guys. With the TTP, Obummer and the Senate will do to us, US, what Hitler could not do by force ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Hmm, other countries say the TPP is totally in the US s favor, so I ve got to wonder who benefits if the US, Australia, & Canada have concerns and think the deal is too one sided.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> I believe their opinions may be based on the perception the multinational corporate beneficiaries are US companies. Clearly, the only winners will be in upper management in the forms of bonuses and other compensation enhancements.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Hmm, now I wonder if the government actually negotiated it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Hmm, now I wonder if the government actually negotiated it.
> - RobS888


No, corporate attorneys and lobbyists did the negotiating. Thom pretty well lays out their terms, we surrender our sovereignty to corporate greed and profit margins.


----------



## RobS888

> Yep - - Bernie Sanders nailed it in his press release about the TPP…. but Hillary says "it is the gold standard of trade deals"
> 
> - DrDirt


Really, she says that? I haven't heard her say that.

This was asked during the debate, here is her answer:

"I did say, when I was secretary of state, *three years ago*, that I hoped it would be the gold standard," Clinton said. "It was just finally negotiated *last week*, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, 'this will help raise your wages.' And I concluded *I could not*."

So are you confused, misquoting, or ah, trying that fallacy where you don't use the truth?


----------



## CharlesA

displaying flags in worship varies much by Christian tradition. I grew up with them, but now oppose the practice. Here is the advice from my tradition:

http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/worship/faq-signssymbols/


----------



## RobS888

> Hmm, now I wonder if the government actually negotiated it.
> - RobS888
> 
> No, corporate attorneys and lobbyists did the negotiating. Thom pretty well lays out their terms, we surrender our sovereignty to corporate greed and profit margins.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Well, the next president is against it, so hopefully she will get to veto it or perhaps Bernie will republicanize it (filibuster).


----------



## RobS888

> displaying flags in worship varies much by Christian tradition. I grew up with them, but now oppose the practice. Here is the advice from my tradition:
> 
> http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/worship/faq-signssymbols/
> 
> - CharlesA


Seems it should be the church deciding, not some tyrannical little group with loud voices!


----------



## CharlesA

Unless it is my tyrannical little group.


----------



## RobS888

> Unless it is my tyrannical little group.
> 
> - CharlesA


LoL, truth in comedy there.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Hmm, now I wonder if the government actually negotiated it.
> - RobS888
> 
> No, corporate attorneys and lobbyists did the negotiating. Thom pretty well lays out their terms, we surrender our sovereignty to corporate greed and profit margins.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Well, the next president is against it, so hopefully she will get to veto it or perhaps Bernie will republicanize it (filibuster).
> 
> - RobS888


They published it last week so the vote will be within 90 days. Since the Senate is nearly 100% corporate insiders, I doubt is Bernie and Elizabeth Warren with maybe a couple others can hold the floor long enough to filibuster it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

BTW, very few bills are written or even read by the ^@$^%^ that vote on them. They are written by lobbyists and industry insiders. While they publicly scream about regulation, they privately advocate for more to lock in their monopolies and lock small business and innovation out.


----------



## RobS888

> Hmm, now I wonder if the government actually negotiated it.
> - RobS888
> 
> No, corporate attorneys and lobbyists did the negotiating. Thom pretty well lays out their terms, we surrender our sovereignty to corporate greed and profit margins.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Well, the next president is against it, so hopefully she will get to veto it or perhaps Bernie will republicanize it (filibuster).
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> They published it last week so the vote will be within 90 days. Since the Senate is nearly 100% corporate insiders, I doubt is Bernie and Elizabeth Warren with maybe a couple others can hold the floor long enough to filibuster it.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I don't think they need to actually hold the floor, they can just say they object and it is fillibusted unless the other team has 60 votes or I think the team doing the blocking needs 40 votes. Either way it isn't like it was originally or the party of nope couldn't have blocked so much.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I don t think they need to actually hold the floor, they can just say they object and it is fillibusted unless the other team has 60 votes or I think the team doing the blocking needs 40 votes. Either way it isn t like it was originally or the party of nope couldn t have blocked so much.
> 
> - RobS888


That is the way it was when Harry Reid was leader of the Senate. He was quite a whimp and of course he had political pressure from his state to be a whimp. When somebody said they were filibustering, Reid let it go at that. Done deal.

Some one filibustered for 24 hours not too long ago and they actually had to stay on the floor and do it. It may have been Bernie, I don't remember. There are so many corporate prostitutes on both sides, I doubt if it could be held. These [email protected][email protected]$ will have to learn the hard way just like they did in 1929. Every generation has to learn the hard way. They all know better than what happened last time. This is a 4 generation cycle, so only every 4th gets it really hard and looks totally stupid in hte history books.


----------



## RobS888

> BTW, very few bills are written or even read by the ^@$^%^ that vote on them. They are written by lobbyists and industry insiders. While they publicly scream about regulation, they privately advocate for more to lock in their monopolies and lock small business and innovation out.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Yup, I've read that some bills are word for word what the lobbyist submits!


----------



## Mahdeew

The Bible has approximately 1400 pages and the amount of interpretations of every verse, chapter, etc., is endless. TPP is 5550 pages and Con-gress has 90 day to read and understand what it says before voting on it??


----------



## DrDirt

> (A) the Flag isn t a Militaristic Accoutrement- - unless maybe the countries flags should be banned from the Olympic Parade of Nations too?
> 
> (B) this is about the UNIVERSITY saying that the US Flag is Innappropriate for Veterans Day.
> 
> Really - - which veterans are we "honoring" and why? Seems they marched to war carrying the flag of our country - -to me it is odd that we honor US soldiers… but think the flag itself is offensive for that celebration.
> 
> Suppose that Easter Eggs will be deemed Offensive to Vegans, and should be banned as well?
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> *A*) In a church during a service, sure ban em. Did you know that flags started as a military device? The fact you carry it in a war seems kind off definitive on that point.
> 
> *B*) Inappropriate in a church, sure is. I can t believe you are advocating tyranny!
> 
> *rest of post*) Normal fallacious type argument from you, I can t decide if the easter egg comment is a Straw-man or just ad absurdum.
> 
> - RobS888


Typical lib can never see the forest for the trees.

Yes it is in Church - - but it is a VETERANS DAY SERVICE.
Why is the flag Inappropriate (per the university administration - not some archdiocese ruling on their religious doctrine)
This is purely about a University banning the flag - because the latest group of libs feel that "the US flag is a symbol of oppression"

Don't we drape the coffins of the Veterans we are honoring with the US Flag? And we often will hold that funeral in a church, with a flag draped coffin.
You seem to agree that should be a forbidden practice.

Makes as much sense as banning gold rings at weddings in church as a sign of flaunting wealth….

The Flag is to Veterans Day what a pair of rings is to a wedding.


----------



## DrDirt

> BTW, very few bills are written or even read by the ^@$^%^ that vote on them. They are written by lobbyists and industry insiders. While they publicly scream about regulation, they privately advocate for more to lock in their monopolies and lock small business and innovation out.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Yup, I ve read that some bills are word for word what the lobbyist submits!
> 
> - RobS888


That is what the Affordable Care Act was.
All prewritten by Rahm Emmanuels brother and team.


----------



## DrDirt

> Yep - - Bernie Sanders nailed it in his press release about the TPP…. but Hillary says "it is the gold standard of trade deals"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Really, she says that? I haven t heard her say that.
> 
> This was asked during the debate, here is her answer:
> 
> "I did say, when I was secretary of state, *three years ago*, that I hoped it would be the gold standard," Clinton said. "It was just finally negotiated *last week*, and in looking at it, it didn t meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, 'this will help raise your wages.' And I concluded *I could not*."
> 
> So are you confused, misquoting, or ah, trying that fallacy where you don t use the truth?
> 
> - RobS888


That's what happens when I quote Bernie….
However as usual Rob you are WRONG….

Have a look!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/

*Nov. 5, 2012, remarks in Australia: *"This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."

Maybe you should read more before attacking others and claiming they are lying. 
So what now bobbie… did she still 'never say it'?
Google is your friend - - maybe you should dig through like this?


----------



## CharlesA

The draping of caskets in the flag is not universal. In my tradition, we say that all military rites at the funeral, including the flag on the casket, be done separately from the church worship service of the funeral. And the military chaplains in my tradition fully support this practice. Depends on what you're used to.


----------



## RobS888

> The Bible has approximately 1400 pages and the amount of interpretations of every verse, chapter, etc., is endless. TPP is 5550 pages and Con-gress has 90 day to read and understand what it says before voting on it??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - mahdee


Do all 5,500 apply to the US? I suspect there are sections on each country with all other countries.


----------



## RobS888

> (A) the Flag isn t a Militaristic Accoutrement- - unless maybe the countries flags should be banned from the Olympic Parade of Nations too?
> 
> (B) this is about the UNIVERSITY saying that the US Flag is Innappropriate for Veterans Day.
> 
> Really - - which veterans are we "honoring" and why? Seems they marched to war carrying the flag of our country - -to me it is odd that we honor US soldiers… but think the flag itself is offensive for that celebration.
> 
> Suppose that Easter Eggs will be deemed Offensive to Vegans, and should be banned as well?
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> *A*) In a church during a service, sure ban em. Did you know that flags started as a military device? The fact you carry it in a war seems kind off definitive on that point.
> 
> *B*) Inappropriate in a church, sure is. I can t believe you are advocating tyranny!
> 
> *rest of post*) Normal fallacious type argument from you, I can t decide if the easter egg comment is a Straw-man or just ad absurdum.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Typical lib can never see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Yes it is in Church - - but it is a VETERANS DAY SERVICE.
> Why is the flag Inappropriate (per the university administration - not some archdiocese ruling on their religious doctrine)
> This is purely about a University banning the flag - because the latest group of libs feel that "the US flag is a symbol of oppression"
> 
> Don t we drape the coffins of the Veterans we are honoring with the US Flag? And we often will hold that funeral in a church, with a flag draped coffin.
> You seem to agree that should be a forbidden practice.
> 
> Makes as much sense as banning gold rings at weddings in church as a sign of flaunting wealth….
> 
> The Flag is to Veterans Day what a pair of rings is to a wedding.
> 
> - DrDirt


Putting a flag on someone's coffin that died for it is perfectly reasonable. 
Blowing your stack over not allowing a flag in a church is childish. 
Do you need an explanation on the differences between a funeral and a service?

Not in a church it isn't, puppy.


----------



## RobS888

> BTW, very few bills are written or even read by the ^@$^%^ that vote on them. They are written by lobbyists and industry insiders. While they publicly scream about regulation, they privately advocate for more to lock in their monopolies and lock small business and innovation out.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Yup, I ve read that some bills are word for word what the lobbyist submits!
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> That is what the Affordable Care Act was.
> All prewritten by Rahm Emmanuels brother and team.
> 
> - DrDirt


I thought the Heritage Foundation wrote it.

Wasn't Zeke Emmanual working for the government when the ACA was written? That would seem to make you wrong again.


----------



## DrDirt

> Do you need an explanation on the differences between a funeral and a service?
> 
> Not in a church it isn t, puppy.
> 
> - RobS888


Sorry cupcake - YOU said the flag has no business in church. So if you need to "go Hillary" and revamp your position go ahead… you can change your opinion.

But I notice you still cannot defend banning it for Veterans Day Services (on Tuesday) so not sunday worship Cupcake!


----------



## RobS888

> Yep - - Bernie Sanders nailed it in his press release about the TPP…. but Hillary says "it is the gold standard of trade deals"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Really, she says that? I haven t heard her say that.
> 
> This was asked during the debate, here is her answer:
> 
> "I did say, when I was secretary of state, *three years ago*, that I hoped it would be the gold standard," Clinton said. "It was just finally negotiated *last week*, and in looking at it, it didn t meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, 'this will help raise your wages.' And I concluded *I could not*."
> 
> So are you confused, misquoting, or ah, trying that fallacy where you don t use the truth?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> That s what happens when I quote Bernie….
> However as usual Rob you are WRONG….
> 
> Have a look!
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/
> 
> *Nov. 5, 2012, remarks in Australia: *"This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment."
> 
> Maybe you should read more before attacking others and claiming they are lying.
> So what now bobbie… did she still never say it ?
> Google is your friend - - maybe you should dig through like this?
> 
> - DrDirt


As I tried pointing out to you in text and in bolding, she may have said it years ago, but she isn't saying it now. That is how you, Dr Dirt mangle the truth.

Attributing a past statement that has been rescinded to the current person is so you!

An honest person would have said "she said…" not "she says…" That's what I objected to.


----------



## RobS888

> Do you need an explanation on the differences between a funeral and a service?
> 
> Not in a church it isn t, puppy.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sorry cupcake - YOU said the flag has no business in church. So if you need to "go Hillary" and revamp your position go ahead… you can change your opinion.
> 
> But I notice you still cannot defend banning it for Veterans Day Services (on Tuesday) so not sunday worship Cupcake!
> 
> - DrDirt


Perhaps you missed where I said it shouldn't be in a service. During funerals it should be up to the family/church.

Am I misunderstanding what Christ stood for?

The article says they want to "Present the colors" to me that suggests at a minimum a flag on a flag pole, if not a color guard. That is different than a flag on a coffin. The flag flying would be seen as endorsement by the church.

Face it, you are being as Tyranical as the kids that want the big ceremony.

Keep War out of churches, respect the sanctity of the houses of worship!


----------



## Mahdeew

> The Bible has approximately 1400 pages and the amount of interpretations of every verse, chapter, etc., is endless. TPP is 5550 pages and Con-gress has 90 day to read and understand what it says before voting on it??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - mahdee
> 
> Do all 5,500 apply to the US? I suspect there are sections on each country with all other countries.
> 
> - RobS888


One has to read it to find out.


----------



## CharlesA

BTW, we all have our day jobs. I field questions on flags in sanctuaries, military participation in funerals, etc. as a (small) part of my day job. Bet none of the rest of you do!


----------



## DrDirt

> BTW, very few bills are written or even read by the ^@$^%^ that vote on them. They are written by lobbyists and industry insiders. While they publicly scream about regulation, they privately advocate for more to lock in their monopolies and lock small business and innovation out.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Yup, I ve read that some bills are word for word what the lobbyist submits!
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> That is what the Affordable Care Act was.
> All prewritten by Rahm Emmanuels brother and team.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I thought the Heritage Foundation wrote it.
> 
> Wasn t Zeke Emmanual working for the government when the ACA was written? That would seem to make you wrong again.
> 
> - RobS888


Wow - - you thought the Heritage Foundation wrote the ACA…. phew!!! and Aliens built the pyramids!
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

Yep Zeke was some special appointee at OMB and worked at NIH. He was a big part of the process, but as I mentioned there was a whole team… Economist Gruber from MIT, and a team of Insurance Lobbiests wrote it.

The discussion was that thes "elected officials write almost nothing" it is given to them by lobbiests and special interest groups. That Emmanuel is someone the administration hired doesn't magicallyl mean that Nancy Pelosi is the 'true author'


----------



## DrDirt

> Perhaps you missed where I said it shouldn t be in a service. During funerals it should be up to the family/church.
> 
> Am I misunderstanding what Christ stood for?
> 
> The article says they want to "Present the colors" to me that suggests at a minimum a flag on a flag pole, if not a color guard. That is different than a flag on a coffin. The flag flying would be seen as endorsement by the church.
> 
> Face it, you are being as Tyranical as the kids that want the big ceremony.
> 
> Keep War out of churches, respect the sanctity of the houses of worship!
> 
> - RobS888


Typical lib - with the "Our Flag=War" mantra.
The CAMPUS chapel is all faiths - - so Jesus is not specific to it as the Muslims, Hindu,Sikh etc students ALL use the same chapel.

I recognize that you have no dog in the hunt, and only support things I mention opposing.

If the students book the chapel for a tuesday service and want to have the flag to honor the veterans, the argument that "someone could be offended by seeing the flag" is not a reason to BAN something.

You remind me of the hysterical loon screaming at the professor at YALE to STFU because he said he didn't support banning Halloween costumes.


----------



## RobS888

Yup, I ve read that some bills are word for word what the lobbyist submits!

- RobS888

*That is what the Affordable Care Act was.*
All prewritten by Rahm Emmanuels brother and team.

- DrDirt

Wow - - you thought the Heritage Foundation wrote the ACA…. phew!!! and Aliens built the pyramids!
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

Yep Zeke was some special appointee at OMB and worked at NIH. He was a big part of the process, but as I mentioned there was a whole team… Economist Gruber from MIT, and a team of Insurance Lobbiests wrote it.

The discussion was that thes "elected officials write almost nothing" it is given to them by lobbiests and special interest groups. That Emmanuel is someone the administration hired doesn t magicallyl mean that Nancy Pelosi is the true author

- DrDirt
[/QUOTE]
So at a minimum, they weren't lobbyists were they? See you are twitching in the wind here, you chimed in and presented the ACA as an example of being written by lobbyists and now are trying to walk it back.

How can Pelosi be the author of the ACA when it is based on RMoneyCare which is based on what the Heritage foundation wrote?

You blew your own nose off with this one. I hope you don't fall over backwards backpeddling! Don't worry the ACA will help you.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/01/barack-obama/obama-says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/

Oh, snap, that must hurt!


----------



## RobS888

> Perhaps you missed where I said it shouldn t be in a service. During funerals it should be up to the family/church.
> 
> Am I misunderstanding what Christ stood for?
> 
> The article says they want to "Present the colors" to me that suggests at a minimum a flag on a flag pole, if not a color guard. That is different than a flag on a coffin. The flag flying would be seen as endorsement by the church.
> 
> Face it, you are being as Tyranical as the kids that want the big ceremony.
> 
> Keep War out of churches, respect the sanctity of the houses of worship!
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Typical lib - with the "Our Flag=War" mantra.
> The CAMPUS chapel is all faiths - - so Jesus is not specific to it as the Muslims, Hindu,Sikh etc students ALL use the same chapel.
> 
> I recognize that you have no dog in the hunt, and only support things I mention opposing.
> 
> If the students book the chapel for a tuesday service and want to have the flag to honor the veterans, the argument that "someone could be offended by seeing the flag" is not a reason to BAN something.
> 
> You remind me of the hysterical loon screaming at the professor at YALE to STFU because he said he didn t support banning Halloween costumes.
> 
> - DrDirt


You're right I don't have a dog in the fight (more war terminology) that makes my opinion OBJECTIVE, that means I don't care, but I find your hysteria about people not wanting a flag offensive.

People have the right to worship their theology or flag anyway they want as long as it doesn't bother other people, if it bothers one person, then they need to stop. Or do you favor majority rules in this case?

Charles presents, in my opinion, an enlightened approach, yours isn't even close.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

The discussion about lobbyists writing the laws isn't the same as expecting the politician to write it, of course they get experts to help. There is a difference bewtween people that give you money also providing you a law to put forward and getting experts to help write the law. I hope you can see the difference and that one should be illegal and the other legal.


----------



## DrDirt

> Really, she says that? I haven t heard her say that.
> 
> - RobS888


Now you cross to being a total liar… you claimed "YOU NEVER HEARD HER SAY THAT" and put out a quote that she only "HOPED it would be the gold standard" rather than it would BE the gold standard.

Now that you see you are wrong, you highlight a different quote to try to squirm away and parse the quote.
---------------
But in reality over the years she *claimed it to be the gold standard* not just 'hopefully'...

Bernie points out that this is FAR from the gold standard it was billed to be and Hillary's fingerprints are all over it as she started this process as SOS.

It is only because people are now screaming about what a POS it is, that she is "Against it after being its architect"

Driven by Bernie forcing it on CNN





Queen Cankles flip flops on the issue. What a Shock!

You can go around and around on what you THINK she did or didn't say… however all of that is just bread and circus distraction to the fact that 
*TPP is a DISASTER*


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> The discussion about lobbyists writing the laws isn t the same as expecting the politician to write it, of course they get experts to help. There is a difference over people that give you money also providing you a law to put forward and getting experts to help write the law. I hope you can see the difference and that one should be illegal and the other legal.
> 
> - RobS888


So is the Insurance industry a lobbiest (working for their interests $$$$).... or an Expert helping us USA out?

Was Grubers "EXPERTISE" needed to encourage Obama to Lie to the people about being able to keep their insurance. an ECONOMIC strategy? (Since that is Grubers Field) or setting policy?


----------



## RobS888

> Really, she says that? I haven t heard her say that.
> - RobS888
> 
> Now you cross to being a* total liar*... you claimed "YOU NEVER HEARD HER SAY THAT" and put out a quote that she only "HOPED it would be the gold standard" rather than it would BE the gold standard.
> 
> Now that you see you are wrong, you highlight a *different quote *to try to squirm away and parse the quote.
> ---------------
> But in reality over the years she *claimed it to be the gold standard* not just hopefully …
> 
> Bernie points out that this is FAR from the gold standard it was billed to be and Hillary s fingerprints are all over it as she started this process as SOS.
> 
> It is only because people are now screaming about what a POS it is, that she is "Against it after being its architect"
> 
> Queen Cankles flip flops on the issue. What a Shock!
> 
> - DrDirt


I don't watch the news, so I can honestly say I haven't heard her say that at all. I heard her at the debate say she didn't like it, now that it is finished. Do you think that is the same thing? My hearing her say it and reading she did say it in the past. Whatever reason, she is agin' it now, so she is saying NO to it.

Are you defending yourself or Bernie? I hope it is Bernie!

*EDIT:*

*Can you show where I lied? If not, you should apologize, unless you want your hysterical name calling to get this thread shut down as well. Considering you are 0 for 2 today, that might be in your favor. *


----------



## RobS888

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> The discussion about lobbyists writing the laws isn t the same as expecting the politician to write it, of course they get experts to help. There is a difference over people that give you money also providing you a law to put forward and getting experts to help write the law. I hope you can see the difference and that one should be illegal and the other legal.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So is the Insurance industry a lobbiest…. or an Expert helping us out?
> 
> Was Grubers "EXPERTISE" needed to encourage Obama to Lie to the people about being able to keep their insurance. an ECONOMIC strategy? (Since that is Grubers Field) or setting policy?
> 
> - DrDirt


Different topics there, puppy. Your thesis was Zeke was a lobbyist. Denied as incorrect.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

You must think Hillary is a great negotiator to accuse her of knowing what a deal would ultimately look like 3 years after she left office. A deal that was finally signed by 12 countries! What have they been doing for the past 3 years?

To imagine it hasn't changed substantially in the past 3 years is foolish. As I understand it there are dozens of side deals betwixt all the participants.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> You must think Hillary is a great negotiator to accuse her of knowing what a deal would ultimately look like 3 years after she left office. A deal that was finally signed by 12 countries! What have they been doing for the past 3 years?
> 
> To imagine it hasn t changed substantially in the past 3 years is foolish. As I understand it there are dozens of side deals betwixt all the participants.
> 
> - RobS888


Everyone with a brain and pulse knows that the trade deals have led to additional export of Jobs to low wage countries e.g. NAFTA.

*Tell me what changed between her initial negotiations,... and Kerry's finalization. What did Kerry do to turn her "golden deal - -into the reverse Midas Touch"*

Bernie and everyone else already knew going in that a Pacific Free Trade agreement was going to be 'More of the same'

So Billary trying to say that "after review of teh final product… she thinks it wouldn't be good for the middle class" is absolutely true.

But fact is it was NEVER going to be good for the middle class and she ALWAYS knew it.
It is just a matter of political winds of change that she "SAYS" she opposes it. Just like every president SAYS they will solve the border problem…. yet nothing happens.

Republicans said "if we took back the House" we would stop obama
then Well onlyl the house isn't enough… if we had the Senate Too… we will stop obama and repeal obamacare..

Well they won and bumpkis. (regardless whether it was a good goal).
Hillary's opposition to this in REALITY is the same as Baracks… or Bill Clinton's opposition to NAFTA.

Wall street wants this deal and Hillary delivers.

I am hoping that TPP is part of the debate tonight - - since it is supposed to be about business… trade shoudl be in there!!


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> The discussion about lobbyists writing the laws isn t the same as expecting the politician to write it, of course they get experts to help. There is a difference over people that give you money also providing you a law to put forward and getting experts to help write the law. I hope you can see the difference and that one should be illegal and the other legal.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So is the Insurance industry a lobbiest…. or an Expert helping us out?
> 
> Was Grubers "EXPERTISE" needed to encourage Obama to Lie to the people about being able to keep their insurance. an ECONOMIC strategy? (Since that is Grubers Field) or setting policy?
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Different topics there, puppy. Your thesis was Zeke was a lobbyist. Denied as incorrect.
> 
> - RobS888


Your thesis was *There is a difference over people that give you money also providing you a law to put forward and getting experts to help write the law. I hope you can see the difference and that one should be illegal and the other legal. *

So was the insurance company a Helper or a lobby working on their interests to sell everyone HIGHER priced cadillac plans and cancelling the 'affordable' plans they had.??

This was not written by the legislators. I agree that Nancy Pelosi knows nothing about cardiac care and would need help making a feed me sign with crayons.

But Zeke and Gruber and Blue Cross - - were not working in support of the common good to create "affordable Care" they came in with their own agenda and got the willing idiots in congress to go along and "pass it to see what's in it" 
Sure it is a longer quote… but anything you ram through in the middle of the night Christmas Eve without reading it…. is NOT good legislation.

Fact is you would be hard pressed to find any law that didn't make it to the floor without outside money pushing it.


----------



## RobS888

> Everyone with a brain and pulse knows that the trade deals have led to additional export of Jobs to low wage countries e.g. NAFTA.
> 
> *Tell me what changed between her initial negotiations,... and Kerry s finalization. What did Kerry do to turn her "golden deal - -into the reverse Midas Touch"*
> 
> Bernie and everyone else already knew going in that a Pacific Free Trade agreement was going to be More of the same
> 
> So Billary trying to say that "after review of teh final product… she thinks it wouldn t be good for the middle class" is absolutely true.
> 
> But fact is it was NEVER going to be good for the middle class and she ALWAYS knew it.
> It is just a matter of political winds of change that she "SAYS" she opposes it. Just like every president SAYS they will solve the border problem…. yet nothing happens.
> 
> Republicans said "if we took back the House" we would stop obama
> then Well onlyl the house isn t enough… if we had the Senate Too… we will stop obama and repeal obamacare..
> 
> Well they won and bumpkis. (regardless whether it was a good goal).
> Hillary s opposition to this in REALITY is the same as Baracks… or Bill Clinton s opposition to NAFTA.
> 
> Wall street wants this deal and Hillary delivers.
> 
> I am hoping that TPP is part of the debate tonight - - since it is supposed to be about business… trade shoudl be in there!!
> 
> - DrDirt


I know that people in several countries aren't happy about it, however the topic was about her saying it is good when she is saying it isn't good.


----------



## RobS888

> So is the Insurance industry a lobbiest…. or an Expert helping us out?
> 
> Was Grubers "EXPERTISE" needed to encourage Obama to Lie to the people about being able to keep their insurance. an ECONOMIC strategy? (Since that is Grubers Field) or setting policy?
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Different topics there, puppy. Your thesis was Zeke was a lobbyist. Denied as incorrect.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Your thesis was *There is a difference over people that give you money also providing you a law to put forward and getting experts to help write the law. I hope you can see the difference and that one should be illegal and the other legal. *
> 
> So was the insurance company a Helper or a lobby working on their interests to sell everyone HIGHER priced cadillac plans and cancelling the affordable plans they had.??
> 
> This was not written by the legislators. I agree that Nancy Pelosi knows nothing about cardiac care and would need help making a feed me sign with crayons.
> 
> But Zeke and Gruber and Blue Cross - - were not working in support of the common good to create "affordable Care" they came in with their own agenda and got the willing idiots in congress to go along and "pass it to see what s in it"
> Sure it is a longer quote… but anything you ram through in the middle of the night Christmas Eve without reading it…. is NOT good legislation.
> 
> Fact is you would be hard pressed to find any law that didn t make it to the floor without outside money pushing it.
> 
> - DrDirt


Does it hurt your head trying to spin that hard? You claimed Zeke was a lobbyist when he wrote the ACA and that isn't the case.

Why do you say they didn't read the ACA? I mean before voting on it?


----------



## patcollins

> Why do you say they didn t read the ACA? I mean before voting on it?
> 
> - RobS888


I would say this has a lot to do with it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115749-sen-baucus-suggests-he-did-not-read-entire-health-bill

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-christopher-jones/lawmaker-reading-and-understanding_b_4312393.html

http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/penn-statim/dont-be-silly-lawmakers-rarely-read-legislation-and-oftentimes-dont-understand-it-but-thats-okay/

Personally i don't think it is OK to vote on such a sweeping law without reading the entire thing and understanding it.


----------



## RobS888

> Why do you say they didn t read the ACA? I mean before voting on it?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> I would say this has a lot to do with it.
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115749-sen-baucus-suggests-he-did-not-read-entire-health-bill
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-christopher-jones/lawmaker-reading-and-understanding_b_4312393.html
> 
> http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/penn-statim/dont-be-silly-lawmakers-rarely-read-legislation-and-oftentimes-dont-understand-it-but-thats-okay/
> 
> Personally i don t think it is OK to vote on such a sweeping law without reading the entire thing and understanding it.
> 
> - patcollins


No offense Pat, but you showed that not all read/understand, not that none did. Given that many republicans don't understand science I'm not surprised. I agree it is a huge problem.

I was objecting to "willing idiots in congress to go along and "pass it to see what s in it"", I bet many did read the ACA, it was only 960 pages, not the reported 2,500 at the time. I think he mangled the quote from Pelosi: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it - away from the fog of the controversy."

Would you vote on something if your wife filled you in on the details? What if you have advisers that give you an executive summary? Would that do?


----------



## Mahdeew

Executive summary summary should serve as a "teaser" to spark interest in reading the draft. It should never serve as a condensed version of the original. Otherwise why have a full draft when you can just read the executive summary?


----------



## DrDirt

> BTW, very few bills are written or even read by the ^@$^%^ that vote on them. *They are written by lobbyists and industry insiders. While they publicly scream about regulation, they privately advocate for more to lock in their monopolies and lock small business and innovation out.*
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Yup, I ve read that some bills are word for word what the lobbyist submits!
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> That is what the Affordable Care Act was.
> All prewritten by Rahm Emmanuels brother and team.
> 
> - DrDirt


I never said Zeke was a lobbiest (certainly part of the team was). Just because someone is hired by the government… many are current and former lobbiests.

*There are 65 "former" <cough> lobbiests in the administration.* even though Obama made an executive order banning that. The BAN meant the couldn't be REGISTERED lobbiests…. so many people have just 'unregistered' as lobbiests.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/08/15/there-are-65-former-lobbyists-currently-working-in-the-obama-administration/
Much like animal farm…. when they say Pigs cannot sleep in beds ... then someone adds "with sheets" to that rule… so that they are then allowed in bed.

I would classify Zeke as an insider, that had his brother not been Obama's chief -he wouldn't have had that position rather than him really being the "best person for the job".
------------
I say they didn't read it because (A) many publically admitted they didn't read it. and (B) they admit that they expected during the reconcilliation of house and senate versions… they could work the issues out.
But there never was reconcilliation, they just passed the Senate version.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/25/lets-recall-why-the-affordable-care-act-is-so-messed-up/
Few people, including Senators and their staffs, had time to read the whole 2,700 page bill, much less note any possible weaknesses, flaws, or ambiguities. Reid and other Senate *Democrats weren't terribly worried about this. The bill was set to go to the House, then back to the Senate, then to "reconciliation" between the House and the Senate versions, and then to the president for his signature.* Everyone thought there would be plenty of opportunities to make changes.

After Kennedy died and Brown was elected…. the House just Passed the Senate Bill "AS IS"


----------



## DrDirt

> Why do you say they didn t read the ACA? I mean before voting on it?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> I would say this has a lot to do with it.
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115749-sen-baucus-suggests-he-did-not-read-entire-health-bill
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-christopher-jones/lawmaker-reading-and-understanding_b_4312393.html
> 
> http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/penn-statim/dont-be-silly-lawmakers-rarely-read-legislation-and-oftentimes-dont-understand-it-but-thats-okay/
> 
> Personally i don t think it is OK to vote on such a sweeping law without reading the entire thing and understanding it.
> 
> - patcollins


Don't worry Pat - - you recognize the actual argument being presented.

Rob likes to pettifog the issue and ask to prove conclusively that there wasn't someone like Clare McCaskill that read the bill. 
So rather than recognizing this was passed on party line with the understanding they could change it later - - so nearly nobody read it in its entirety….He will bloviate about whether or not there *could have been *3 or 4 people that might *claim* to have read it cover to cover BEFORE voting.

Reality is it is irrelevant whether it is 100% or not… the number is LOW.
Whether the number is 0, 4 or 23…. the bill was passed by "party line" vote by people ignorant of its contents.

Like the congressman who claims that the island of Guam will capsize in the ocean if we expand the military presence.


----------



## patcollins

> No offense Pat, but you showed that not all read/understand, not that none did. Given that many republicans don t understand science I m not surprised. I agree it is a huge problem.
> 
> I was objecting to "willing idiots in congress to go along and "pass it to see what s in it"", I bet many did read the ACA, it was only 960 pages, not the reported 2,500 at the time. I think he mangled the quote from Pelosi: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it - away from the fog of the controversy."
> 
> Would you vote on something if your wife filled you in on the details? What if you have advisers that give you an executive summary? Would that do?
> 
> - RobS888


Senator Baucus being one of the central figures having not read it really lays doubt on the other senators that really didn't care one way or the other but wanted something for them in there.

At that time President Obama wanted this passed right away, he was actually taking his time more carefully trying to decide on what type of dog to get than he wanted the lawmakers to spend on this sweeping piece of legislation. It was obvious from the beginning that this was hurried and a "lets just get what we can when we can" sort of thing.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Personally i don t think it is OK to vote on such a sweeping law without reading the entire thing and understanding it.
> 
> - patcollins


Let us evaluate their voting motivations on a pragmatic basis. The bills are written by lobbyists, industry insiders and others advancing significant financial interests. I do not recall the exact incident date and bill, but Boner handed out checks on the floor of the House in the last couple of years during a vote. That is totally illegal, but who gives a rat's behind in WA DC; nobody is going to do anything about it.

All but maybe half a dozen of the criminals occupying in the House and Senate as well as all the presidents since Carter are obviously their for financial gain and personal gratification. Why would it matter if they read what they are voting on? It will have absolutely no bearing of their vote. Most are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. If they were, the US would not be nearly the next Great Republican Depression which takes the world down with us again ;-(

Of all the quotes by founding fathers I recall, the only one that seems a bit vague is the one about democracy failing when the people vote themselves resources out the the public treasury. It should have been more specific. It is obviously the oligarch's prostitutes voting public assets to the top 1% is the drain ;-( All the public welfare programs do not amount to 1/10 the corporate and oligarch's take.


----------



## DrDirt

> Personally i don t think it is OK to vote on such a sweeping law without reading the entire thing and understanding it.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Let us evaluate their voting motivations on a pragmatic basis. The bills are written by lobbyists, industry insiders and others advancing significant financial interests. I do not recall the exact incident date and bill, but Boner handed out checks on the floor of the House in the last couple of years during a vote. That is totally illegal, but who gives a rat s behind in WA DC; nobody is going to do anything about it.
> 
> All but maybe half a dozen of the criminals occupying in the House and Senate as well as all the presidents since Carter are obviously their for financial gain and personal gratification. Why would it matter if they read what they are voting on? It will have absolutely no bearing of their vote. Most are not capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. If they were, the US would not be nearly the next Great Republican Depression which takes the world down with us again ;-(
> 
> Of all the quotes by founding fathers I recall, the only one that seems a bit vague is the one about democracy failing when the people vote themselves resources out the the public treasury. It should have been more specific. It is obviously the oligarch s prostitutes voting public assets to the top 1% is the drain ;-( All the public welfare programs do not amount to 1/10 the corporate and oligarch s take.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Indeed - - 
Same kind of crap was done for the patriot Act, and creation of Homeland Security.
Got a bunch of stuff nobody fully read "pushed through" as an emergency.


----------



## RobS888

> Yup, I ve read that some bills are word for word what the lobbyist submits!
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> That is what the Affordable Care Act was.
> All prewritten by Rahm Emmanuels brother and team.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I never said Zeke was a lobbiest (certainly part of the team was). Just because someone is hired by the government… many are current and former lobbiests.
> 
> - DrDirt


Look at it carefully, you submitted it as an example of lobbyists writing bills.


----------



## RobS888

> Why do you say they didn t read the ACA? I mean before voting on it?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> I would say this has a lot to do with it.
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115749-sen-baucus-suggests-he-did-not-read-entire-health-bill
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-christopher-jones/lawmaker-reading-and-understanding_b_4312393.html
> 
> http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/penn-statim/dont-be-silly-lawmakers-rarely-read-legislation-and-oftentimes-dont-understand-it-but-thats-okay/
> 
> Personally i don t think it is OK to vote on such a sweeping law without reading the entire thing and understanding it.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Don t worry Pat - - you recognize the actual argument being presented.
> 
> Rob likes to pettifog the issue and ask to prove conclusively that there wasn t someone like Clare McCaskill that read the bill.
> So rather than recognizing this was passed on party line with the understanding they could change it later - - so nearly nobody read it in its entirety….He will bloviate about whether or not there *could have been *3 or 4 people that might *claim* to have read it cover to cover BEFORE voting.
> 
> Reality is it is irrelevant whether it is 100% or not… the number is LOW.
> Whether the number is 0, 4 or 23…. the bill was passed by "party line" vote by people ignorant of its contents.
> 
> Like the congressman who claims that the island of Guam will capsize in the ocean if we expand the military presence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt


It is an unsupportable declaration. Just because you can show some didn't, doesn't mean none did.

Based on this "logic" everyone in Kansas is a BTK murderer.

I'll concede that not all read it, perhaps a majority didn't, but to say all didn't, is just lying.

*EDIT:*

What bill did the congressman not read that covered the stability or lack of, for Guam?

If there isn't one then that is about the *dumbest comparison* ever made in the history of well, ... *history of everything, everywhere*.

I could find some really, breathtakingly, stunningly dumb statements from Republicans if that is the game now… I could start with this here book on my desk called Bushisms. Hey! Look there is actually a sequel as well Bushisms 2.


----------



## RobS888

> Executive summary summary should serve as a "teaser" to spark interest in reading the draft. It should never serve as a condensed version of the original. Otherwise why have a full draft when you can just read the executive summary?
> 
> - mahdee


No, not even close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_summary

You're confusing an abstract with an executive summary.

An executive summary, or management summary, is a short document or section of a document, produced for business purposes, that summarizes a longer report or proposal or a group of related reports in such a way that *readers can rapidly become acquainted with a large body of material without having to read it all*. It usually contains a brief statement of the problem or proposal covered in the major document(s), background information, concise analysis and main conclusions. It is intended as an aid to decision-making by managers and has been described as the most important part of a business plan.[1][2][3][4]

An executive summary differs from an abstract in that an abstract will usually be shorter and is intended to provide a neutral overview or orientation rather than being a condensed version of the full document. Abstracts are extensively used in academic research where the concept of the executive summary would be meaningless.* "An abstract is a brief summarizing statement… read by parties who are trying to decide whether or not to read the main document"*, while "an executive summary, unlike an abstract, is a document in miniature that may be read in place of the longer document".[5]


----------



## RobS888

> No offense Pat, but you showed that not all read/understand, not that none did. Given that many republicans don t understand science I m not surprised. I agree it is a huge problem.
> 
> I was objecting to "willing idiots in congress to go along and "pass it to see what s in it"", I bet many did read the ACA, it was only 960 pages, not the reported 2,500 at the time. I think he mangled the quote from Pelosi: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it - away from the fog of the controversy."
> 
> Would you vote on something if your wife filled you in on the details? What if you have advisers that give you an executive summary? Would that do?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Senator Baucus being one of the central figures having not read it really lays doubt on the other senators that really didn t care one way or the other but wanted something for them in there.
> 
> At that time President Obama wanted this passed right away, he was actually taking his time more carefully trying to decide on what type of dog to get than he wanted the lawmakers to spend on this sweeping piece of legislation. It was obvious from the beginning that this was hurried and a "lets just get what we can when we can" sort of thing.
> 
> - patcollins


Pat from your link:

"*Senator Baucus wrote the bill that passed the Finance Committee and then worked with his colleagues to write the health care bill that is law today*. He has spent years crafting this policy and *hundreds of hours reading and perfecting it,*" spokeswoman Erin Shields said. "There is simply no question that he understands the provisions in the health care law and knows it is a historic improvement that will make our health care system more affordable and accessible for families in Montana and across America."

You would expect him to sit down and re-read it?


----------



## DrDirt

> Why do you say they didn t read the ACA? I mean before voting on it?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> I would say this has a lot to do with it.
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/115749-sen-baucus-suggests-he-did-not-read-entire-health-bill
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-christopher-jones/lawmaker-reading-and-understanding_b_4312393.html
> 
> http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/penn-statim/dont-be-silly-lawmakers-rarely-read-legislation-and-oftentimes-dont-understand-it-but-thats-okay/
> 
> Personally i don t think it is OK to vote on such a sweeping law without reading the entire thing and understanding it.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Don t worry Pat - - you recognize the actual argument being presented.
> 
> Rob likes to pettifog the issue and ask to prove conclusively that there wasn t someone like Clare McCaskill that read the bill.
> So rather than recognizing this was passed on party line with the understanding they could change it later - - so nearly nobody read it in its entirety….He will bloviate about whether or not there *could have been *3 or 4 people that might *claim* to have read it cover to cover BEFORE voting.
> 
> Reality is it is irrelevant whether it is 100% or not… the number is LOW.
> Whether the number is 0, 4 or 23…. the bill was passed by "party line" vote by people ignorant of its contents.
> 
> Like the congressman who claims that the island of Guam will capsize in the ocean if we expand the military presence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> It is an unsupportable declaration. Just because you can show some didn t, doesn t mean none did.
> 
> Based on this "logic" everyone in Kansas is a BTK murderer.
> 
> I ll concede that not all read it, perhaps a majority didn t, but to say all didn t, is just lying.
> 
> - RobS888


I believe the Washington Post more than you. They point out how they pushed it through without reading it because it was supposed to come back to the Senate and then go through reconcilliation.

So they thought they would be "OK - - not reading the entire draft version"

However the Draft became the final version.

So it was passed with VERY FEW having actually read the whole thing. happier now?

You can be very sure that far fewer than 200 people read it… which wouldn't be enough (out of 535 legislators) to pass it.
You are hung up on semantics again, and unable to think rationally.


----------



## RobS888

> I believe the Washington Post more than you. They point out how they pushed it through without reading it because it was supposed to come back to the Senate and then go through reconcilliation.
> 
> So they thought they would be "OK - - not reading the entire draft version"
> 
> However the Draft became the final version.
> 
> So it was passed with *VERY FEW* having actually read the whole thing. happier now?
> 
> You can be very sure that far fewer than 200 people read it… which wouldn t be enough (out of 535 legislators) to pass it.
> You are hung up on semantics again, and unable to think rationally.
> 
> - DrDirt


Objecting to sweeping, all encompassing statements is irrational? I don't believe you can defend that either.

Just try to be honest in what you write, you could have said most didn't, but you went to an absolute, so I slapped you down. And yes, I find *very few* to be more acceptable, not necessarily true, just within the realm of the possible.


----------



## patcollins

> No offense Pat, but you showed that not all read/understand, not that none did. Given that many republicans don t understand science I m not surprised. I agree it is a huge problem.
> 
> I was objecting to "willing idiots in congress to go along and "pass it to see what s in it"", I bet many did read the ACA, it was only 960 pages, not the reported 2,500 at the time. I think he mangled the quote from Pelosi: "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it - away from the fog of the controversy."
> 
> Would you vote on something if your wife filled you in on the details? What if you have advisers that give you an executive summary? Would that do?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Senator Baucus being one of the central figures having not read it really lays doubt on the other senators that really didn t care one way or the other but wanted something for them in there.
> 
> At that time President Obama wanted this passed right away, he was actually taking his time more carefully trying to decide on what type of dog to get than he wanted the lawmakers to spend on this sweeping piece of legislation. It was obvious from the beginning that this was hurried and a "lets just get what we can when we can" sort of thing.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Pat from your link:
> 
> "*Senator Baucus wrote the bill that passed the Finance Committee and then worked with his colleagues to write the health care bill that is law today*. He has spent years crafting this policy and *hundreds of hours reading and perfecting it,*" spokeswoman Erin Shields said. "There is simply no question that he understands the provisions in the health care law and knows it is a historic improvement that will make our health care system more affordable and accessible for families in Montana and across America."
> 
> You would expect him to sit down and re-read it?
> 
> - RobS888


I re-read everything I write, and that is stuff I write solo.


----------



## patcollins

> Would you vote on something if your wife filled you in on the details? What if you have advisers that give you an executive summary? Would that do?
> 
> - RobS888


Would you feel comfortable driving over a bridge that an engineers secretary designed instead of the engineer? It was the engineer hired to design the bridge, just as it was the Senator elected to represent their states residents.

I was not happy when Strom Thurmand was basically drooling on himself and his staff was doing everything, his staff were not who was elected.


----------



## Mahdeew

If I earned 175 grand + all the perks, I would read everything I was entrusted to vote on behalf of my employer.

So once the middle class goes on welfare, our democracy will turn to serfdom; maybe that is the agenda.

Rob, you forgot to add this from the same article.
Criticisms[edit]
It has been said that, by providing an easy digest of an often complex matter, an executive summary can lead policy makers and others to overlook important issues.[12] Prof. Amanda Sinclair of the University of Melbourne has argued that this is often an active rather than a passive process. In one study, centred on globalization, she found that policy makers face "pressures to adopt a simple reading of complex issues" and "to depoliticise and universalize all sorts of differences". She claims that "all research was framed under pre-defined and generic headings, such as business case points. The partners' reports were supposed to look the same. The standardization of research occurred via vehicles such as executive summaries: "executives only read the summaries" we were told".[13] Similarly Colin Leys, writing in The Socialist Register, argues that executive summaries are used to present dumbed down arguments: "there is remarkably little adverse comment on the steep decline that has occurred since 1980 in the quality of government policy documents, whose level of argumentation and use of evidence is all too often inversely related to the quality of their presentation (in the style of corporate reports, complete with executive summaries and flashy graphics)."[14]


----------



## RobS888

> Would you vote on something if your wife filled you in on the details? What if you have advisers that give you an executive summary? Would that do?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Would you feel comfortable driving over a bridge that an engineers secretary designed instead of the engineer? It was the engineer hired to design the bridge, just as it was the Senator elected to represent their states residents.
> 
> I was not happy when Strom Thurmand was basically drooling on himself and his staff was doing everything, his staff were not who was elected.
> 
> - patcollins


Well, drooling and not reading the other parts of a law aren't the same. The decision is still the senators.

EDIT:

My wife is qualified to vote, her opinion is equal in validity to anyone's (more so, actually than most). The Senators staff is hired by him to help him do his job and I believe they have massive discretion on what they do in their office vis-à-vis job duties, pay, duration, title, in fact I don't believe all regular labor laws apply to congress.

For further reading :

http://archives.democrats.rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm

The secretary is not qualified to design a bridge.


----------



## RobS888

> If I earned 175 grand + all the perks, I would read everything I was entrusted to vote on behalf of my employer.
> 
> So once the middle class goes on welfare, our democracy will turn to serfdom; maybe that is the agenda.
> 
> Rob, you forgot to add this from the same article.
> Criticisms[edit]
> It has been said that, by providing an easy digest of an often complex matter, an executive summary can lead policy makers and others to overlook important issues.[12] Prof. Amanda Sinclair of the University of Melbourne has argued that this is often an active rather than a passive process. In one study, centred on globalization, she found that policy makers face "pressures to adopt a simple reading of complex issues" and "to depoliticise and universalize all sorts of differences". She claims that "all research was framed under pre-defined and generic headings, such as business case points. The partners reports were supposed to look the same. The standardization of research occurred via vehicles such as executive summaries: "executives only read the summaries" we were told".[13] Similarly Colin Leys, writing in The Socialist Register, argues that executive summaries are used to present dumbed down arguments: "there is remarkably little adverse comment on the steep decline that has occurred since 1980 in the quality of government policy documents, whose level of argumentation and use of evidence is all too often inversely related to the quality of their presentation (in the style of corporate reports, complete with executive summaries and flashy graphics)."[14]
> 
> - mahdee


How does that change your misunderstanding of the the term?

Almost anything (see how that works Dirt?) can/will have a criticism. Read this thread for examples.

Perhaps, if lobbying were made illegal, politicians would write and be able to read their own laws.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Perhaps, if lobbying were made illegal, politicians would write and be able to read their own laws.
> 
> - RobS888


If lobbying were illegal the price of real estate in DC would collapse and maybe take the entire economy down with it. All the money would be in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland. There would not be any in circulation in the US.


----------



## patcollins

> Would you vote on something if your wife filled you in on the details? What if you have advisers that give you an executive summary? Would that do?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Would you feel comfortable driving over a bridge that an engineers secretary designed instead of the engineer? It was the engineer hired to design the bridge, just as it was the Senator elected to represent their states residents.
> 
> I was not happy when Strom Thurmand was basically drooling on himself and his staff was doing everything, his staff were not who was elected.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> Well, drooling and not reading the other parts of a law aren t the same. The decision is still the senators.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> My wife is qualified to vote, her opinion is equal in validity to anyone s (more so, actually than most). The Senators staff is hired by him to help him do his job and I believe they have massive discretion on what they do in their office vis-à-vis job duties, pay, duration, title, in fact I don t believe all regular labor laws apply to congress.
> 
> For further reading :
> 
> http://archives.democrats.rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm
> 
> The secretary is not qualified to design a bridge.
> 
> - RobS888


It doesn't matter how well qualified a senators staff is to do the job, they lack the ultimate qualification, they were not who was elected.


----------



## RobS888

> Well, drooling and not reading the other parts of a law aren t the same. The decision is still the senators.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> My wife is qualified to vote, her opinion is equal in validity to anyone s (more so, actually than most). The Senators staff is hired by him to help him do his job and I believe they have massive discretion on what they do in their office vis-à-vis job duties, pay, duration, title, in fact I don t believe all regular labor laws apply to congress.
> 
> For further reading :
> 
> http://archives.democrats.rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm
> 
> The secretary is not qualified to design a bridge.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> It doesn t matter how well qualified a senators staff is to do the job, they lack the ultimate qualification, they were not who was elected.
> 
> - patcollins


I agree it shouldn't be that way, but how could you expect people to understand things in speciality fields that take several degrees to become proficient in? How can a lawyer understand the medical or scientific concepts they must run into. They can't, so they have advisors, people that advise them on what the bill is really saying.

Perhaps we should ask how many tried to read the ACA and gave up.


----------



## Mahdeew

As a representative one can estimate the cost to individuals and businesses. No medical expertise needed for that. The representative should evaluate the cause and effect of the policy for those he/she represent.


----------



## patcollins

> I agree it shouldn t be that way, but how could you expect people to understand things in speciality fields that take several degrees to become proficient in? How can a lawyer understand the medical or scientific concepts they must run into. They can t, so they have advisors, people that advise them on what the bill is really saying.
> 
> Perhaps we should ask how many tried to read the ACA and gave up.
> 
> - RobS888


In my opinion advisers are for asking "what does this phrase mean?" not "should I vote for this?" There is a difference. We vote for lawmakers to make decisions and represent us, not contract out their jobs.


----------



## RobS888

> As a representative one can estimate the cost to individuals and businesses. No medical expertise needed for that. The representative should evaluate the cause and effect of the policy for those he/she represent.
> 
> - mahdee


uh huh, sure. I can see them now with a pencil, paper, & a calculator.


----------



## RobS888

> I agree it shouldn t be that way, but how could you expect people to understand things in speciality fields that take several degrees to become proficient in? How can a lawyer understand the medical or scientific concepts they must run into. They can t, so they have advisors, people that advise them on what the bill is really saying.
> 
> Perhaps we should ask how many tried to read the ACA and gave up.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> In my opinion advisers are for asking "what does this phrase mean?" not "should I vote for this?" There is a difference. We vote for lawmakers to make decisions and represent us, not contract out their jobs.
> 
> - patcollins


I think the rep or Senator or their whips make the decision and advisers tell them what it says. 
Based on the egos I've seen none of them can be told by anyone except the people that can make their next election difficult. So I doubt they are told by their staff to vote for it, just that it would help blah blah or hurt blah blah. Heck the talking points probably come from advisers.

Pat I agree and I'm not defending them, much earlier I made the comment that lobbyists write many of the laws. I mean they are verbatim what the lobbyist provides. I think it is wrong, but essentially they turn their brains over to the lobbyists. The whole system is rigged. Don't get me started on earmarks, that is pure bribery. Like Mitch getting 4 billion for bridges in Kentucky, all he had to do was end the government shut-down.

People may complain about the ACA, but it is far less stinky than what is normal bidness down there.


----------



## DrDirt

> Well, drooling and not reading the other parts of a law aren t the same. The decision is still the senators.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> My wife is qualified to vote, her opinion is equal in validity to anyone s (more so, actually than most). The Senators staff is hired by him to help him do his job and I believe they have massive discretion on what they do in their office vis-à-vis job duties, pay, duration, title, in fact I don t believe all regular labor laws apply to congress.
> 
> For further reading :
> 
> http://archives.democrats.rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm
> 
> The secretary is not qualified to design a bridge.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> It doesn t matter how well qualified a senators staff is to do the job, they lack the ultimate qualification, they were not who was elected.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I agree it shouldn t be that way, but how could you expect people to understand things in speciality fields that take several degrees to become proficient in? How can a lawyer understand the medical or scientific concepts they must run into. They can t, so they have advisors, people that advise them on what the bill is really saying.
> 
> Perhaps we should ask how many tried to read the ACA and gave up.
> 
> - RobS888


Maybe it is because Health Insurance is not something The US Government should be running?

They are definitely qualified to set up some guidelines/Rules for the marketplace though… e.g. No Dropping the Sick, portability of coverage, and requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions.


----------



## DrDirt

Of course I always love the 0.1 percenters and their kids that scream they are actually poor underpriveleged folks.










http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/columns/joe-holleman/mizzou-hunger-strike-figure-from-omaha-son-of-top-railroad/article_20630c03-2a68-5e63-9585-edde16fe05f3.html
He is a member of a prominent Omaha family. The newspaper says that Butler's father is Eric L. Butler, executive vice president for sales and marketing for the Union Pacific Railroad. His 2014 compensation was *$8.4 million*, according to regulatory filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Wow - a mere 8.4 million annually - - must be barely subsisting on beans and rice, living in a shack??!!


----------



## Mahdeew

I have read the summary and there are no technical issues a lawyer can't understand.
Here is a part of it:
Source

Summary: H.R.3590 - 111th Congress (2009-2010)All Bill Information (Except Text)

Listen to this page
There are 4 summaries for H.R.3590. GO
Bill summaries are authored by CRS.
Shown Here:
Public Law No: 111-148 (03/23/2010)

(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Title I: Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans - Subtitle A: Immediate Improvements in Health Care Coverage for All Americans - (Sec. 1001, as modified by Sec. 10101) Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit a health plan ("health plan" under this subtitle excludes any "grandfathered health plan" as defined in section 1251) from establishing lifetime limits or annual limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary after January 1, 2014. Permits a restricted annual limit for plan years beginning prior to January 1, 2014. Declares that a health plan shall not be prevented from placing annual or lifetime per-beneficiary limits on covered benefits that are not essential health benefits to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted.

Prohibits a health plan from rescinding coverage of an enrollee except in the case of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact.

Requires health plans to provide coverage for, and to not impose any cost sharing requirements for: (1) specified preventive items or services; (2) recommended immunizations; and (3) recommended preventive care and screenings for women and children.

Requires a health plan that provides dependent coverage of children to make such coverage available for an unmarried, adult child until the child turns 26 years of age.

Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop standards for health plans (including grandfathered health plans) to provide an accurate summary of benefits and coverage explanation. Directs each such health plan, prior to any enrollment restriction, to provide such a summary of benefits and coverage explanation to: (1) the applicant at the time of application; (2) an enrollee prior to the time of enrollment or re-enrollment; and (3) a policy or certificate holder at the time of issuance of the policy or delivery of the certificate.

Requires group health plans to comply with requirements relating to the prohibition against discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals.

Requires the Secretary to develop reporting requirements for health plans on benefits or reimbursement structures that: (1) improve health outcomes; (2) prevent hospital readmissions; (3) improve patient safety and reduce medical errors; and (4) promote wellness and health.

Prohibits: (1) a wellness and health promotion activity implemented by a health plan or any data collection activity authorized under this Act from requiring the disclosure or collection of any information relating to the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual; (2) any authority provided to the Secretary under this Act from being construed to authorize the collection of such information or the maintenance of records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or (3) any health insurance premium increase, denial of coverage, or reduction of any reward for participation in a wellness program on the basis of the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.


----------



## RobS888

> Maybe it is because Health Insurance is not something The US Government should be running?
> 
> They are definitely qualified to set up some guidelines/Rules for the marketplace though… e.g. No Dropping the Sick, portability of coverage, and requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions.
> 
> - DrDirt


Nah, profit and healthcare shouldn't be combined. The ACA is terrible, but it is better than a for profit system. The sad thing is the republicans could have fine tuned the ACA for the past couple of years, but had to fight it totally.

Actually, health insurance is great for the government to control, doctors and the rest of the healthcare industry can be for profit, just have 1 insurance company.


----------



## RobS888

> Of course I always love the 0.1 percenters and their kids that scream they are actually poor underpriveleged folks.
> 
> http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/columns/joe-holleman/mizzou-hunger-strike-figure-from-omaha-son-of-top-railroad/article_20630c03-2a68-5e63-9585-edde16fe05f3.html
> He is a member of a prominent Omaha family. The newspaper says that Butler s father is Eric L. Butler, executive vice president for sales and marketing for the Union Pacific Railroad. His 2014 compensation was *$8.4 million*, according to regulatory filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
> 
> Wow - a mere 8.4 million annually - - must be barely subsisting on beans and rice, living in a shack??!!
> 
> - DrDirt


Rich people can't fight racism? I don't understand your comment or reason for posting this. Do you just see an angry black man?


----------



## RobS888

> I have read the summary and there are no technical issues a lawyer can t understand.
> Here is a part of it:
> Source
> 
> Summary: H.R.3590 - 111th Congress (2009-2010)All Bill Information (Except Text)
> 
> Listen to this page
> There are 4 summaries for H.R.3590. GO
> Bill summaries are authored by CRS.
> Shown Here:
> Public Law No: 111-148 (03/23/2010)
> 
> (This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
> 
> Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Title I: Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans - Subtitle A: Immediate Improvements in Health Care Coverage for All Americans - (Sec. 1001, as modified by Sec. 10101) Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit a health plan ("health plan" under this subtitle excludes any "grandfathered health plan" as defined in section 1251) from establishing lifetime limits or annual limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary after January 1, 2014. Permits a restricted annual limit for plan years beginning prior to January 1, 2014. Declares that a health plan shall not be prevented from placing annual or lifetime per-beneficiary limits on covered benefits that are not essential health benefits to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted.
> 
> Prohibits a health plan from rescinding coverage of an enrollee except in the case of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact.
> 
> Requires health plans to provide coverage for, and to not impose any cost sharing requirements for: (1) specified preventive items or services; (2) recommended immunizations; and (3) recommended preventive care and screenings for women and children.
> 
> Requires a health plan that provides dependent coverage of children to make such coverage available for an unmarried, adult child until the child turns 26 years of age.
> 
> Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop standards for health plans (including grandfathered health plans) to provide an accurate summary of benefits and coverage explanation. Directs each such health plan, prior to any enrollment restriction, to provide such a summary of benefits and coverage explanation to: (1) the applicant at the time of application; (2) an enrollee prior to the time of enrollment or re-enrollment; and (3) a policy or certificate holder at the time of issuance of the policy or delivery of the certificate.
> 
> Requires group health plans to comply with requirements relating to the prohibition against discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals.
> 
> Requires the Secretary to develop reporting requirements for health plans on benefits or reimbursement structures that: (1) improve health outcomes; (2) prevent hospital readmissions; (3) improve patient safety and reduce medical errors; and (4) promote wellness and health.
> 
> Prohibits: (1) a wellness and health promotion activity implemented by a health plan or any data collection activity authorized under this Act from requiring the disclosure or collection of any information relating to the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual; (2) any authority provided to the Secretary under this Act from being construed to authorize the collection of such information or the maintenance of records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or (3) any health insurance premium increase, denial of coverage, or reduction of any reward for participation in a wellness program on the basis of the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
> 
> - mahdee


Interesting, you are basing the readability/understanding of an approximately 1,000 page law on a summary you decried as worthless for a politician to base his decision on.

I think you proved my point as to them not needing to read every page of the law. Thanks.


----------



## Mahdeew

At least I read the summary, my representative should be held at a higher standard.


----------



## RobS888

> At least I read the summary, my representative should be held at a higher standard.
> 
> - mahdee


How do you know they didn't read the summary? Your standards are between you and your rep.

If you feel you got a good understanding of the law from the summary why couldn't your rep? I agree they should at least try to read the laws, but there aren't any rules about it.


----------



## Mahdeew

Well, they make the rules and that is why there are none that relates to them. If I had the position, I would read the entire draft and voice my concern to fellow representatives on the floor and inform my constituent about it. Should I have read the entire draft, I could have screamed from the top of my lungs about the concerns and no one except the folks with hearing proximity would notice. That is why these folks are there; it is their job to be our watchdogs. 
If all they did was to read the summary, shame on them.


----------



## RobS888

It is better than not reading any of it. I don't like it either, but it is better than nothing. We need single payer.


----------



## DrDirt

> Maybe it is because Health Insurance is not something The US Government should be running?
> 
> They are definitely qualified to set up some guidelines/Rules for the marketplace though… e.g. No Dropping the Sick, portability of coverage, and requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Nah, profit and healthcare shouldn t be combined. The ACA is terrible, but it is better than a for profit system. The sad thing is the republicans could have fine tuned the ACA for the past couple of years, but had to fight it totally.
> 
> Actually, health insurance is great for the government to control, doctors and the rest of the healthcare industry can be for profit, just have 1 insurance company.
> 
> - RobS888


No it isn't.
If it were really as good as you claim it would have been in the constitution from the beginning.

Agree the repubs have done nothing because the goal is to kill it… not tweak it

Your '1 insurance company' model will work as well as medicare (which has to be bailed out every year) and you need private secondary insurance (Medicare supplemental insurance) to get it to work.

Or it works like the VA.


----------



## DrDirt

> - DrDirt
> Rich people can t fight racism? I don t understand your comment or reason for posting this. Do you just see an angry black man?
> 
> - RobS888


Sure they can… they just can't credibly try to claim they are on a hunger strike because of *"THEIR oppression" *

Just like Warren Buffett shouldn't try to claim he is Poor….
Helping the poor yes… playing the 'victim card and saying HE is poor" NOT.

But as usual - you just boil it down to anyone that disagrees is a racist. This is why problems are never really addressed. Somebody says "this isn't right" 
You say it is the 'angry black man'

find another card to play


----------



## RobS888

> Maybe it is because Health Insurance is not something The US Government should be running?
> 
> They are definitely qualified to set up some guidelines/Rules for the marketplace though… e.g. No Dropping the Sick, portability of coverage, and requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Nah, profit and healthcare shouldn t be combined. The ACA is terrible, but it is better than a for profit system. The sad thing is the republicans could have fine tuned the ACA for the past couple of years, but had to fight it totally.
> 
> Actually, health insurance is great for the government to control, doctors and the rest of the healthcare industry can be for profit, just have 1 insurance company.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> No it isn t.
> If it were really as good as you claim it would have been in the constitution from the beginning.
> 
> Agree the repubs have done nothing because the goal is to kill it… not tweak it
> 
> Your 1 insurance company model will work as well as medicare (which has to be bailed out every year) and you need private secondary insurance (Medicare supplemental insurance) to get it to work.
> 
> Or it works like the VA.
> 
> - DrDirt


Lol.


----------



## RobS888

> - DrDirt
> Rich people can t fight racism? I don t understand your comment or reason for posting this. Do you just see an angry black man?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sure they can… they just can t credibly try to claim they are on a hunger strike because of *"THEIR oppression" *
> 
> Just like Warren Buffett shouldn t try to claim he is Poor….
> Helping the poor yes… playing the victim card and saying HE is poor" NOT.
> 
> But as usual - you just boil it down to anyone that disagrees is a racist. This is why problems are never really addressed. Somebody says "this isn t right"
> You say it is the angry black man
> 
> find another card to play
> 
> - DrDirt


Did you know Ghandi was a lawyer, he went on fasts all the time to get better treatment for all. Not comparing this guy to Ghandi, just showing you don't know what you are talking about. Why can't a rich man's son feel that his race is oppressed?

I asked if you just saw an angry black man, because your post still makes no sense, they want better treatment and he found a way to get it for others, not just himself… I believe that is called altruism.

I still can't see any other reason than racism to post this. If those girls that wanted a flag in a church went on a hunger strike you would have gone apoplectic on their behalf!


----------



## RobS888

"Just like Warren Buffett shouldn t try to claim he is Poor….
Helping the poor yes… playing the victim card and saying HE is poor" NOT."

LoL, that is funny could you show me where he claimed to be poor?

I wish I had some popcorn and a glass of wine for the coming insanity.


----------



## Mahdeew

> It is better than not reading any of it. I don t like it either, but it is better than nothing. We need single payer.
> 
> - RobS888


Sounds like, "look, we got it better than India; why are you complaining?"


----------



## RobS888

> It is better than not reading any of it. I don t like it either, but it is better than nothing. We need single payer.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sounds like, "look, we got it better than India; why are you complaining?"
> 
> - mahdee


Close, we have it better than pre 2009 US, so why are you complaining.


----------



## Mahdeew

Yea, maybe.
If We Don't Change the Way Money Is Created and Distributed, Rising Inequality Will Trigger Social Disorder

Centrally issued money optimizes inequality, monopoly, cronyism, stagnation, low social mobility and systemic instability.
If we don't change the way money is created and distributed, wealth inequality will widen to the point of social disorder.
Everyone who wants to reduce wealth inequality with more regulations and taxes is missing the key dynamic: the monopoly on creating and issuing money necessarily widens wealth inequality, as those with access to newly issued money can always outbid the rest of us to buy the engines of wealth creation.









Source










MyRA is a special form of IRA that 'helps' Americans save for retirement by making it easy for you to loan your 
money to the federal government.

Just this week:
Retail Stocks Are Crashing At The Fastest Pace In Over 4 Years
WTI Crude Tumbles To $40 Handle, Fastest Plunge Since December 2014
Dow Drops 600 Points From Recent Highs, Gives Up Post-QE3 Gains, Breaks Key Technical Support
Key Manufacturing Industry Crumbles To Post-Crisis Lows
What Rate Hike: Annual PPI Drops Most On Record Even As Gas Prices Rise In October
Key Manufacturing Industry Crumbles To Post-Crisis Lows
The Last Two Times Retail Sales Were This Bad, The US Was In A Recession
World's Largest Hedge Fund Dumped 31% Of Its US Equity Holdings In The Third Quarter
The Stench Of Freddie Mac Is Back - An $18 Billion Spree Of Crony Capitalist Thievery
And off course:
These 425 Goldman Bankers Just Hit The Jackpot


----------



## DrDirt

> It is better than not reading any of it. I don t like it either, but it is better than nothing. We need single payer.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sounds like, "look, we got it better than India; why are you complaining?"
> 
> - mahdee
> 
> Close, we have it better than pre 2009 US, so why are you complaining.
> 
> - RobS888


In what way? Insurance has gone 10% per year for us… and my Co-pay doubled.
I now pay substantially more for an 80:20 plan than I did for 90:10 coverage

Where was my ability to keep my old plan?
or the 2500 dollars/year my family was to save?
define BETTER…. 
A lot of the people that got insurance through the exchanges were people that lost their coverage… rather than all being the formerly uninsured.


----------



## DrDirt

> - DrDirt
> Rich people can t fight racism? I don t understand your comment or reason for posting this. Do you just see an angry black man?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sure they can… they just can t credibly try to claim they are on a hunger strike because of *"THEIR oppression" *
> 
> Just like Warren Buffett shouldn t try to claim he is Poor….
> Helping the poor yes… playing the victim card and saying HE is poor" NOT.
> 
> But as usual - you just boil it down to anyone that disagrees is a racist. This is why problems are never really addressed. Somebody says "this isn t right"
> You say it is the angry black man
> 
> find another card to play
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Did you know Ghandi was a lawyer, he went on fasts all the time to get better treatment for all. Not comparing this guy to Ghandi, just showing you don t know what you are talking about. Why can t a rich man s son feel that his race is oppressed?
> 
> I asked if you just saw an angry black man, because your post still makes no sense, they want better treatment and he found a way to get it for others, not just himself… I believe that is called altruism.
> 
> I still can t see any other reason than racism to post this. If those girls that wanted a flag in a church went on a hunger strike you would have gone apoplectic on their behalf!
> 
> - RobS888


Gandhi…. wow!! LOL
You know he went on his hunger strike while in Prison right? I think he had more than a little proof of his cause. WOW, 1932 British Colonial India as a 'reference point' bravo!!

Of course YOU "can see no other reason than racism" 
perhaps the problem here is YOU.

All because "somebody" yelled a slur from a pick-up truck (assume true) What was the president to do… change into his superman uniform and fly after the guy? Mizzou is pathetic.


----------



## DrDirt

News is saying we are in another real estate bubble….

See if it plays out like this again….

Mary is the proprietor of a bar in Dublin. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar.

To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Mary's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Mary's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Dublin.

By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Mary gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages.

Consequently, Mary's gross sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Mary's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Mary's bar. He so informs Mary.

Mary then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts.Since, Mary cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Mary's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion euro no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Mary's bar.

Now, do you understand economics in 2015?


----------



## RobS888

> It is better than not reading any of it. I don t like it either, but it is better than nothing. We need single payer.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sounds like, "look, we got it better than India; why are you complaining?"
> 
> - mahdee
> 
> Close, we have it better than pre 2009 US, so why are you complaining.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> In what way? Insurance has gone 10% per year for us… and my Co-pay doubled.
> I now pay substantially more for an 80:20 plan than I did for 90:10 coverage
> 
> Where was my ability to keep my old plan?
> or the 2500 dollars/year my family was to save?
> define BETTER….
> A lot of the people that got insurance through the exchanges were people that lost their coverage… rather than all being the formerly uninsured.
> 
> - DrDirt


Yawn, tens of millions more have insurance. It isn't about you puppy, but the aggregate.


----------



## RobS888

> Gandhi…. wow!! LOL
> You know he went on his hunger strike while in Prison right? I think he had more than a little proof of his cause. WOW, 1932 British Colonial India as a reference point bravo!!
> 
> Of course YOU "can see no other reason than racism"
> perhaps the problem here is YOU.
> 
> All because "somebody" yelled a slur from a pick-up truck (assume true) What was the president to do… change into his superman uniform and fly after the guy? Mizzou is pathetic.
> 
> - DrDirt


No, the problem is with the guy that posts a story about a man going on a hunger strike to get something and whinging about his dad making millions. If he was a Caucasian it wouldn't have been of interest to you.

You claimed that as usual I blamed racism for anyone disagreeing with me!

Have you finally lost you mind? Could you show 5 times when I blamed racism? Should be easy if I usually do so.

I bet it will be as forthcoming as proof we pay more taxes than Canadians, or today's dr dirt insanity that warren Buffet claims to be poor!

P.S.
Here s a list of Gandhi's fasts, perhaps a little reading will help your understanding of history.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fasts_undertaken_by_Mahatma_Gandhi


----------



## RobS888

> News is saying we are in another real estate bubble….
> 
> See if it plays out like this again….
> 
> Mary is the proprietor of a bar in Dublin. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar.
> 
> To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).
> 
> Word gets around about Mary s "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Mary s bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Dublin.
> 
> By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Mary gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages.
> 
> Consequently, Mary s gross sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Mary s borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.
> 
> At the bank s corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don t really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation s leading brokerage houses.
> 
> One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Mary s bar. He so informs Mary.
> 
> Mary then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts.Since, Mary cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.
> 
> Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.
> 
> The suppliers of Mary s bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.
> 
> Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion euro no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Mary s bar.
> 
> Now, do you understand economics in 2015?
> 
> - DrDirt


Yawn, silly puppy. Have you been to the temple bars, great fun, just off the Whiffey.


----------



## Mahdeew

Glad to see you yawning.. Maybe the dreams are coming through.


----------



## Mahdeew

France 24 - Live: Paris rocked by series of deadly shootings
Paris has been rocked by a string of deadly attacks, leaving at least 120 people dead in several locations. President François Hollande has declared a state of emergency.
Source


----------



## Mahdeew

The War Party Lost the GOP Debate
Paul and Trump beat Rubio and Bush

by Justin Raimondo, November 13, 2015
Print This | Share This
Most Americans don't think much about politics, let alone foreign policy issues, as they go about their daily lives. It's not that they don't care: it's just that the daily grind doesn't permit most people outside of Washington, D.C. the luxury of contemplating the fate of nations with any regularity. There is one exception, however, and that is during election season, and specifically - when it comes to foreign policy - every four years, when the race for the White House begins to heat up. The President, as commander in chief, shapes US foreign policy: indeed, in our post-constitutional era, now that Congress has abdicated its responsibility, he has the de facto power to single-handedly take us into war. Which is why, paraphrasing Trotsky, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested in you.
Source.


----------



## RobS888

> Glad to see you yawning.. Maybe the dreams are coming through.
> 
> - mahdee


Just boredom with the dialog.


----------



## RobS888

> The War Party Lost the GOP Debate
> Paul and Trump beat Rubio and Bush
> 
> by Justin Raimondo, November 13, 2015
> Print This | Share This
> Most Americans don't think much about politics, let alone foreign policy issues, as they go about their daily lives. It's not that they don't care: it's just that the daily grind doesn't permit most people outside of Washington, D.C. the luxury of contemplating the fate of nations with any regularity. There is one exception, however, and that is during election season, and specifically - when it comes to foreign policy - every four years, when the race for the White House begins to heat up. The President, as commander in chief, shapes US foreign policy: indeed, in our post-constitutional era, now that Congress has abdicated its responsibility, he has the de facto power to single-handedly take us into war. Which is why, paraphrasing Trotsky, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested in you.
> Source.
> 
> - mahdee


Jeez, can't you and dirt come up with your own material?

I call BS most people in US do not care about the world because they don't care about the world. Too busy, now that is funny.


----------



## DrDirt

Rob - Maybe you have lived near DC too long, and have simply lost touch with the challenges of the real world by living in a taxpayer funded version of 'tomorrowland'.. They pull taxes and wealth from all across the country to fund a maybe ~150 square mile bubble of Lobbyists, Politicians and the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower warnded of.
Not unlike imperial UK pulling wealth from Canada, Australia, NZ, India and several african countries… while living fat and happy for a many decades


----------



## Mahdeew

Jeez, can't you and dirt come up with your own material? I call BS most people in US do not care about the world because they don't care about the world. Too busy, now that is funny.
There is no difference between reading an article and regurgitating it and posting the article. My reasoning is that you have to argue with the article and that takes the fun of arguing away.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob - Maybe you have lived near DC too long, and have simply lost touch with the challenges of the real world by living in a taxpayer funded version of tomorrowland .. They pull taxes and wealth from all across the country to fund a maybe ~150 square mile bubble of Lobbyists, Politicians and the Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower warnded of.
> Not unlike imperial UK pulling wealth from Canada, Australia, NZ, India and several african countries… while living fat and happy for a many decades
> 
> - DrDirt


No.


----------



## RobS888

> Jeez, can't you and dirt come up with your own material? I call BS most people in US do not care about the world because they don't care about the world. Too busy, now that is funny.
> There is no difference between reading an article and regurgitating it and posting the article. My reasoning is that you have to argue with the article and that takes the fun of arguing away.
> 
> - mahdee


You're right, there isn't a difference, since neither of them are your original work/ideas/contributions.

Have you noticed me regurgitating an article? Not citing from an article, that is proper to support your points, but presenting someone else's work as my argument?

Why argue via proxy? That reminds me of people that read powerpoint bullets word for word. I can read, I don't need you to read them to me. As a trainer I try to extemporise with each group. Some of my collogues read the manual to the class. How sad is that?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Why argue via proxy? That reminds me of people that read powerpoint bullets word for word. I can read, I don t need you to read them to me. As a trainer I try to extemporise with each group. Some of my collogues read the manual to the class. How sad is that?
> 
> - RobS888


Rob, when my son was a kid, he says I told him all he had to do to be good at his job when he grew up was to be able to do his job. He said that did not make sense, everyone should be able to do their job. He is now in his early 40s. He says most people can't do their job!! ;-(( He could easily have moved up to higher money, but he doesn't want to deal with all the people who can't do their job! ;-)


----------



## RobS888

> Why argue via proxy? That reminds me of people that read powerpoint bullets word for word. I can read, I don t need you to read them to me. As a trainer I try to extemporise with each group. Some of my collogues read the manual to the class. How sad is that?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Rob, when my son was a kid, he says I told him all he had to do to be good at his job when he grew up was to be able to do his job. He said that did not make sense, everyone should be able to do their job. He is now in his early 40s. He says most people can t do their job!! ;-(( He could easily have moved up to higher money, but he doesn t want to deal with all the people who can t do their job! ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Sometimes the major requirement seems to be a warm body. So in a way, they are doing their job :-}


----------



## DrDirt

> Sometimes the major requirement seems to be a warm body. So in a way, they are doing their job :-}
> 
> - RobS888


Those would be the government jobs….
If you do nothing useful in the private sector - they cut you loose.
But when the boss pays you with OPM…they don't care about efficiency or competence


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Rob, when my son was a kid, he says I told him all he had to do to be good at his job when he grew up was to be able to do his job. He said that did not make sense, everyone should be able to do their job. He is now in his early 40s. He says most people can t do their job!! ;-(( He could easily have moved up to higher money, but he doesn t want to deal with all the people who can t do their job! ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Sometimes the major requirement seems to be a warm body. So in a way, they are doing their job :-}
> 
> - RobS888


;-) ;-) Very true. I had a friend whose kids were in the drug testing business. He said one of the most valuable commodities in the labor market they serviced was a warm body that was on time, drug free, everyday.


----------



## RobS888

> Sometimes the major requirement seems to be a warm body. So in a way, they are doing their job :-}
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Those would be the government jobs….
> If you do nothing useful in the private sector - they cut you loose.
> 
> - DrDirt


Not true at all.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob, when my son was a kid, he says I told him all he had to do to be good at his job when he grew up was to be able to do his job. He said that did not make sense, everyone should be able to do their job. He is now in his early 40s. He says most people can t do their job!! ;-(( He could easily have moved up to higher money, but he doesn t want to deal with all the people who can t do their job! ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Sometimes the major requirement seems to be a warm body. So in a way, they are doing their job :-}
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ;-) ;-) Very true. I had a friend whose kids were in the drug testing business. He said one of the most valuable commodities in the labor market they serviced was a warm body that was on time, drug free, everyday.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Sure, and if you have a contract and need someone, you do what you can.


----------



## DrDirt

> Sometimes the major requirement seems to be a warm body. So in a way, they are doing their job :-}
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Those would be the government jobs….
> If you do nothing useful in the private sector - they cut you loose.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> - RobS888


They do exist in the private sector but those would be the "unfireable" EEO set asides, or the business owners kids.
Lots of unqualified sucky employees out there.

But the person that is solely taking up space and punching the clock…. that is the above cases -Government/EEO and Nepotism.

There used to be dead weight… but not since 2008 crash coupled with having to provide bennies/obamacare. Those folks were "LEANED" out of the organization.
Now in private sector you do the work of 2 people.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Sometimes the major requirement seems to be a warm body. So in a way, they are doing their job :-}
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> ;-) ;-) Very true. I had a friend whose kids were in the drug testing business. He said one of the most valuable commodities in the labor market they serviced was a warm body that was on time, drug free, everyday.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Sure, and if you have a contract and need someone, you do what you can.
> 
> - RobS888


They were testing for businesses that had quotas to meet.


----------



## RobS888

> Sometimes the major requirement seems to be a warm body. So in a way, they are doing their job :-}
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Those would be the government jobs….
> If you do nothing useful in the private sector - they cut you loose.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> They do exist in the private sector but those would be the "unfireable" EEO set asides, or the business owners kids.
> Lots of unqualified sucky employees out there.
> 
> But the person that is solely taking up space and punching the clock…. that is the above cases -Government/EEO and Nepotism.
> 
> There used to be dead weight… but not since 2008 crash coupled with having to provide bennies/obamacare. Those folks were "LEANED" out of the organization.
> Now in private sector you do the work of 2 people.
> 
> - DrDirt


I remember the dead wood clearing in '99 & 2000 as well…well anyone connected with the Dot coms that is. It would be interesting to see if government workers had a similar clearing since 2008?

I'm in the private sector and do about the same as I have done since the late 90's, so that isn't true about doing the work of 2. Me thinks you exaggerate.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I m in the private sector and do about the same as I have done since the late 90 s, so that isn t true about doing the work of 2. Me thinks you exaggerate.
> 
> - RobS888


Doing the work of 2 isn't that far fetched. I have been accused of that or doing 3 or 4 many times. But, since I am only one and do not subscribe to hyperbole, I tend to believe there must be many operating at fractional production levels. Just a matter of perspective ;-)


----------



## DrDirt

> Sometimes the major requirement seems to be a warm body. So in a way, they are doing their job :-}
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Those would be the government jobs….
> If you do nothing useful in the private sector - they cut you loose.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> They do exist in the private sector but those would be the "unfireable" EEO set asides, or the business owners kids.
> Lots of unqualified sucky employees out there.
> 
> But the person that is solely taking up space and punching the clock…. that is the above cases -Government/EEO and Nepotism.
> 
> There used to be dead weight… but not since 2008 crash coupled with having to provide bennies/obamacare. Those folks were "LEANED" out of the organization.
> Now in private sector you do the work of 2 people.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I remember the dead wood clearing in 99 & 2000 as well…well anyone connected with the Dot coms that is. It would be interesting to see if government workers had a similar clearing since 2008?
> 
> I m in the private sector and do about the same as I have done since the late 90 s, so that isn t true about doing the work of 2. Me thinks you exaggerate.
> 
> - RobS888


I would NEVER try to claim anything about how hard you have had to work Rob…. you live in the DC bubble zone… and much of your work is *likely *related to government workers getting training.

CEO's also aren't working twice as hard.

I am talking about the people that have regular jobs - - have largely had to absorb the work of their coworkers that have been downsized. But you have to live more than 100 miles from DC to observe that in practice.


----------



## DrDirt

On the positive side… the word of the year isn't a word at all…..









What was better though and suitable for this site is the new term added.
*
Shortlist includes 'lumbersexual' *

Another term included on the Oxford Dictionaries shortlist was "lumbersexual", a term more common in the US than in Australia.

"Lumbersexual is a young urban man who cultivates an appearance and style of dress typified by beard and checked shirt," said Mr Gwinn.

So Norm Abrams is now a Sex Symbol!!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

That idea came from Japan many years ago but I think they abandoned it. Too many errors in manufacturing processes. The basic premise is to remove 10% of the employee's resources and they will figure out how to get the job done. Then remove another 10%. Soon you get 100% production with 0 labor ;-))


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> On the positive side… the word of the year isn t a word at all…..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was better though and suitable for this site is the new term added.
> *
> Shortlist includes lumbersexual *
> 
> Another term included on the Oxford Dictionaries shortlist was "lumbersexual", a term more common in the US than in Australia.
> 
> "Lumbersexual is a young urban man who cultivates an appearance and style of dress typified by beard and checked shirt," said Mr Gwinn.
> 
> So Norm Abrams is now a Sex Symbol!!
> 
> - DrDirt


About time Norm got respect in the general population!


----------



## DrDirt

> I m in the private sector and do about the same as I have done since the late 90 s, so that isn t true about doing the work of 2. Me thinks you exaggerate.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Doing the work of 2 isn t that far fetched. I have been accused of that or doing 3 or 4 many times. But, since I am only one and do not subscribe to hyperbole, I tend to believe there must be many operating at fractional production levels. Just a matter of perspective ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


true - - what we see is that people aren't working at 200%... nor giving 110% ever (LOL)... they are having to do twice as much work as they used to. SO they have less 'Spare time'


----------



## DrDirt

> Shortlist includes lumbersexual *
> 
> Another term included on the Oxford Dictionaries shortlist was "lumbersexual", a term more common in the US than in Australia.
> 
> "Lumbersexual is a young urban man who cultivates an appearance and style of dress typified by beard and checked shirt," said Mr Gwinn.
> 
> So Norm Abrams is now a Sex Symbol!!
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> About time Norm got respect in the general population!
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Maybe Norm will be in a sequel to 50 shades of grey… but in 'plaid'??


----------



## RobS888

> I would NEVER try to claim anything about how hard you have had to work Rob…. you live in the DC bubble zone… and much of your work is *likely *related to government workers getting training.
> 
> CEO s also aren t working twice as hard.
> 
> I am talking about the people that have regular jobs - - have largely had to absorb the work of their coworkers that have been downsized. But you have to live more than 100 miles from DC to observe that in practice.
> 
> - DrDirt


Occasionally I work with cities, but generally private companies, and a few crown corporations. I've never worked with any federal workers, so your assumptions are way off. Also, since I travel a lot I spend more time outside of your imaginary bubble than inside of it. That is how I know what Canadians are like and Ireland is like and the UK is like. Want to hear about Israel? I've been to all those religious places: The Crying wall, the place the last supper was supposed to have been. The Sepulchre as well. I got a kick out of the people putting 1/4 inch veneer onto some of the large stones where Jesus is "traditionally" believed to have been washed before burial. I guess to imbue them with something. Anyway, if one of us lives in a bubble it is you puppy.


----------



## DrDirt

> I would NEVER try to claim anything about how hard you have had to work Rob…. you live in the DC bubble zone… and much of your work is *likely *related to government workers getting training.
> 
> CEO s also aren t working twice as hard.
> 
> I am talking about the people that have regular jobs - - have largely had to absorb the work of their coworkers that have been downsized. But you have to live more than 100 miles from DC to observe that in practice.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Occasionally I work with cities, but generally private companies, and a few crown corporations. I ve never worked with any federal workers, so your assumptions are way off. Also, since I travel a lot I spend more time outside of your imaginary bubble than inside of it. That is how I know what Canadians are like and Ireland is like and the UK is like. Want to hear about Israel? I ve been to all those religious places: The Crying wall, the place the last supper was supposed to have been. The Sepulchre as well. I got a kick out of the people putting 1/4 inch veneer onto some of the large stones where Jesus is "traditionally" believed to have been washed before burial. I guess to imbue them with something. Anyway, if one of us lives in a bubble it is you puppy.
> 
> - RobS888


Visiting a place is not the same as LIVING/Voting and being part of the community, the school system, of volunteer work in the location.

Have not been to the middle east (I don't consider Cairo in 94 to really be a 'middle east experience', have travelled around Morrocco, from casablanca to Marrakech… but I would call that "mediterranean culture')
Born in Alaska - my parents and all aunts, uncles and cousins Canadian. I believe what they say living in Embrun Ontario, Calgary, Edmonton and Medicine Hat, ALberta… and Vancouver and Victoria Island (Nanaimo) and their EXPERIENCE - - paying the taxes, the medical system, and the de-evolution of gun rights of people living accross a swath of the country than what you gather giving a seminar for a couple days..

Sorry but staying in a Holiday Inn Express…. doesn't make you a Sociologist with understanding of the local economy. Bubble boy.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Briefly, what is the real Israel like?


----------



## RobS888

> I would NEVER try to claim anything about how hard you have had to work Rob…. you live in the DC bubble zone… and much of your work is *likely *related to government workers getting training.
> 
> CEO s also aren t working twice as hard.
> 
> I am talking about the people that have regular jobs - - have largely had to absorb the work of their coworkers that have been downsized. But you have to live more than 100 miles from DC to observe that in practice.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Occasionally I work with cities, but generally private companies, and a few crown corporations. I ve never worked with any federal workers, so your assumptions are way off. Also, since I travel a lot I spend more time outside of your imaginary bubble than inside of it. That is how I know what Canadians are like and Ireland is like and the UK is like. Want to hear about Israel? I ve been to all those religious places: The Crying wall, the place the last supper was supposed to have been. The Sepulchre as well. I got a kick out of the people putting 1/4 inch veneer onto some of the large stones where Jesus is "traditionally" believed to have been washed before burial. I guess to imbue them with something. Anyway, if one of us lives in a bubble it is you puppy.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Visiting a place is not the same as LIVING/Voting and being part of the community, the school system, of volunteer work in the location.
> 
> Have not been to the middle east (I don t consider Cairo in the 94 s to really be a middle east experience , have travelled around Morrocco, from casablanca to Marrakech… but I would call that "mediterranean culture )
> Born in Alaska - my parents and all aunts, uncles and cousins Canadian. I believe what they say living in Embrun Ontario, Calgary, Edmonton and Medicine Hat, ALberta… and Vancouver and Victoria Island (Nanaimo) and their EXPERIENCE - - paying the taxes, the medical system, and the de-evolution of gun rights of people living accross a swath of the country than what you gather giving a seminar for a couple days..
> 
> Sorry but staying in a Holiday Inn Express…. doesn t make you a Sociologist with understanding of the local economy. Bubble boy.
> 
> - DrDirt


I made no claims of understanding anything in particular, just showing not in a bubble.

Isn't it Edmonchuck? I loved Victoria! I would retire there if I had the money. Interesting as I've seen recently Canada has a new government after 10 years of conservative hell, so perhaps the gun laws will evolve. I mean no or very few handguns is pretty evolved to me.


----------



## RobS888

> Briefly, what is the real Israel like?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Real, no idea, I can tell you what I saw. I was there the week we invaded Iraq. They had Minute Man missiles on the beaches, but they were all facing inward (I guess toward Iraq). I asked if I could get a picture, the lady I worked with said "I don't see why not you paid for them". So she drove up and got out and asked the guard if I could take a picture and he let me.

I was in a 16 story hotel and I was the only tourist. I asked to change rooms and they said sure pick one!

You can't get a cheese burger in a restaurant! They have this thing called Salad Israeli that was cubed tomatoes and cubed cucumbers with a little olive oil! Nom Nom.

Everyone I worked with was secular and under 30.

My mother has a doctorate in cultural anthropology, so I grew up fascinated by other cultures, so I drink up as much culture as I can. The economy rarely makes it onto my RADAR. I found the Levant amazing Israel and Lebanon have great old stuff. Like most places I've been everyone was very nice to me.


----------



## DrDirt

> I made no claims of understanding anything in particular, just showing not in a bubble.
> 
> Isn t it Edmonchuck? I loved Victoria! I would retire there if I had the money. Interesting as I ve seen recently Canada has a new government after 10 years of conservative hell, so perhaps the gun laws will evolve. I mean no or very few handguns is pretty evolved to me.
> 
> - RobS888


E-town is more common. Never heard anyone use the term Edmonchuk (doesn't mean it doesn't happen but "I" have never heard it called that)

Also "deadmonton" was common - - because some found it boring… but that is all frame of reference. If you move from Red Deer, or Medicine Hat, or Brooks… it is like going to New York City.
If you visit from Vancouver or Montreal…. then it isn't so awesome. And REALLY F-ing cold!!
Victoria is really nice - especially the botanical gardens. But it is priced like living in georgetown… It being the capital city it is pricey - So my family is more up island in Nanaimo and Parksville and some further north in Campbell River.

Nanaimo is more affordable, and teh ferry from Vancouver goes back and forth several times a day every couple hours.


----------



## RobS888

> I made no claims of understanding anything in particular, just showing not in a bubble.
> 
> Isn t it Edmonchuck? I loved Victoria! I would retire there if I had the money. Interesting as I ve seen recently Canada has a new government after 10 years of conservative hell, so perhaps the gun laws will evolve. I mean no or very few handguns is pretty evolved to me.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> E-town is more common. Never heard anyone use the term Edmonchuk (doesn t mean it doesn t happen but "I" have never heard it called that)
> 
> Also "deadmonton" was common - - because some found it boring… but that is all frame of reference. If you move from Red Deer, or Medicine Hat, or Brooks… it is like going to New York City.
> If you visit from Vancouver or Montreal…. then it isn t so awesome. And REALLY F-ing cold!!
> Victoria is really nice - especially the botanical gardens. But it is priced like living in georgetown… It being the capital city it is pricey - So my family is more up island in Nanaimo and Parksville and some further north in Campbell River.
> 
> Nanaimo is more affordable, and teh ferry from Vancouver goes back and forth several times a day every couple hours.
> 
> - DrDirt


I think Edmonchuck is used by people in other places.

I've taken the ferry from the mainland a couple times. Victoria is supposed to be for newly-weds and nearly-deads, but I liked it. Have you been to Halifax or Cape Breton Island? Cabot trail, climbing up to the Halifax Citadel and Fortress Louisboug.

In what way does your family say the gun rights are devolving? When you drive from Detroit to Windsor there is a big sign saying hand guns are illegal in Canada, well it was there 25 years ago.


----------



## Mahdeew

> Briefly, what is the real Israel like?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Hot, small and segregated. The saying was, "In Jerusalem you pray, in Tel Aviv you play" and something else. The wailing wall is interesting; dome of rock nothing special. See of Galilee is more like a small lake. You can walk across Jordan river except for the area excavated for tourists to be baptized. The bazaars are more fun then the malls. Fish dinners are good, not the wine. Good gravadlax breakfast.


----------



## DrDirt

> I think Edmonchuck is used by people in other places.
> 
> I ve taken the ferry from the mainland a couple times. Victoria is supposed to be for newly-weds and nearly-deads, but I liked it. Have you been to Halifax or Cape Breton Island? Cabot trail, climbing up to the Halifax Citadel and Fortress Louisboug.
> 
> In what way does your family say the gun rights are devolving? When you drive from Detroit to Windsor there is a big sign saying hand guns are illegal in Canada, well it was there 25 years ago.
> 
> - RobS888


Never been to Nova Scotia - - Maine is the closest - - Bar harbor at the mouth of the bay of fundy (but still on the 'green' money side) 
PEI is supposed to be nice - and family in Embrun drive over nearly every summer - - but I never made that trip. 
Usually the family gets together in Medicine Hat (which is where the aunts and uncles all grew up on the family farm… and greatest concentration of folks) or out on the island . out of my Canada travels - 90+% is Alberta and west. Only one aunt in Embrun (outside Ottawa) and cousin in Montreal (her kid) both my parents typical farm family 5 kids on Dad's side 6 on mom's side. And they all had several kids each. So we tend to take over 2 shelters at a park or campground.60-70 folks.

Guns for my folks were not unlike it is here in the US early on. But they progressively limited ownership. You used to be allowed handguns… then not. It was always tightly regulated for pistols - but 'simple', Rifles were common, and 'prairie farm kids' had .22 rifles but now that is tightly regulated. Much like the US - - in the East guns are uncommon - but you get to more of a "wild west" there as well, and hunting in Northwest territory, BC and other areas is very popular.
This is a better history than I can recount
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/hist/con-eng.htm


----------



## Mahdeew

Most of my wife's family lived in medicine hat. Small world.


----------



## RobS888

> Never been to Nova Scotia - - Maine is the closest - - Bar harbor at the mouth of the bay of fundy (but still on the green money side)
> PEI is supposed to be nice - and family in Embrun drive over nearly every summer - - but I never made that trip.
> Usually the family gets together in Medicine Hat (which is where the aunts and uncles all grew up on the family farm… and greatest concentration of folks) or out on the island . out of my Canada travels - 90+% is Alberta and west. Only one aunt in Embrun (outside Ottawa) and cousin in Montreal (her kid) both my parents typical farm family 5 kids on Dad s side 6 on mom s side. And they all had several kids each. So we tend to take over 2 shelters at a park or campground.60-70 folks.
> 
> Guns for my folks were not unlike it is here in the US early on. But they progressively limited ownership. You used to be allowed handguns… then not. It was always tightly regulated for pistols - but simple , Rifles were common, and prairie farm kids had .22 rifles but now that is tightly regulated. Much like the US - - in the East guns are uncommon - but you get to more of a "wild west" there as well, and hunting in Northwest territory, BC and other areas is very popular.
> This is a better history than I can recount
> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/hist/con-eng.htm
> - DrDirt


You can't argue with success, even before 1892 handguns were illegal.

That seems like exactly what we need here, no handguns and all rifles registered.

Other than needing a license, I don't see any impediments to having a rifle. I bet in rural areas it is expected to have 1 or 2 rifles.

Since you have so many Canadians (with a penchant for complaining about taxes) in your family, when you claimed we paid more in taxes than Canadians you knew that wasn't possibly true. At first I thought you might not have known, but given your familiarity with the Great White North that doesn't seem possible.


----------



## DrDirt

> You can t argue with success, even before 1892 handguns were illegal.
> 
> That seems like exactly what we need here, no handguns and all rifles registered.
> 
> Other than needing a license, I don t see any impediments to having a rifle. I bet in rural areas it is expected to have 1 or 2 rifles.
> 
> Since you have so many Canadians (with a penchant for complaining about taxes) in your family, when you claimed we paid more in taxes than Canadians you knew that wasn t possibly true. At first I thought you might not have known, but given your familiarity with the Great White North that doesn t seem possible.
> 
> - RobS888


Restricted not ILLEGAL - - 
Pre-1892
Justices of the Peace had the authority to impose a six-month jail term on anyone carrying a handgun, *if the person did not have reasonable cause to fear assault against life or property*.

As for taxes - - my 'take home %' is higher than my relatives.

You only get the perversion you look for when you try to break out provincial and parse healthcare costs

http://www.finweb.com/taxes/5-differences-between-taxation-in-canada-and-america.html

*Income Tax*

Both the United States and Canada impose income taxes. However, the two countries calculate them differently. American and Canadian citizens in lower income brackets are taxed at roughly the same rate, *while Canadian taxpayers in higher tax brackets pay higher taxes than do their American counterparts.*

That is what I find in practice. when you compare take home pay


----------



## RobS888

I don't see much light betwixt illegal and "you will get arrested and sentenced to 6 months in jail", but hey it was the 1800s, parse it anyway you want.

I showed you that the tax free day was a month longer in Canada. So as a rough estimate they pay 1/12th more but considering their taxes include medical that is pretty good.

Do your relatives like their healthcare? Most in Canada would never switch back to our system. Just curious.


----------



## DrDirt

> I don t see much light betwixt illegal and "you will get arrested and sentenced to 6 months in jail", but hey it was the 1800s, parse it anyway you want.
> 
> I showed you that the tax free day was a month longer in Canada. So as a rough estimate they pay 1/12th more but considering their taxes include medical that is pretty good.
> 
> Do your relatives like their healthcare? Most in Canada would never switch back to our system. Just curious.
> 
> - RobS888


It is the bold part…. having a gun wasn't illegal you had to have a REASON for carrying one. SO if you have a REASON… it is NOT illegal and you do NOT go to jail.

Healthcare depends on location.
Family on Vancouver Island like it, as do the east coast and Edmonton folks.

In the smaller towns like Medicine Hat - - the folks that have been there a long time and have a family practitioner like it. But the younger folks starting out, although healthy, don't have a Family Practice person they can see yet. 
Hard to say they dislike the SYSTEM… vs a doctors shortage outside major population centers.

Had a cousin commit suicide so there are some complaints about mental care… as he was troubled for some time.

But as reference - I "take home" 59% of my gross pay. This is AFTER making 401K contributions and paying for my BC/BS healthcare plan.
excluding 401K - - my takehome excluding the 401K (Power saver) is 74%
Relatives get more "restrictive' care included in their taxes vs. a seperate line item. But they (cousins - - uncles all retired) are taking home around 70% So they pay a larger part of their check than I do including insurance premiums. My pay includes prescription care and dental coverage, which they pay seperately for.

l


----------



## RobS888

Yes a scared for your life reason, not just a reason.

I think rural is always a problem, doctor wise even here. So 4% more to cover everyone? Sounds like a bargain to me.


----------



## DrDirt

> Yes a scared for your life reason, not just a reason.
> 
> I think rural is always a problem, doctor wise even here. So 4% more to cover everyone? Sounds like a bargain to me.
> 
> - RobS888


Certainly having BC/BS here in the US and being able to literally get on the spot treatment is "Better" coverage than relatives north of the border get, and it is cheaper.

Canada spent 141 Billion on healthcare. works out to a little under 4K per person.
So a family of 4 gets ~12K in health care that they pay for in taxes

I pay 250 X24 out of 26 paychecks. so 500/month. I am paying 6K/year for a family health plan.

On Guns historically - 
I would bet there were a lot of "reasons" that were not that valid that were OK with the constable…. and some Valid concerns/fears that were scoffed at as well. That system (obsolete now anyway) You were at a single persons whims to decide if they "like or agree with your perceived need" versus having a Second Amendment that grants a right. 
It is a Right that can be revoked (unstable, felons etc) - but it isn't just whether the local official likes you or not.

Also in Canada you need a PAL to purchase ammunition. All these 'death by 1000 paper cuts' measures just make life more miserable… not more safe.

As they say - "The bureaucracy always expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy "

--------------------

Strict gun laws didn't help in Paris did they?
With the Syrians coming - - I am liking our system better and better


----------



## CharlesA

I've been to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (Egypt a couple of times, once since the Revolution, Lebanon, and met with Syrians). Never been to Gaza. It is a complicated situation, but I think if more Americans had a clear idea of what is going on in the West Bank, some would change their position.


----------



## DrDirt

> I ve been to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (Egypt a couple of times, once since the Revolution, Lebanon, and met with Syrians). Never been to Gaza. It is a complicated situation, but I think if more Americans had a clear idea of what is going on in the West Bank, some would change their position.
> 
> - CharlesA


Agree it would be educational. But what do you think would change in their positions? Especially given the past week of violence


----------



## RobS888

> Certainly having BC/BS here in the US and being able to literally get on the spot treatment is "Better" coverage than relatives north of the border get, and it is cheaper.
> 
> Canada spent 141 Billion on healthcare. works out to a little under 4K per person.
> So a family of 4 gets ~12K in health care that they pay for in taxes
> 
> I pay 250 X24 out of 26 paychecks. so 500/month. I am paying 6K/year for a family health plan.
> 
> On Guns historically -
> I would bet there were a lot of "reasons" that were not that valid that were OK with the constable…. and some Valid concerns/fears that were scoffed at as well. That system (obsolete now anyway) You were at a single persons whims to decide if they "like or agree with your perceived need" versus having a Second Amendment that grants a right.
> It is a Right that can be revoked (unstable, felons etc) - but it isn t just whether the local official likes you or not.
> 
> Also in Canada you need a PAL to purchase ammunition. All these death by 1000 paper cuts measures just make life more miserable… not more safe.
> 
> As they say - "The bureaucracy always expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy "
> 
> --------------------
> 
> Strict gun laws didn t help in Paris did they?
> With the Syrians coming - - I am liking our system better and better
> 
> - DrDirt


What you pay and the cost aren't the same. Your employer most likely ponies up an equal amount. It is a well known fact the US spends the most in the world around 7K per person, but doesn't get the best results.

I can't believe the crap you try to pull. Like you think no one can tell you are lying.

How do you know it was the constable that decided what a good reason was for carrying a handgun? I read justice of the peace in your link. That is a judge. Most likely you were arrested then brought up before the judge. This was pre 1892! How enlitenened is that?

Your comment about Paris is myopic, ignorant, and considering one of the shooters in the theatre was watching the crowd for heroes, wrong. No gun in your pocket can protect you from a bomb. France has 1/4 the murder rate of the US, so still safer by far, even with the recent, sad deaths.


----------



## RobS888

> I ve been to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (Egypt a couple of times, once since the Revolution, Lebanon, and met with Syrians). Never been to Gaza. It is a complicated situation, but I think if more Americans had a clear idea of what is going on in the West Bank, some would change their position.
> 
> - CharlesA


I haven't been to the West Bank either, but I've been to Egypt 3 times, Lebanon 2 times, Saudi 3 times, UAE 2 times, Oman, Jordan, Israel, Turkey and Kuwait once each. Each visit at least 2 weeks long. I'm not an expert, but I've seen a lot more than most people ever will. Most everyone I met was nice to me and very happy to tell me about their country or city.

The West Bank and Gaza Strip are the biggest, densest concentration cams in the world. The fact we help perpetuate them makes me sick.


----------



## DrDirt

> What you pay and the cost aren t the same. Your employer most likely ponies up an equal amount. It is a well known fact the US spends the most in the world around 7K per person, but doesn t get the best results.
> 
> I can t believe the crap you try to pull. Like you think no one can tell you are lying.
> 
> How do you know it was the constable that decided what a good reason was for carrying a handgun? I read justice of the peace in your link. That is a judge. *Most likely you were arrested then brought up before the judge. *This was pre 1892! How enlitenened is that?
> 
> Your comment about Paris is myopic, ignorant, and considering one of the shooters in the theatre was watching the crowd for heroes, wrong. No gun in your pocket can protect you from a bomb. France has 1/4 the murder rate of the US, so still safer by far, even with the recent, sad deaths.
> 
> - RobS888


So the police (constable) is the one deciding to arrest you (if the Cop believes your 'concern' you would not be brought before a judge)... the 6 months sentence certainly would be decided by a judge, however the person deciding if you "had a valid reason to be carrying" would be the policeman …. not a street judge like Judge Dredd.
Didn't think that was such a trick situation

All of the Paris death was *not* from the Bomb… there were active shooters.
Their even Stricter gun laws did NOT prevent mass shooting… with FULLY AUTOMATIC rifles. Did they?

As for violence - - you might want to look at what is happening with the refugee camps and teh communities they are near.


----------



## CharlesA

> I ve been to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (Egypt a couple of times, once since the Revolution, Lebanon, and met with Syrians). Never been to Gaza. It is a complicated situation, but I think if more Americans had a clear idea of what is going on in the West Bank, some would change their position.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Agree it would be educational. But what do you think would change in their positions? Especially given the past week of violence
> 
> - DrDirt


I'm on the road, so I don't have much time. When you see life in the West Bank up close, you see how Israel has taken legitimate security concerns and used them to set up a system that systematically makes life intolerable for ordinary Palestinians, causing many to try to leave. At the same time Israel is encroaching on Palestinian homes and land day by day. (sometime go to the Israeli Ministry of Housing and see the emphasis on living in "Judea and Samaria" (the Israeli name for the West Bank). My sense is that the current plan is to keep moving slowly, day by day, until the West Bank is Israeli in fact and in law in 20-25 years. The two-state solution continues to be held out there, but has no hope in reality.


----------



## RobS888

> Your comment about Paris is myopic, ignorant, and considering one of the shooters in the theatre was watching the crowd for heroes, wrong. No gun in your pocket can protect you from a bomb. France has 1/4 the murder rate of the US, so still safer by far, even with the recent, sad deaths.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> So the police (constable) is the one deciding to arrest you (if the Cop believes your concern you would not be brought before a judge)... the 6 months sentence certainly would be decided by a judge, however the person deciding if you "had a valid reason to be carrying" would be the policeman …. not a street judge like Judge Dredd.
> Didn t think that was such a trick situation
> 
> All of the Paris death was *not* from the Bomb… there were active shooters.
> Their even Stricter gun laws did NOT prevent mass shooting… with FULLY AUTOMATIC rifles. Did they?
> 
> As for violence - - you might want to look at what is happening with the refugee camps and teh communities they are near.
> 
> - DrDirt


No, it sounds like you were arrested then the judge decided if you had a reason to carry a hand gun. Either way they started getting rid of them over 100 years ago and the murder rate reflects that. I looked up that PAL and requiring people to be trained and licensed seems like a very good idea, not a death of a thousand cuts or whatever nonsense you used to describe it. Your family notwithstanding, Canadians seem happier than people in the US. So again your points are rejected as false.

No, they didn't prevent terrorists from bringing in guns and using them. People in the crowd with hand guns might not have made any difference. Still France is even safer than Canada.

I realize fear drives the need for guns, but shouldn't your fear be a little realistic?


----------



## Mahdeew

Sheriff's quote:
"A liberals paradise would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive healthcare, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities, and only law enforcement has guns. And believe it or not, such a place does indeed already exist: It's called Prison."

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff's Office--"


----------



## RobS888

> I ve been to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (Egypt a couple of times, once since the Revolution, Lebanon, and met with Syrians). Never been to Gaza. It is a complicated situation, but I think if more Americans had a clear idea of what is going on in the West Bank, some would change their position.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Agree it would be educational. But what do you think would change in their positions? Especially given the past week of violence
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I m on the road, so I don t have much time. When you see life in the West Bank up close, you see how Israel has taken legitimate security concerns and used them to set up a system that systematically makes life intolerable for ordinary Palestinians, causing many to try to leave. At the same time Israel is encroaching on Palestinian homes and land day by day. (sometime go to the Israeli Ministry of Housing and see the emphasis on living in "Judea and Samaria" (the Israeli name for the West Bank). My sense is that the current plan is to keep moving slowly, day by day, until the West Bank is Israeli in fact and in law in 20-25 years. The two-state solution continues to be held out there, but has no hope in reality.
> 
> - CharlesA


I heard that, what must it be like to be the 3rd or 4th generation of your family trapped in the West Bank or Gaza?

The thing I can't wrap my head around is how the people that suffered the most in concentration camps in living memory could do almost the same to others, over land! It just makes them the biggest hypocrites that ever existed. Add in that Muslims were far nicer to them than Christians and it just boggles the mind.


----------



## Mahdeew

> I ve been to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (Egypt a couple of times, once since the Revolution, Lebanon, and met with Syrians). Never been to Gaza. It is a complicated situation, but I think if more Americans had a clear idea of what is going on in the West Bank, some would change their position.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Agree it would be educational. But what do you think would change in their positions? Especially given the past week of violence
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I m on the road, so I don t have much time. When you see life in the West Bank up close, you see how Israel has taken legitimate security concerns and used them to set up a system that systematically makes life intolerable for ordinary Palestinians, causing many to try to leave. At the same time Israel is encroaching on Palestinian homes and land day by day. (sometime go to the Israeli Ministry of Housing and see the emphasis on living in "Judea and Samaria" (the Israeli name for the West Bank). My sense is that the current plan is to keep moving slowly, day by day, until the West Bank is Israeli in fact and in law in 20-25 years. The two-state solution continues to be held out there, but has no hope in reality.
> 
> - CharlesA


The last guy who pursued a two state solution with conviction, Yitzhak Rabin got whacked by a law student who claimed that it was god that killed Rabin. 
It will never happen unless the world community pressure them into it.


----------



## Mahdeew

> I ve been to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (Egypt a couple of times, once since the Revolution, Lebanon, and met with Syrians). Never been to Gaza. It is a complicated situation, but I think if more Americans had a clear idea of what is going on in the West Bank, some would change their position.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Agree it would be educational. But what do you think would change in their positions? Especially given the past week of violence
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I m on the road, so I don t have much time. When you see life in the West Bank up close, you see how Israel has taken legitimate security concerns and used them to set up a system that systematically makes life intolerable for ordinary Palestinians, causing many to try to leave. At the same time Israel is encroaching on Palestinian homes and land day by day. (sometime go to the Israeli Ministry of Housing and see the emphasis on living in "Judea and Samaria" (the Israeli name for the West Bank). My sense is that the current plan is to keep moving slowly, day by day, until the West Bank is Israeli in fact and in law in 20-25 years. The two-state solution continues to be held out there, but has no hope in reality.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> I heard that, what must it be like to be the 3rd or 4th generation of your family trapped in the West Bank or Gaza?
> 
> The thing I can t wrap my head around is how the people that suffered the most in concentration camps in living memory could do almost the same to others, over land! It just makes them the biggest hypocrites that ever existed. Add in that Muslims were far nicer to them than Christians and it just boggles the mind.
> 
> - RobS888


The same thing happened with the black community. The same thing happens with every form of abuse. Most sex offenders were sexually exploited at one time or another.


----------



## RobS888

> Sheriff s quote:
> "A liberals paradise would be a place where everybody has guaranteed employment, free comprehensive healthcare, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities, and only law enforcement has guns. And believe it or not, such a place does indeed already exist: It s called Prison."
> 
> Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff s Office--"
> 
> - mahdee


Are you posting this quote to slam me as a liberal? I don't think any liberal cares what he says, about anything.


----------



## RobS888

> I m on the road, so I don t have much time. When you see life in the West Bank up close, you see how Israel has taken legitimate security concerns and used them to set up a system that systematically makes life intolerable for ordinary Palestinians, causing many to try to leave. At the same time Israel is encroaching on Palestinian homes and land day by day. (sometime go to the Israeli Ministry of Housing and see the emphasis on living in "Judea and Samaria" (the Israeli name for the West Bank). My sense is that the current plan is to keep moving slowly, day by day, until the West Bank is Israeli in fact and in law in 20-25 years. The two-state solution continues to be held out there, but has no hope in reality.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> The last guy who pursued a two state solution with conviction, Yitzhak Rabin got whacked by a law student who claimed that it was god that killed Rabin.
> It will never happen unless the world community pressure them into it.
> 
> - mahdee


Yeah, killed by an Israeli Jew no less. Most of the world is pressuring them, but someone keeps vetoing any action against them. Hmmm I wonder if that causes any issues for the country that vetoes anything against Israel.


----------



## Mahdeew

No Rob, the post was for the conservatives to have a laugh.. If I get a e-mail joke about conservatives, I'll post that too.


----------



## RobS888

> I heard that, what must it be like to be the 3rd or 4th generation of your family trapped in the West Bank or Gaza?
> 
> The thing I can t wrap my head around is how the people that suffered the most in concentration camps in living memory could do almost the same to others, over land! It just makes them the biggest hypocrites that ever existed. Add in that Muslims were far nicer to them than Christians and it just boggles the mind.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> The same thing happened with the black community. The same thing happens with every form of abuse. Most sex offenders were sexually exploited at one time or another.
> 
> - mahdee


*What?*


----------



## Mahdeew

Sometimes when you have a multi generational feuds, both sides don't even remember why they hate each other mainly because it is instilled in them since birth.  Maybe they should play this song there 24/7 for a while.


----------



## RobS888

> No Rob, the post was for the conservatives to have a laugh.. If I get a e-mail joke about conservatives, I ll post that too.
> 
> - mahdee


Have you posted about conservative values attracting lower IQs?

Like this:

http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/


----------



## RobS888

> Sometimes when you have a multi generational feuds, both sides don t even remember why they hate each other mainly because it is instilled in them since birth.  Maybe they should play this song there 24/7 for a while.
> 
> - mahdee


This isn't a feud. This is a giant prison where the crime was being a Palestinian. We are talking 4 or 5 million people here.

The US military doesn't make punitive raids into black communities killing thousands with phosphorus bombs and those cute and very illegal soda sized cluster bombs.

This is a false equivalence if I ever heard one. There are Palestinians that were alive when their land was stolen, so I think they know what the issue is.


----------



## Mahdeew

> No Rob, the post was for the conservatives to have a laugh.. If I get a e-mail joke about conservatives, I ll post that too.
> 
> - mahdee
> 
> Have you posted about conservative values attracting lower IQs?
> 
> Like this:
> 
> http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/
> 
> - RobS888


This one is not a joke. Literally!


----------



## RobS888

> No Rob, the post was for the conservatives to have a laugh.. If I get a e-mail joke about conservatives, I ll post that too.
> 
> - mahdee
> 
> Have you posted about conservative values attracting lower IQs?
> 
> Like this:
> 
> http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> This one is not a joke. Literally!
> 
> - mahdee


True stuff can be funny, and that is pretty funny. Any party that has Joe Gohmert in it should think about disbanding.


----------



## Mahdeew

> Sometimes when you have a multi generational feuds, both sides don t even remember why they hate each other mainly because it is instilled in them since birth.  Maybe they should play this song there 24/7 for a while.
> 
> - mahdee
> 
> This isn t a feud. This is a giant prison where the crime was being a Palestinian. We are talking 4 or 5 million people here.
> 
> The US military doesn t make punitive raids into black communities killing thousands with phosphorus bombs and those cute and very illegal soda sized cluster bombs.
> 
> This is a false equivalence if I ever heard one. There are Palestinians that were alive when their land was stolen, so I think they know what the issue is.
> 
> - RobS888


My bad Rob… I was trying to say that generational abuse creates some twisted "normalcy"; perhaps a way of coping with the situation one is in. I mean for a person who is born into slavery, that life appears to be normal because "that is the way it is". And the same for the abuser; it is normal to him because he has been exposed to it since birth. We all know how people react to change regardless of its positive outcome; animal nature of humans??
If I am the guy that when angry go out and kick the dogs, then when one of my dog gets angry, it bites another dog not me. All people under oppression have a tendency to oppress each other more than normal. Maybe your mom can shed some light on this. I heard a conversation on NPR in this regard in general and it made sense to me.


----------



## DrDirt

> I ve been to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (Egypt a couple of times, once since the Revolution, Lebanon, and met with Syrians). Never been to Gaza. It is a complicated situation, but I think if more Americans had a clear idea of what is going on in the West Bank, some would change their position.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Agree it would be educational. But what do you think would change in their positions? Especially given the past week of violence
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I m on the road, so I don t have much time. When you see life in the West Bank up close, you see how Israel has taken legitimate security concerns and used them to set up a system that systematically makes life intolerable for ordinary Palestinians, causing many to try to leave. At the same time Israel is encroaching on Palestinian homes and land day by day. (sometime go to the Israeli Ministry of Housing and see the emphasis on living in "Judea and Samaria" (the Israeli name for the West Bank). My sense is that the current plan is to keep moving slowly, day by day, until the West Bank is Israeli in fact and in law in 20-25 years. The two-state solution continues to be held out there, but has no hope in reality.
> 
> - CharlesA


It SEEMS… two sided though.

If you made the west bank its own recognized sovereign power… then the chants of "From the river to the sea" would end?
The rockets would stop?

I don't see a solution - but I would not say Palestine is all victims.
I wouldn't say that the withdrawal from Gaza let to any improvement in relations.
Now Gaza elected Hamas, and they spend all their resources on tunnels, while all of the infrastructure the Israelis' built is in ruin

It all seems really intractable - - I don't see ANYTHING the Israelis could ever do (other than a Jonestown mass suicide) that would stop the calls to push israel into the sea and kill all the jews. How do you negotiate that?


----------



## RobS888

> I m on the road, so I don t have much time. When you see life in the West Bank up close, you see how Israel has taken legitimate security concerns and used them to set up a system that systematically makes life intolerable for ordinary Palestinians, causing many to try to leave. At the same time Israel is encroaching on Palestinian homes and land day by day. (sometime go to the Israeli Ministry of Housing and see the emphasis on living in "Judea and Samaria" (the Israeli name for the West Bank). My sense is that the current plan is to keep moving slowly, day by day, until the West Bank is Israeli in fact and in law in 20-25 years. The two-state solution continues to be held out there, but has no hope in reality.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> It SEEMS… two sided though.
> If you made the west bank its own recognized sovereign power… then the chants of "From the river to the sea" would end?
> The rockets would stop?
> I don t see a solution - but I would not say Palestine is all victims.
> I wouldn t say that the withdrawal from Gaza let to any improvement in relations.
> Now Gaza elected Hamas, and they spend all their resources on tunnels, while all of the infrastructure the Israelis built is in ruin
> It all seems really intractable - - I don t see ANYTHING the Israelis could ever do (other than a Jonestown mass suicide) that would stop the calls to push israel into the sea and kill all the jews. How do you negotiate that?
> 
> - DrDirt


I've seen calls for wiping Israel from the map, but killing all the Jews is news to me. Don't forget there is no long term issue between these 2 prior to the Zionist movement. And since that was an invasion one can see the people living there being happy about it.

Most Jews will tell you Muslims were pretty good to them historically, not like Christians. There are still Jews living in Iran.


----------



## RobS888

> Sometimes when you have a multi generational feuds, both sides don t even remember why they hate each other mainly because it is instilled in them since birth.  Maybe they should play this song there 24/7 for a while.
> 
> - mahdee
> 
> This isn t a feud. This is a giant prison where the crime was being a Palestinian. We are talking 4 or 5 million people here.
> The US military doesn t make punitive raids into black communities killing thousands with phosphorus bombs and those cute and very illegal soda sized cluster bombs.
> This is a false equivalence if I ever heard one. There are Palestinians that were alive when their land was stolen, so I think they know what the issue is.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> My bad Rob… I was trying to say that generational abuse creates some twisted "normalcy"; perhaps a way of coping with the situation one is in. I mean for a person who is born into slavery, that life appears to be normal because "that is the way it is". And the same for the abuser; it is normal to him because he has been exposed to it since birth. We all know how people react to change regardless of its positive outcome; animal nature of humans??
> If I am the guy that when angry go out and kick the dogs, then when one of my dog gets angry, it bites another dog not me. All people under oppression have a tendency to oppress each other more than normal. Maybe your mom can shed some light on this. I heard a conversation on NPR in this regard in general and it made sense to me.
> 
> - mahdee


I don't see that as the problem, Palestinians know why they are mad. Just because the dog bites another dog it does not remove responsibility from you for the initial cruelty. I feel you are trying to spread the blame around.

You're Iranian correct? Do you hate Jews? Could you add your perspective from before '79?


----------



## CharlesA

> I ve been to Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (Egypt a couple of times, once since the Revolution, Lebanon, and met with Syrians). Never been to Gaza. It is a complicated situation, but I think if more Americans had a clear idea of what is going on in the West Bank, some would change their position.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> Agree it would be educational. But what do you think would change in their positions? Especially given the past week of violence
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> I m on the road, so I don t have much time. When you see life in the West Bank up close, you see how Israel has taken legitimate security concerns and used them to set up a system that systematically makes life intolerable for ordinary Palestinians, causing many to try to leave. At the same time Israel is encroaching on Palestinian homes and land day by day. (sometime go to the Israeli Ministry of Housing and see the emphasis on living in "Judea and Samaria" (the Israeli name for the West Bank). My sense is that the current plan is to keep moving slowly, day by day, until the West Bank is Israeli in fact and in law in 20-25 years. The two-state solution continues to be held out there, but has no hope in reality.
> 
> - CharlesA
> 
> It SEEMS… two sided though.
> 
> If you made the west bank its own recognized sovereign power… then the chants of "From the river to the sea" would end?
> The rockets would stop?
> 
> I don t see a solution - but I would not say Palestine is all victims.
> I wouldn t say that the withdrawal from Gaza let to any improvement in relations.
> Now Gaza elected Hamas, and they spend all their resources on tunnels, while all of the infrastructure the Israelis built is in ruin
> 
> It all seems really intractable - - I don t see ANYTHING the Israelis could ever do (other than a Jonestown mass suicide) that would stop the calls to push israel into the sea and kill all the jews. How do you negotiate that?
> 
> - DrDirt


I said there were legitimate Israeli security concerns. There is no innocent side. There is a massive power imbalance, however.

Go to the Jpost.com or haaretz.com english sites and read what is being said in the Knesset, what some of the cabinet ministers are saying, and you will see that Netanyahu is a relative liberal within his party and government. Google videos about Palestinian children and Israeli military. Hamas is a terrible organization, and the entire situation is two-sided, but it is not equally too sided in my opinion. Israel says it is equally two-sided by counting surrounding Arab states in one of the two sides. But they have had peace with Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan for years. Syria is a mess right now, of course. Iran, despite the rhetoric, is not an immediate threat to Israel (they'd be crushed in a war). Iraq has too many problems to be a threat. Who else is there that could actually challenge Israel? What threatens Israel is not war, but the fact that they're running out of space. The West Bank is space (and where almost all the agriculture is). That's the threat, and they'll take it through a long, slow campaign of brutality.


----------



## DrDirt

> I ve seen calls for wiping Israel from the map, but killing all the Jews is news to me. Don t forget there is no long term issue between these 2 prior to the Zionist movement. And since that was an invasion one can see the people living there being happy about it.
> 
> Most Jews will tell you Muslims were pretty good to them historically, not like Christians. There are still Jews living in Iran.
> 
> - RobS888


How far back in History are you talking about?

Of course the jews were there for more than a thousand years before Mohammed was born..

SOme of their arguments would be akin to the Us Settlers of european descent claiming the "indians" are squatting on/stealing OUR land.
All goes to how far back you are looking.

Antisemitism and killings of Jews are on the rise in Europe - - so not just an Israel issue.
http://www.ibtimes.com/attacks-frances-jews-surge-amid-concerns-rising-anti-semitism-europe-2006003


----------



## RobS888

Dr dirt,

I assumed you knew what Zionism was. You need to do little studying before you can converse on this.


----------



## Mahdeew

> Sometimes when you have a multi generational feuds, both sides don t even remember why they hate each other mainly because it is instilled in them since birth.  Maybe they should play this song there 24/7 for a while.
> 
> - mahdee
> 
> This isn t a feud. This is a giant prison where the crime was being a Palestinian. We are talking 4 or 5 million people here.
> The US military doesn t make punitive raids into black communities killing thousands with phosphorus bombs and those cute and very illegal soda sized cluster bombs.
> This is a false equivalence if I ever heard one. There are Palestinians that were alive when their land was stolen, so I think they know what the issue is.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> My bad Rob… I was trying to say that generational abuse creates some twisted "normalcy"; perhaps a way of coping with the situation one is in. I mean for a person who is born into slavery, that life appears to be normal because "that is the way it is". And the same for the abuser; it is normal to him because he has been exposed to it since birth. We all know how people react to change regardless of its positive outcome; animal nature of humans??
> If I am the guy that when angry go out and kick the dogs, then when one of my dog gets angry, it bites another dog not me. All people under oppression have a tendency to oppress each other more than normal. Maybe your mom can shed some light on this. I heard a conversation on NPR in this regard in general and it made sense to me.
> 
> - mahdee
> 
> I don t see that as the problem, Palestinians know why they are mad. Just because the dog bites another dog it does not remove responsibility from you for the initial cruelty. I feel you are trying to spread the blame around.
> 
> You re Iranian correct? Do you hate Jews? Could you add your perspective from before 79?
> 
> - RobS888


Yes, My neighbor was a Jewish and they paid me a quarter to tun on their light and then turn it off on the Sabbath. There still is a large Jewish community in Iran and off course the Persians were very sympathetic to them. Story of Ester and Daniel testifies to that. If you really think about it, this has always been a family feud started with Sarah and Hagar the slave girl. So Abraham's sons Ismael and Isaac initially lived side by side with no issues. Even in Bible there are mentions of Israelite named Ishmael. When I was in Israel, a rabbi told me a story about Abraham visiting Ismael frequently and giving him advice. So, these are the two Arab brothers; both descended from Iraq (ur of Caldean). As it is mentioned, the ten tribes were scattered all over the world and Judah and Benjamin (I think) were taken captive and then moved to Iran. Levy was the tribe of priests and they were not promised any land rather the first fruits from all the other tribes. I am babbling here. Certain Jews believe that god scattered them to all "four corners of the world" to be priests to all nations (very much like the missionaries) these are the ones that went and visited with Ahmadi Nejad during his summit. Off course Paul totally screwed that up by grafting the popular Christianity into Judaism in order to preserve Judaism. 
It was Ezra who was a zealot that re-wrote the Torah after they began rebuilding the temple. 
Ironically, Abraham worshiped the Elohim god(s) and named Ishma-el with their attribute. It was Moses who introduced YAHWEH or tetragrammaton to the Jews. Isra-el, Ishma-el, Ezeki-el all were attributes to the el-ohim. Jon-ah, Isai-ah, Nehemi-ah were attributes to the YA-HWEH. Unlike Elohim, YAHWEH was a warrior god and exacted worship and sacrifice and temples. Yahweh was a Palestinian god; Zohar, Mosses' wife introduced to Moses. Interestingly, when Jesus gave up his last breath, he said "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" referring to the elohim, the god of Abraham not Moses.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr dirt,
> 
> I assumed you knew what Zionism was. You need to do little studying before you can converse on this.
> 
> - RobS888


The jews in the ottoman empire is a pretty mixed bag.
Friction between Jews and Turks was less common than in the Arab territories. Some examples: In 1660 or 1662, under Mehmet IV (1649-87), the city of Safed, with a substantial Jewish community, was destroyed by Druzes over a struggle for power.[21][22][23] In 1678, *Mehmet IV ordered the banishment of the Jews of Yemen to the Mawza Desert, an event which remains in the collective memory of Yemeni Jews as a great tragedy*

In 1865, when the equality of all subjects of the Ottoman Empire was proclaimed, Cevdet Pasha, a high-ranking official observed: "whereas in former times, in the Ottoman State, *the communities were ranked, with the Muslims first, then the Greeks, then the Armenians, then the Jews,* now all of them were put on the same level. Some Greeks objected to this, saying: 'The government has put us together with the Jews. We were content with the supremacy of Islam.'"[30]

That all predates Zionism which starts basically at teh beginning of teh 20th century.

I think there has been a subjugation that goes back much farther than the start of zionism

hence the question of timing. Jews have had a lower "caste" (lack of better word) for a long long time.

But gee - - what a stunning idea that there has been war and imperial ideas for the past few thousand years, by one group that believes others should be subservient to them
That is what made the US different with teh idea that "all men are created equal" and that we would have seperation of church and state….. so NO State religion to rank others as 'subservient'
Lofty principle… maybe we can get there someday


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt,

I'm glad you did some research, but I suspect your goal was to prove me wrong about Muslims having been nicer to Jews than Christians were. This lead you to find some instances where they weren't nice. If you try studying the history in an impartial manner you will find that the treatment was so lopsided that even without the Holocaust Christians in Europe win the barbaric award many times over. If you don't believe me, ask a Rabbi if Muslims treated them well.

Your view of some things really cracks me up. All men in 1776 meant rich white dudes with land. The treatment of Blacks would seem to show how fallacious your view and argument are. Also, look into the treatment of Jews in the US before WWII. Not so good puppy.


----------



## Mahdeew

Rob, are you talking about The Edict of Expulsion? I wonder if it was that event that made damaging of coinage an illegal act.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob, are you talking about The Edict of Expulsion? I wonder if it was that event that made damaging of coinage an illegal act.
> 
> - mahdee


That would be a part of it. I'm referring to dozens of cases of entire communities being wiped out, sometimes 2 or 3,000 at a time were killed. Many of these attacks had more Jewish deaths than the Spanish Inquisition.

In case anyone wonders what the edicts were.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,
> 
> I m glad you did some research, but I suspect your goal was to prove me wrong about Muslims having been nicer to Jews than Christians were. This lead you to find some instances where they weren t nice. If you try studying the history in an impartial manner you will find that the treatment was so lopsided that even without the Holocaust Christians in Europe win the barbaric award many times over. If you don t believe me, ask a Rabbi if Muslims treated them well.
> 
> Your view of some things really cracks me up. All men in 1776 meant rich white dudes with land. The treatment of Blacks would seem to show how fallacious your view and argument are. Also, look into the treatment of Jews in the US before WWII. Not so good puppy.
> 
> - RobS888


Indeed Slavery was one of those British ideals that took some time to abolish. Not just Blacks but King James really hated the Irish….(psst White Folks)

You seem to imply that that Slavery in 1776 was somehow an "American" ideal is not true.
Slaves were here from the days of early pilgrims in teh 1600's. The ideals were to change that.

The bill of rights was NOT about only white landowners. I suspect you know this, but are trolling. The founders couldn't handle abolition of slavery, the Revolutionary war Funding, AND get a constitutional government off the ground in one session. As you know there was a lot of strife and failure under the articles of the confederation before we got to a Constitution and bill of rights.
Establishing teh country took precedence over freeing the slaves by 70 years or so.

Is that to deny racism? nope!! nor … and a low 'political interest' in tackling slavery… however it isn't like nothing else was happening, like the Spanish American War, and teh War of 1812…. were pesky issues that put slavery on the back burner. And of course we were fighting the Barbary Pirates (muslims demanding tribute for safe passage).

Look at the 1960's to now… and we still have a long way to go. But the founding concepts were and are revolutionary. But it is falling apart now - 
For History - look to the Irish Slave trade:
-However the Pointing to Crusades or Inquisition as some kind of deflection of what is happening today is ridiculous.
We need solutions that are not based on Europes dark ages… but the reality we face in the here and now.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

European slaves were the most desirable slaves; however, their mortality rate was over 90% due to malaria. Of the survivors, most were too weak to work about 1/2 the time. African slaves solved the problem as they had immunity.


----------



## RobS888

Hey puppy,

I'm just showing there wasn't any religious hatred like you claimed. Your ignorance is rather more staggering than usual when it comes to history.

Only white dudes with land could vote, so there was no equality until the 1960s. Black women in many states couldn't vote until 1965, so again not really equal at all were we.

Did you read about the treatment of Jews in the US? I suspect you did that's why you pivoted away from it to slavery!

So does your lack of quibbling means you accept that Muslims were far nicer to Jews than Christians right up until Zionism as well? Most of the problems in the ME are about land or at least stem from land issues, not religion. Same as NI.

I in no way tried to blame the current ME issues on the past, I was showing it isn't a long term problem like many ignorant people claim. You seem to have totally (surprise) missed the point, and lost the debate,... again.

The concepts you hold up meant nothing if they weren't followed until foerced to. Many other countries are much more egalitarian than we are. Did you know the UK had a bill of rights before the US even rebelled? All the high ideals were around already.

The UK sold us slaves, so not really a British institution. Again read some more history if you want to converse on these topics.


----------



## RobS888

> European slaves were the most desirable slaves; however, their mortality rate was over 90% due to malaria. Of the survivors, most were too weak to work about 1/2 the time. African slaves solved the problem as they had immunity.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Correct, the Irish and Chinese couldn't survive working in the South all day long, so their frailty reduced their value. I recall the Irish didn't actually make good slaves for some reason.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I'm pretty sure it was malaria. Even the survivors have bouts with lingering symptoms that make them too weak to work for extended periods. In many cases, they quit sending paid laborers, induntered servants and settlers because of mortality in favor of importing slaves from Africa. Even up into the Civil War, the northerners had not aquired the immunity the southern had. That was a big factor in the north not invading the south early in the war. By the time they got to the battle, only a Quarter of the troops would be in any condition for service.


----------



## RobS888

> I m pretty sure it was malaria. Even the survivors have bouts with lingering symptoms that make them too weak to work for extended periods. In many cases, they quit sending paid laborers, induntered servants and settlers because of mortality in favor of importing slaves from Africa. Even up into the Civil War, the northerners had not aquired the immunity the southern had. That was a big factor in the north not invading the south early in the war. By the time they got to the battle, only a Quarter of the troops would be in any condition for service.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


From what I remember the Irish were mostly political prisoners and treated far worse than other groups. There were no laws to protect them and very little money invested in their purchase. I think for a long period most slaves in the new world were Irish.

EDIT: I looked it up, and malaria was bad for new arrivals. Subsequent generations as you mentioned had built up immunities. The 90% seems high especially if the Northern troops didn't suffer anywhere near that rate. What I recall was the Irish slaves were almost free and treated far worse than other groups. Calling them indentured rather than slaves is hiding the atrocity.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I don't remember when England took over Ireland, but they were suppressed and ruled for 3 or 400 years. One of the reasons for the potato famine was it was illegal to sell grain in Ireland. All production was shipped to England for their 1% ;-( to consume. This top one per cent revolution has been going on for at least 10,000 years.


----------



## Mahdeew

I think the only reason the Irish came to this neck of the woods was the potato crop failure and the oppression they suffered from the English. I may be wrong in that assumption.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I think the only reason the Irish came to this neck of the woods was the potato crop failure and the oppression they suffered from the English. I may be wrong in that assumption.
> 
> - mahdee


There were several waves of Irish immigrants as there were waves of other nationalities. When my paternal line landed in 1728, there were so many Germans coming, single men were required to swear aliegience to the crown. That law went into affect a few days before we got here ;-(

Germans were mostly tradesmen with desirable skills. Irish were actually removed from their land and forced to relocate further west in the wilderness of western PA. Their land with its improvements were given to newly arriving Germans in some cases.


----------



## Mahdeew

Bob, it is amazing how things worked out the way they did. If people understood how things were establish in the good old days, maybe they can understand why we are where we are today.


----------



## RobS888

> I don t remember when England took over Ireland, but they were suppressed and ruled for 3 or 400 years. One of the reasons for the potato famine was it was illegal to sell grain in Ireland. All production was shipped to England for their 1% ;-( to consume. This top one per cent revolution has been going on for at least 10,000 years.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


It was about 800 years. At one point wearin' green was cause for summary execution.


----------



## RobS888

> I think the only reason the Irish came to this neck of the woods was the potato crop failure and the oppression they suffered from the English. I may be wrong in that assumption.
> 
> - mahdee


They were brought here as slaves long before the famine. I think it started in the 1600s.


----------



## RobS888

> I think the only reason the Irish came to this neck of the woods was the potato crop failure and the oppression they suffered from the English. I may be wrong in that assumption.
> 
> - mahdee
> 
> There were several waves of Irish immigrants as there were waves of other nationalities. When my paternal line landed in 1728, there were so many Germans coming, single men were required to swear aliegience to the crown. That law went into affect a few days before we got here ;-(
> 
> Germans were mostly tradesmen with desirable skills. Irish were actually removed from their land and forced to relocate further west in the wilderness of western PA. Their land with its improvements were given to newly arriving Germans in some cases.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Hmmm, I read that the Appalachian/Southern accent comes partly from Irish, but I always assumed it was the Scotch-Irish, perhaps the Irish were pushed west into the mountains.


----------



## CharlesA

There are a lot of similarities between the treatment of the Irish and the Africans in the 17th and early 18th centuries, but then came the confluence of events around the economic necessity of a permanent slave class in the American southern plantations and the ideology of race.

Early African slaves in the colonies often lived with their families independently and could buy their way out of slavery. But the ideology of race, fueled by economics, declared that Africans were a different race than white folk, were born to be slaves, and thus they and their descendants were permanently slaves, with no possibility of leaving this system. The Irish slaves eventually became "white" and thus not slaves. Slate.com's podcast series, "A History of American Slavery" tells this story quite well.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Early African slaves in the colonies often lived with their families independently and could buy their way out of slavery. But the ideology of race, fueled by economics, declared that Africans were a different race than white folk, were born to be slaves, and thus they and their descendants were permanently slaves, with no possibility of leaving this system. The Irish slaves eventually became "white" and thus not slaves. Slate.com s podcast series, "A History of American Slavery" tells this story quite well.
> 
> - CharlesA


Did they go into the original reason for bringing Africans to the Americas being malaria killing off the Europeans and the fact that the nonslave workers who could not survive and or work needed to be replace by those who could?


----------



## RobS888

Thanks Charles, that was pretty informative. Especially the part about white supremacists and neo-confederates (?) using "..but the Irish were slaves too" as some proof they weren't racist. I will remember where that argument comes from.

Topo, I didn't see malaria mentioned, it was about 7 myths of slavery.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Thanks Rob. I'm on phone only access right now


----------



## RobS888

Dang, I called Verizon because my fios wasn't to full speed, so they upped me to 40/40. 
I feel spoiled now.


----------



## Mahdeew

I believe it was the black death that freed the Irish. with over 50% of Europe dead, they needed the workforce and that is how slavery ended and paid wages began. Perhaps similar to here at the beginning of the industrial revolution.


----------



## RobS888

The "black death" was in the 1300s and killed an estimated 1/3 of Europeans. James Burke says this led to mechanization as there weren't enough people left.

The Irish got home rule after several rebellions in 1921.

I don't believe they are connected in any way.

There was a plague in London in the 1600s, but that would not seem to have helped them since many of the involuntary indentures happened from about 1650 to 1780.


----------



## Mahdeew

Back to climate change… Apparently 3 prominent scientists are jumping ship as this is nothing but a tax collection for an ever bloating governments:
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' - 'Based On Nonsense' - 'Leading us down a false path'
Source.


----------



## RobS888

Yawn, a pro energy climate summit.

It is great that you supplied a link, but did you notice the summit was held at the offices of a right wing think tank Texas public Policy Foundation. Their major contributor is the Koch brothers.

http://www.texasobserver.org/revealed-the-corporations-and-billionaires-that-fund-the-texas-public-policy-foundation/

I find it really hard to give anyone there any credibility. The first night of the summit they showed excerpts from the movie climate hustle, you know, for fun.

The Koch brothers pay the foundation, the foundation hires "experts", puts on a summit and you post the "results" like it was real. What does it feel like to be manipulated so easily? Based on my spending 2 minutes to follow the money trail they know you guys won't look too hard because it jibes with what you believe.


----------



## Mahdeew

Your statement puts it in perspective:

the foundation hires "experts", puts on a summit and you post the "results" like it was real. What does it feel like to be manipulated so easily? Based on my spending 2 minutes to follow the money trail they know you guys won't look too hard because it jibes with what you believe.
Most of these experts are paid by an entity to produce a desired outcome. Take away the money and they all disappear. I mean do we have any analysis before 1900 to draw any real conclusion? If not, then it is a crapshoot.


----------



## RobS888

Are you extrapolating what these 3 did and applying it to all climate scientists?


----------



## Mahdeew

Yes, all of them are paid to prove a desirable outcome. If they told the truth; (there is not enough historical analysis to make a concrete, semi-concrete, partially close to or near any truth; historical evidence to make a semi-conclusion, analysis based on patterns, possible outcomes, etc. 100 years of of data is just not enough data to ascertain facts from fictions.


----------



## RobS888

That isn't true, most are researching what does happen. You can't characterize all scientists as crooked and expect to be taken seriously.

Also, we do have more than just 100 years of data, we have 100,000s of years data. We have biblical stories(well some must be true), archialogical data, and ice cores. The actual CO2 thread (where this should be) was about the fact that CO2 has passed 400ppm a level never seen in ice cores.


----------



## CharlesA

> Your statement puts it in perspective:
> 
> the foundation hires "experts", puts on a summit and you post the "results" like it was real. What does it feel like to be manipulated so easily? Based on my spending 2 minutes to follow the money trail they know you guys won't look too hard because it jibes with what you believe.
> Most of these experts are paid by an entity to produce a desired outcome. Take away the money and they all disappear. I mean do we have any analysis before 1900 to draw any real conclusion? If not, then it is a crapshoot.
> 
> - mahdee


There are at least two reasons your assertion is weak: 1) it is precisely the fossil fuel companies who fund research on climate change that gets the "results" that they pay for, then they accuse the other climate researchers of doing the same thing. The closest analogy is the work of the 3 scientists who continued to maintain that smoking didn't cause cancer into the 90's. 3) name 5 famous scientists. I bet every single be is famous because of a breakthrough that upended the dominant paradigms of the time. If a reputable scientist could do that right now on climate change, they'd be a scientific hero. This is the way science works-fame is far more attractive than money.


----------



## CharlesA

Exxon Mobile funding: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/exxonmobil-is-still-spend_b_7810880.html


----------



## Mahdeew

So Exxon is guilty of spending millions on climate change deniers (science) which is bad. 
USGCRP spends 3 billion dollars on climate change promoter (science) which is good.


----------



## CharlesA

That's exactly the false equivalence I was referring to in point 1. Exxon-Mobile has been investing in research that defends their industry. USGCRP has been investing in scientific research.


----------



## Mahdeew

Do you know how much tax benefit USGCRP research can provide for the government? This is the same concept with two opposing ends.


----------



## CharlesA

No, it is not.

if it were, Exxon-Mobile wouldn't be hiding its funding. It's a completely different animal.


----------



## CharlesA

3) http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/23/lamar_smith_harassment_of_scientists_continues.html


----------



## Mahdeew

I think Exxon is doing what every company does; protect its interest. As you know, most of these climate legislations are designed to tax CO2 emission. If CO2 is so horrible, they should spend 99% of their budget and efforts toward research and development of alternatives. Yes, heavily taxing utility companies will force them to install filtrations that reduce CO2 emissions but the cost is always pushed to the consumer and the tax further bloats the government. I guess that is why the Koch's and the like have come up with the "no climate tax pledge".


----------



## CharlesA

> I think Exxon is doing what every company does; protect its interest. As you know, most of these climate legislations are designed to tax CO2 emission. If CO2 is so horrible, they should spend 99% of their budget and efforts toward research and development of alternatives. Yes, heavily taxing utility companies will force them to install filtrations that reduce CO2 emissions but the cost is always pushed to the consumer and the tax further bloats the government. I guess that is why the Koch s and the like have come up with the "no climate tax pledge".
> 
> - mahdee


Nope. Exxon funds lots of honest research. When they want to know if there's oil in a location, they want the right answer. But when they want to influence energy policy, they set-up faux climate institutes, and fund them through laundered money, so that they will appear to be independent when in fact they are wholly-owned subsidiaries. And they are not looking for the right answer, they are looking for the answer that will garner themselves more profit when they *know* that the answer is wrong. Lobbying is one thing. Funding "research" that some are stupid enough to believe when you know it is false is another.


----------



## CharlesA

From Today's Boston Globe:

"A third truth is that climate change must transcend ideology. A particularly pernicious form of denialism is the conceit within the political left that we must cure longstanding social ills such as inequality, corporate greed, racism, and political corruption along the way to dealing with climate change. Naomi Klein's campaign to "change everything" casts global warming as an opportunity for the left to step up its various crusades. Whatever you think of such goals, and we agree with many of them, they must not distract us from the priority of preventing catastrophic climate change.
The left also seeks to mobilize support with a narrative that blames the problem on a hateful enemy. The Koch brothers, ExxonMobil, and the Republican Party seem all too eager to step into this role. But even if all these devils magically vanished, we'd still be burning fossil fuels until we found something better."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/23/inconvenient-truths-for-environmental-movement/esDloe97894keW16Ywa9MP/story.html?event=event25


----------



## Mahdeew

There are all sorts of "stupid people" out there believing what they choose to believe. Belief is just that, belief.


----------



## CharlesA

> There are all sorts of "stupid people" out there believing what they choose to believe. Belief is just that, belief.
> 
> - mahdee


But climate change isn't about belief, it is about evidence.


----------



## Mahdeew

Yes, questionable evidence is a sort of belief. If this was so concrete, like 1+1=2, then there wouldn't be any controversy. At this points it's more like 1+1 = 3 for one side and 1+1= -2 for the other.


----------



## CharlesA

If, by your rough mathematical analogy you are saying that one side is using appropriate methodology and is working toward the right answer, but because of the complexity of the data, is not perfectly right (1+1=3) and the other side is deliberately doing gun-for-hire research and is nowhere close to right (1+1=-2), then we're on the same page.


----------



## Mahdeew

I know the government has as much motivation to collect taxes under the climate change model as Exxon is motivated to not pay it. And that is where the weird math is coming to play.
Off course no one is blaming the Sun activities other natural or universal forces because they can't be taxed.
Even IMF website in part is emphasizing "substantial amounts of government revenue" 
Fiscal implications
Broad-based charges on greenhouse gases, such as a carbon tax, are the most effective instruments for encouraging cleaner fuels and less energy use. Carbon taxes can also raise substantial amounts of government revenue, are a highly practical extension of existing administration for fuel taxes, and can be in countries' own national interests due to domestic health and other co-benefits. Emissions prices can be aligned with mitigation pledges.
Cap-and-trade systems are another option, but generally they should be designed to look like taxes through revenue-raising and price stability provisions.
Source


----------



## CharlesA

What a strange argument : "I know the government has as much motivation to collect taxes under the climate change model as Exxon is motivated to not pay it. "

Okay. And, if one did not trust the evidence that human-caused climate change was occurring, one could develop a tax strategy that did not include the possibility of hurting the engine of the American economy: fossil fuels.

This is an argument in search of a problem.


----------



## Mahdeew

It is simple. It's called indirect taxation. Just like inflation being an indirect tax on the people. Folks don't tend to get mad at the government because their utility bill went up 30%, they blame "those greedy companies and their shareholder who get a steady dividend". So, the utility company becomes the monster while it is being milked by the government. The people will foot the bill.


----------



## CharlesA

I give up. Keep your false equivalences even when they have no correspondence to reality.


----------



## Mahdeew

You do the same Charles. It would be a boring world if we all thought like you. Or me.


----------



## RobS888

Boring, but safer, cleaner, & healthier if we all thought like Charles.


----------



## CharlesA

> You do the same Charles. It would be a boring world if we all thought like you. Or me.
> 
> - mahdee


No, I don't. Show me where that is true. Differences of opinion or taste are fun. Different sets of facts and evidence is just dumb.


----------



## Mahdeew

Yea, this is the second time you mentioned people like me are stupid and dumb. I am willing to engage in a respectful discussion so you won't find me stoop that low regardless of what I think about your logic.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I believe everyone can agree on this ~~


----------



## Mahdeew

LOL Bob. Jesus did the same thing I suppose. Now lets see if he will scold those in the Vatican and clean house. I doubt it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Yeah, I don't remember my Bible stories very well, but the point is the caliber of Congress ;-(


----------



## Mahdeew

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Vatican leaks scandal: Five people charged


----------



## RobS888

> Yea, this is the second time you mentioned people like me are stupid and dumb. I am willing to engage in a respectful discussion so you won t find me stoop that low regardless of what I think about your logic.
> 
> - mahdee


You do seem to have faith in your beliefs.

*As I see your arguments: *
Most scientist are paid lackeys for one government or another.
The government is using climate change as a money grab.
It is the sun causing climate change not people.

Is that most of it?


----------



## DrDirt

This seems to be an explanation of at least part of the crash of the middle class. Not so much the rise of the 0.1%
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/education-adequate-defense-against-rise-robots-martin-ford

*Education is not an adequate defense against the rise of the robots*
Nov 28, 2015

The conventional wisdom has long been that the solution to technology-driven job losses is invariably more education and vocational training. As machines and smart software eat away at low-skill jobs, workers are urged to retool themselves and continuously climb the skills ladder, taking on roles that are beyond the reach of automation.

Economists refer to this propensity for technology to erode the value of lower skill work, while at the same time boosting the incomes of workers who are better equipped to participate in the information economy, as "skill-biased technological change" or SBTC. Evidence for the impact of SBTC can be found in the college wage premium. As of 2012, college graduates had average incomes that were over 80 percent higher than workers with only a high school diploma. Incomes for those with advanced degrees are higher still.

Delving further into the numbers, however, uncovers a discomfiting reality. *That educational wage premium is being driven not by the fact that college graduates are inundated with opportunity-but rather because prospects for those with only high school educations are in collapse. A 2012 analysis by Citi Research found that incomes for young workers with bachelor's degrees declined by a full 15 percent between 2000 and 2010, and that decline began well before the 2008 financial crisis. Any recent graduate can tell you that we have entered the age of the degree-bearing barista: as many as half of new college graduates end up taking jobs that don't utilize their education.*

This disturbing trend was analyzed formally by economists Paul Beaudry, David A. Green, and Benjamin M. Sand, who published a paper entitled "The Great Reversal in the Demand for Skill and Cognitive Tasks" in March 2013. Their analysis found that the need for skilled labor in the United States peaked around 2000 and has since gone into decline. As a result, many college graduates are taking lower-skill service jobs-often displacing those without college degrees in the process.

It turns out that workers are not the only ones who can climb the skills ladder: computer technology is proving remarkably adept at the same feat. Indeed, it is a well known truth among those who work in robotics and artificial intelligence that it is often much easier to automate the information-based jobs held by white-collar workers than lower wage positions that require physical manipulation. Building a robot that can come close to replicating the visual perception, dexterity and hand-eye coordination of a human being remains a staggering technical challenge. In contrast, smart software already writes coherent news stories and reports, performs document analysis for law firms, and, of course, trades on Wall Street. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is currently funding an $11 million project at Rice University designed to automate many aspects of routine computer programming.

The fact that high-skill jobs are disappearing leaves aside a second, obvious problem: not everyone in our workforce is destined to become a rocket scientist. Only a minority of the population has the combination of cognitive capability and motivation necessary to excel in technical fields. There is very likely a fundamental limit to the percentage of our workforce that we can expect to graduate from college and then take on a job that requires genuinely high levels of intellectual ability or creativity. In other words, even if the jobs at the top of the skills ladder were there in sufficient numbers, we would still ultimately have a serious problem finding a role for a large fraction of our workforce.

The hard truth is that the traditional solution to unemployment and poverty-and the solution that nearly all analysts and policy makers continue to support-is not going to be sufficient in the robotic age. Education has incalculable value both on a personal level, and as a public good that benefits society as a whole. For those reasons, we should continue to strongly support it and invest in it. *We should not, however, expect ever more schooling to assure workers a foothold in the future economy. *


----------



## patcollins

For what it is worth the President flying to the UN Climate Summit in Paris emitted more CO2 than driving 72 cars for an entire year. I would think something like this would be a prime candidate for teleconferencing.


----------



## RobS888

72 modern cars! That isn't much. How much did the Iraq war produce?


----------



## patcollins

> 72 modern cars! That isn t much. How much did the Iraq war produce?
> 
> - RobS888


That would be relevant if it was fought for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases. I would wager the turmoil we incited in Syria, Egypt and Lybia has created just as much if you want to go down that road.

Call me funny but I believe that people telling others that they should cut their carbon footprint should lead by example. While Jimmy Carter will never go down in history as a great president I respect what he tried to do by leading by example.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

But at least Jimmy was a decent human being and was totally disgusted by Washington DC normal operations.

First thing Reagan did was reverse the energy policy making the Dept of Energy pointless. Second thing was to pull the solar panels off the White House. The rest is history ;-( He probably single handedly did more damage to the atmosphere than any other one person until Clinton shipped the manufacturing floor to China ;-(


----------



## DrDirt

I finished high school in the first term of Reagan.
I remember 16% mortgage rates and the struggles to buy a home when Dad was transferred.
Also remember keenly the humongous land grab by Carter to declare much of Alaska Federal Land.
He seized 104 million acres (on top of the 100 million already as federal parks like Denali (McKinley) which were federal since not long after statehood).
For Refernec Texas is 171 Million acres.

Total federal land in Alaska now more than 224 million acres (60%)

WHile I disagreed with him, I respected that he was doing what he thought was best for America (not best for the UN) and preserving wilderness areas. You cannot take an area bigger than Texas and make it inaccessible.
At least you can SEE and Drive through Yellowstone.

Regardless - as Pat said - when Carter said turn down the thermostat - you saw him wearing a sweater. He actually LED by example, vs. the Do as I say not as I do president we have now.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Carter didn't cause the 16% interests rates and the inflation was close to the end of its cycle. We did not need to end the middle class to fix interest rates.


----------



## RobS888

> 72 modern cars! That isn t much. How much did the Iraq war produce?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> That would be relevant if it was fought for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases. I would wager the turmoil we incited in Syria, Egypt and Lybia has created just as much if you want to go down that road.
> 
> Call me funny but I believe that people telling others that they should cut their carbon footprint should lead by example. While Jimmy Carter will never go down in history as a great president I respect what he tried to do by leading by example.
> 
> - patcollins


I'm just comparing presidential carbon abuses.
It sounds like you respect JC as a person, but not as a president. I don't think you respect President Obama on either score.

Do you feel they are there for a vacation?

I don't see 72 cars worth of carbon emissions/year to try to reduce the world production to be a big deal.


----------



## RobS888

> I finished high school in the first term of Reagan.
> I remember 16% mortgage rates and the struggles to buy a home when Dad was transferred.
> Also remember keenly the humongous land grab by Carter to declare much of Alaska Federal Land.
> He seized 104 million acres (on top of the 100 million already as federal parks like Denali (McKinley) which were federal since not long after statehood).
> For Refernec Texas is 171 Million acres.
> 
> Total federal land in Alaska now more than 224 million acres (60%)
> 
> WHile I disagreed with him, I respected that he was doing what he thought was best for America (not best for the UN) and preserving wilderness areas. You cannot take an area bigger than Texas and make it inaccessible.
> At least you can SEE and Drive through Yellowstone.
> 
> Regardless - as Pat said - when Carter said turn down the thermostat - you saw him wearing a sweater. He actually LED by example, vs. the Do as I say not as I do president we have now.
> 
> - DrDirt


He led by example in a commercial or PSA if you'd like. This topic is just a stupid canard to move the topic away from the problem. Even if a charge of hypocrisy was appropriate it wouldn't make them wrong in what they are trying to do.

Just curious why are we talking about climate in the Wealth distribution thread and education in the climate thread?


----------



## DrDirt

> Just curious why are we talking about climate in the Wealth distribution thread and education in the climate thread?
> 
> - RobS888


Because to address the Wealth distribution, and opportunity for the majority of this country will take LEADERSHIP and that is something that is sorely missing currently and from the crop of candidates..

the latest climate summit boondoggle is just the current 'manifestation' of a bunch of pundits and blowhards (estimates of 50,000 people attending various events for this) flying in on their private jets and explain why EVERYONE ELSE needs to shrink their carbon footprint.

Sanders is the only candidate that actually recognizes the problems. however I don't see where he would get cooperation from Dems nor Republicans in congress.
Regardless he (and Trump) are the only ones speaking their minds and honest intentions (whether good or bad) instead of party line talking points.

Without top down leadership (by example not just words) all the other 3700+ Posts are mental masturbation. John Q public has no voice to do anything individually about "what anyone else earns".


----------



## patcollins

> 72 modern cars! That isn t much. How much did the Iraq war produce?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> That would be relevant if it was fought for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases. I would wager the turmoil we incited in Syria, Egypt and Lybia has created just as much if you want to go down that road.
> 
> Call me funny but I believe that people telling others that they should cut their carbon footprint should lead by example. While Jimmy Carter will never go down in history as a great president I respect what he tried to do by leading by example.
> 
> - patcollins
> 
> I m just comparing presidential carbon abuses.
> It sounds like you respect JC as a person, but not as a president. I don t think you respect President Obama on either score.
> 
> Do you feel they are there for a vacation?
> 
> I don t see 72 cars worth of carbon emissions/year to try to reduce the world production to be a big deal.
> 
> - RobS888


I think Obama is a decent guy, probably a good father, but would have been much better suited as the most popular law professor on campus than as a leader of anything, he was also probably good material to be in congress had he chose to stay there instead.

I think Jimmy Carter was a good man, probably good material for governor, a decent naval officer but not a leader either but tried his hardest and knew his limitations and for the most part did what was right without his ego getting in the way. I think he would have made a much better cabinet member or a US representative. Personally I think him and Ford deserve a better reputation than they have.

As far as Obama being on vacation or not I'm not really concerned with that, I think he tries to be part of too many things that his presence (any US President for that matter would be) is just more of a distraction than anything…like the Chicago Olympics thing.


----------



## RobS888

He has said he believes climate change is a huge problem, he is doing what he can.

Carter had a massively democratic Congress so he wasn't hamstrung at every stage. He had over 60 senators for 2 years.

Carter had 2 filibusters, Obama about 300. Who knows what would have happened if republicans had tried to do their job stead of trying to make him look bad.


----------



## RobS888

> Just curious why are we talking about climate in the Wealth distribution thread and education in the climate thread?
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Because to address the Wealth distribution, and opportunity for the majority of this country will take LEADERSHIP and that is something that is sorely missing currently and from the crop of candidates..
> 
> the latest climate summit boondoggle is just the current manifestation of a bunch of pundits and blowhards (estimates of 50,000 people attending various events for this) flying in on their private jets and explain why EVERYONE ELSE needs to shrink their carbon footprint.
> 
> Sanders is the only candidate that actually recognizes the problems. however I don t see where he would get cooperation from Dems nor Republicans in congress.
> Regardless he (and Trump) are the only ones speaking their minds and honest intentions (whether good or bad) instead of party line talking points.
> 
> Without top down leadership (by example not just words) all the other 3700+ Posts are mental masturbation. John Q public has no voice to do anything individually about "what anyone else earns".
> 
> - DrDirt


Too funny! If you don't have a voice it is because of republicans and their appointees to Scotus that took it from you.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> He has said he believes climate change is a huge problem, he is doing what he can.
> 
> Carter had a massively democratic Congress so he wasn t hamstrung at every stage. He had over 60 senators for 2 years.
> 
> Carter had 2 filibusters, Obama about 300. Who knows what would have happened if republicans had tried to do their job stead of trying to make him look bad.
> 
> - RobS888


Hear, hear!!


----------



## DrDirt

> Without top down leadership (by example not just words) all the other 3700+ Posts are mental masturbation. John Q public has no voice to do anything individually about "what anyone else earns".
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Too funny! If you don t have a voice it is because of republicans and their appointees to Scotus that took it from you.
> 
> - RobS888


Pretty sad - - you actually think you had a voice over the political machine (both sides) which decide what candidates you get to vote for?

Do tell when you PERSONALLY as an INDIVIDUAL, had actual control over CEO salaries and Wealth distribution.

You are deluded.


----------



## DrDirt

..


----------



## RobS888

> Without top down leadership (by example not just words) all the other 3700+ Posts are mental masturbation. John Q public has no voice to do anything individually about "what anyone else earns".
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Too funny! If you don t have a voice it is because of republicans and their appointees to Scotus that took it from you.
> 
> - RobS888
> retty sad - - you actually think you had a voice over the political machine (both sides) which decide what candidates you get to vote for?
> 
> Do tell when you PERSONALLY as an INDIVIDUAL, had actual control over CEO salaries and Wealth distribution.
> 
> You are deluded.
> - DrDirt


I'm worried you have lost the thread of both discussions now.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

EDITED SO NO ONE CAN REASONABLY GET TRIPPED UP:

It apparently upsets a German that wealthy Americans have the right to give their own money away (redistribute) as they see fit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/why-some-people-feel-billionaire-pledges-like-mark-zuckerbergs-are-really-bad/?wpisrc=nl_draw2


----------



## RobS888

> It apparently upsets the Germans that wealthy Americans have the right to give their own money away (redistribute) as they see fit.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/why-some-people-feel-billionaire-pledges-like-mark-zuckerbergs-are-really-bad/?wpisrc=nl_draw2
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


Interesting, your article referred to *A* German billionaire, but you make it sound like *Germans as a whole*. Plus he has a good point.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

His point is bull******************** and arrogant. Just another idiot who knows better than anyone else.


----------



## RobS888

Weird, I thought he was talking about the select group of people he belongs to. His point is no less valid than yours. I suspect he doesn't hate his government like you do, that is why he thinks they can do a better job than a billionaire with a pet cause. Plus as he says we get a credit, so in many ways the government is funding the pet cause as well.

Do you agree it is just *a* German and not Germans?


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

I believe I addressed you're concern above, Rob.

So, you're saying he belongs to a group of idiots? Are they all German, by chance? Maybe I should remake my original intro. I suspect he doesn't respect personal property like I do, and why do you assume to know enough to assign 'hatred' to me about anything?


----------



## RobS888

All 


> I believe I addressed you re concern above, Rob.
> 
> So, you re saying he belongs to a group of idiots? Are they all German, by chance? Maybe I should remake my original intro. I suspect he doesn t respect personal property like I do, and why do you assume to know enough to assign hatred to me about anything?
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


I missed where you addressed your very misleading statement about Germans as opposed to *a* German Billionaire.

He belongs to a select group of Billionaires.

What do you base your assumption about personal property on? I read the entire article and didn't see property mentioned.

Thinking an individual is better at determining/delivering public welfare is indicative of a certain mind set. If you don't hate the government and think it is the worst at anything it does, then please let me know and I'll apologize.

The whole point of the article or at least the subject of the article is that the Government can do a better job than individuals at determining and delivering aide and pet projects may be a waste. Yet all you saw was a criticism of AMERICA. I think it is a well founded criticism. Why should taxes fund what Billionaires want to do?

*EDIT:*

I see you fixed the text, thanks.

I think you miss the point about the tax credits.


----------



## DrDirt

> Without top down leadership (by example not just words) all the other 3700+ Posts are mental masturbation. John Q public has no voice to do anything individually about "what anyone else earns".
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Too funny! If you don t have a voice it is because of republicans and their appointees to Scotus that took it from you.
> 
> - RobS888
> retty sad - - you actually think you had a voice over the political machine (both sides) which decide what candidates you get to vote for?
> 
> Do tell when you PERSONALLY as an INDIVIDUAL, had actual control over CEO salaries and Wealth distribution.
> 
> You are deluded.
> - DrDirt
> 
> I m worried you have lost the thread of both discussions now.
> 
> - RobS888


Thought (correctly) that your delusion of control was bull, and totally unsupportable.
You believe you can personally control wealth distribution and CEO salary.

Maybe you should see a doctor before you start claiming to be Napoleon or clucking like a chicken.


----------



## RobS888

> Without top down leadership (by example not just words) all the other 3700+ Posts are mental masturbation. John Q public has no voice to do anything individually about "what anyone else earns".
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Too funny! If you don t have a voice it is because of republicans and their appointees to Scotus that took it from you.
> 
> - RobS888
> retty sad - - you actually think you had a voice over the political machine (both sides) which decide what candidates you get to vote for?
> 
> Do tell when you PERSONALLY as an INDIVIDUAL, had actual control over CEO salaries and Wealth distribution.
> 
> You are deluded.
> - DrDirt
> 
> I m worried you have lost the thread of both discussions now.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Thought (correctly) that your delusion of control was bull, and totally unsupportable.
> You believe you can personally control wealth distribution and CEO salary.
> 
> Maybe you should see a doctor before you start claiming to be Napoleon or clucking like a chicken.
> 
> - DrDirt


Is there anyway to get this back onto the glide-path of a proper discussion?

Sigh, prolly not…

If I believe something how is it bull to me? It could be wrong, but bull supposes that I know it isn't true. If I know it isn't true then it isn't a delusion.

Do you see how you have lost post integrity? You can't even hold a thought (insult) together for one post. Please try to make more sense in your attacks.


----------



## bonesbr549

Gosh, I read this and have to say that I've always found it interesting how people can piss -n- moan over what someone else makes for a living or has? Envy is an ugly thing.

WE can make it all better by just taking from the "rich" (it's always seems to be someone who makes more than you that is defined as rich). How about if you want to make what someone else makes get a skill come up with an idea build a better mousetrap. No its about equal misery thats the liberal way. I have never made my lot in life better by taking (stealing is another good word) from someone else who earned their money legally.

Then it gets to global warming, and thats the greatest threat facing our nation total Bull crap! We have a crap load of people wanting to cut our heads off, thats a tad more important.

We are funny as humans we really think we are in control of our environment. There have been receding glaciers since dinasours. And tell me the "models" say whats it going to be like in 50-100 years. Hell they cant accurately predict the freak'n weather 3 days out.

Sheesh, there I feel better.


----------



## patcollins

I think the global warming discussion does belong in the wealth distribution thread for a couple of reasons. If the government wants to limit CO2 emissions the only thing it can really do is to tax them, that really doesn't solve the perceived problem at all but there isn't much else it can do. Now why this belongs in the wealth distribution thread is that this will create a large burden on the middle class and poor. There will be groups of people getting rich off of the so called carbon credit business just as banks make money off of the business of money.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

> What do you base your assumption about personal property on? I read the entire article and didn t see property mentioned.
> 
> Thinking an individual is better at determining/delivering public welfare is indicative of a certain mind set. If you don t hate the government and think it is the worst at anything it does, then please let me know and I ll apologize.
> 
> - RobS888


An individual's private wealth is nothing if not personal property. And I didn't think / state / imply individuals are better and delivering / determining public welfare, but rather that it is up to the individual to dispose of / allocate / spend / waste their wealth as they see fit. There's a difference. Finally, you attributed hatred to me WRT 'the government' and that's overreaching and unfounded, plain and simple. You can keep your apology, as I don't need it or want it.

This is still a thread that openly discourages reasonable discussion, just like the Global Warning thread. And that's disappointing. Anyway, I'll be doing my best (again) to ignore both from this point.


----------



## RobS888

> An individual s private wealth is nothing if not personal property. And I didn t think / state / imply individuals are better and delivering / determining public welfare, but rather that it is up to the individual to dispose of / allocate / spend / waste their wealth as they see fit. There s a difference. Finally, you attributed hatred to me WRT the government and that s overreaching and unfounded, plain and simple. You can keep your apology, as I don t need it or want it.
> 
> This is still a thread that openly discourages reasonable discussion, just like the Global Warning thread. And that s disappointing. Anyway, I ll be doing my best (again) to ignore both from this point.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


This is reasonable discussion?
_*His point is bull******************** and arrogant. Just another idiot who knows better than anyone else.*_
Would you talk to your mother that way? How am I discouraging you? You are making the hateful comments not me. I just seek the truth, you are trying to hide it.

I asked if I was wrong about my assumption and you very carefully skirted answering.

And finally, you completely ignore the gentleman's point about the tax credit wasting the governments money, diluting what the government can accomplish, and most importantly, transferring wealth from the government to the wealthy.

Bye until next time puppy needs help.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Gosh, I read this and have to say that I ve always found it interesting how people can piss -n- moan over what someone else makes for a living or has? Envy is an ugly thing.
> 
> WE can make it all better by just taking from the "rich" (it s always seems to be someone who makes more than you that is defined as rich). How about if you want to make what someone else makes get a skill come up with an idea build a better mousetrap. No its about equal misery thats the liberal way. I have never made my lot in life better by taking (stealing is another good word) from someone else who earned their money legally.
> 
> Then it gets to global warming, and thats the greatest threat facing our nation total Bull crap! We have a crap load of people wanting to cut our heads off, thats a tad more important.
> 
> We are funny as humans we really think we are in control of our environment. There have been receding glaciers since dinasours. And tell me the "models" say whats it going to be like in 50-100 years. Hell they cant accurately predict the freak n weather 3 days out.
> 
> Sheesh, there I feel better.
> 
> - bonesbr549


Without mass simple minded myopia we could not be in the mess we are in today. I know it is hard to believe there are those who are motivated by a higher calling than petty greed, envy and jealousy, but there are a few of us in the US.


----------



## DanYo

"Poverty, the existence of the poor, was the first cause of riches. This it was which created the earliest capitalist. For, before the surplus value, about which people are so fond of talking, could begin to be accumulated it was necessary that there should be poverty-stricken wretches who would consent to sell their labor force rather than die of hunger. It is poverty that has made the rich. And if poverty had advanced by such rapid strides by the end of the Middle Ages, it was chiefly because the invasions and wars, the creation of States and the development of their authority, the wealth gained by exploitation in the East and many other causes of a like nature, broke the bonds which once united agrarian and urban communities, and led them, in place of the solidarity which they once practiced, to adopt the principle of the wage-system. Is this principle to be the outcome of the Revolution? Dare we dignify by the name of a Social Revolution that name so dear to the hungry, the suffering and the oppressed - the triumph of such a principle as this?

It cannot be so. For, on the day when ancient institutions splinter into fragments before the axe of the proletariat, voices will be heard shouting: Bread for all! Lodging for all! Right for all to the comforts of life!"

- Peter Kropotkin | The Wage System (1888)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/14/what-silicon-valley-doesnt-understand-about-inequality/?wpisrc=nl_rainbow


----------



## RobS888

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/14/what-silicon-valley-doesnt-understand-about-inequality/?wpisrc=nl_rainbow
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I'm trying to avoid giving any money to people that take too much for themselves (not sure why it isn't theft) like go pro's CEO.

http://www.businessinsider.com/highest-paid-ceo-of-2014-2015-4

$284 million? Really?


----------



## DrDirt

Slightly different perspective on what the problem is.

Sure there are 'overpaid' CEO's but those are a small fraction of the population… The poor and middle class get screwed over, manufacturing is moved to China - - it can be too easy to point to a handful of folks as being too well paid. We could take the Go-pro CEO pay and give everyone in the country 80 cents.

But those salaries are nothing compared to what the working class has LOST….

-----Most Salient Point--------

"It's really about the poor losing ground rather than these upper-class households pulling away," said Alan Berube, a senior fellow at Brookings and deputy director of its metropolitan policy program.

Cincinnati's top 5 percent of earners made at least $164,410 in 2014, a figure that has increased since 2013, though it remains 7 percent below pre-recession levels.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/in-plain-sight/income-gap-widens-poor-lose-ground-recession-recovery-report-n496551

and the fact that 93% of teh Counties in teh USA have not recovered since teh recession 6 years in. Where is the recovery when we haven't even gotten back to where we were?
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/01/12/six-years-later-93-of-u-s-counties-havent-recovered-from-recession-study-finds/


----------



## RobS888

They are a small percentage of the people, but not income.

The Go pro guy is $184 million it is just crazy for that much money to flow up to him, he should charge less or pay his people more.

Peter Drucker said 25 times the average pay is about right for a CEO. Congress tried to limit CEO pay to $1million /year. Like anything, thieves will find a way around the law.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Slightly different perspective on what the problem is.
> 
> Sure there are overpaid CEO s but those are a small fraction of the population… The poor and middle class get screwed over, manufacturing is moved to China - - it can be too easy to point to a handful of folks as being too well paid. We could take the Go-pro CEO pay and give everyone in the country 80 cents.
> 
> But those salaries are nothing compared to what the working class has LOST….
> 
> -----Most Salient Point--------
> 
> "It s really about the poor losing ground rather than these upper-class households pulling away," said Alan Berube, a senior fellow at Brookings and deputy director of its metropolitan policy program.
> 
> - DrDirt


Looks like Alan Berube needs to get out of the office and see it is both ;-(

China is stealing what hasn't been voluntarily move there.

From CBS 60 Minutes


----------



## RobS888

CEOs contributed more to the losses of the middle class than any other group. They would have to approve moving production.

So they caused the problem for the middle class, then sucked up the differences in costs after moving production to China.

Out sourcing to Asia seems un-American to me.


----------



## DrDirt

> CEOs contributed more to the losses of the middle class than any other group. They would have to approve moving production.
> 
> So they caused the problem for the middle class, then sucked up the differences in costs after moving production to China.
> 
> Out sourcing to Asia seems un-American to me.
> 
> - RobS888


The CEO's answer to the boards to meet revenue projections. Not a great rationale, but just as you can watch Shark Tank - and they demand production be moved to China or they won't invest.
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/02/shark-tank-attacks-not-selling-out-america/
Cornelius Vanderbilt, Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan, and others all were vastly wealthy - so this is far from new territory

Recall that Morgan bought out Carnegie steel for 480 Million dollars in 1901…. That was larger than the US federal Budget… but JP just cut Andrew a Check.
That would be 400 Billion in 2015 dollars.
http://www.history.co.uk/biographies/j-p-morgan

Point I see is that in the middle class where you are struggling to make rent and food.

Is the problem that need to be addressed the 100 Milliion dollar CEO…. or the FALLING wages you receive to get by?

Both are an issue - but the idea that cuting CEO pay would "Trickle Down" to the workers is a fantasy. The pay would go into Stock Options. (like CEO Tim Cook of Apple. 'ONLY' had a 10 millino dollar salary, but had 100 million in Stock options become vested). Maybe the VP's would see more money and perhaps a stock dividend. But the idea that if you Cut the CEO pay - the workers would see a raise, is wishful thinking.

You say outsourcing is Un-American…. perhaps buying a Chinese products because of their lower price is at the heart of the problem. So long as we demand 'Cheap ********************'... we will get more of the same


----------



## RobS888

I don't know how to explain it any better, it is a zero sum game and the middle class has no control and is getting less.

If the CEO takes it there is no chance for it to go anywhere, You say trickle down where as I see the money being vacuumed up to the top.

As before, we have a stellar example in Costco, the CEO takes a reasonable amount (even turning down raises from the board) and pays his employees a good wage with good benefits. There are no losers in this example.


----------



## DrDirt

The BLS report provides "employment and wage estimates by area and by industry for wage and salary workers in 22 major occupational groups," including the category "chief executives." *In 2013, the BLS reports that the average pay for America's 248,760 chief executives was only $178,400. *The 200 S&P500 firms reported by USAToday represent only one out of every 1,243 firms in the country that have a CEO at the head, and that small sample of 200 would represent only 0.08% of American CEOs, or less than one-tenth of one percent of all CEOs.

https://www.aei.org/publication/the-average-us-ceo-last-year-made-only-178400-about-the-same-as-a-dentist-and-got-a-raise-of-less-than-1/

So the AVERAGE for the 250K CEO's is less than 200K
-----------
maybe you can make a calculation of how much you would "redistribute" if you capped at 10 Million dollars the CEO pays. WHat would that mean per person, THEN you could assess if "Fixing" the source of outrage as you see it would make any real difference. SO tally up the excesses and divide by the population.

EDIT - - AFLCIO data for the top 10… shows a 1400 dollar bump. A nice chunk but nothing that would erase the 10% drop in median income since 2008. I would expect that as you go to the next 90 CEO's for the top 100, the impact would shrink from there. So I don't see where CEO Pay caps would fix the problems at the bottom.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

You are very naive DRDirt. CEO salary is not the issue. It is the total CEO compensation and the scams they run for personal gain to the detriment of the shareholders and the US economy. Any investor with significant assets in the market should be able to explain it to you. If not, they are getting screwed and don't have a clue.

How many people could be treated if CEO Dollar Bill McGuire hadn't taken a billion dollars out of United Health Care?


----------



## RobS888

The median salary of S&P 500 CEOs is $10 million. Many of them ran companies that don't pay a dividend in fact, it seems performance has nothing to do with it. It is what they can get away with. Most people that work with other peoples money would go to jail if any fell in their pocket, but not CEOs since the 80s.


----------



## DrDirt

> You are very naive DRDirt. CEO salary is not the issue. It is the total CEO compensation and the scams they run for personal gain to the detriment of the shareholders and the US economy. Any investor with significant assets in the market should be able to explain it to you. If not, they are getting screwed and don t have a clue.
> 
> How many people could be treated if CEO Dollar Bill McGuire hadn t taken a billion dollars out of United Health Care?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Those numbers are total compensation. you don't really think that the CEO of Discovery channel's "Base Pay" is 156 Million do you?

Nadella (Microsoft CEO) base pay is 984K but as you see he collected 84 million.

(I cant help that the Union leaders titled the column "Salary" instead of "Compensation".... but you know how Rob likes sources)

So we are talking (not naively) about TOTAL compensation as provided by AFLCIO and the redistribution (of 100% of their compensation, not just the 'excess' as decided by somebody in an ivory tower) pay doesn't make a dent in income inequality.

As I said. the rich are creeping forward and the poor are circling the drain. The number of "overpaid" people is comparatively irrelevant to worker pay. The problem is stagnation and actual DECLINE in buying power, while upper middle class gets a 2% COLA called a "raise"


----------



## DrDirt

> The median salary of S&P 500 CEOs is $10 million. Many of them ran companies that don t pay a dividend in fact, it seems performance has nothing to do with it. It is what they can get away with. Most people that work with other peoples money would go to jail if any fell in their pocket, but not CEOs since the 80s.
> 
> - RobS888


Indeed Barack and Hillary made sure the wall street bankers that financed their campaigns never saw the inside of a courthouse after crashing the system. How many indictments did Eric Holder hand down again??

So am I to conclude that your fix for the country is the 250 fortune 500 CEO's that are above the median? You know that the Many of the Richest people ("bastards to you") are not CEO's at all right?

So tell me how your plan would 'Solve' income inequality. We all know you like a Robin Hood Redistribution plan… but tell us what differnece your couple hundred people being shafted would accomplish… and how those dollars make it to the people suffering most instead of feeding the beltway bureaucracy to ultimately only deliver a fraction of what would be collected.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

#1. Correct the shipment of middle class jobs to China and others to break the backs of labor unions. No job, no union.

#2. Restore wages and benefits lost when the Business Round Table created an artificial recession in the construction industry to break the trade unions in the early 80s.

#3. Repeal the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act passed in 2006 to cripple the Post Office to destroy that public employee union. All the BS about email, ect cutting into revenues may be an minor inconvenience, but not crippling to the PO. The $5 billion per year deposits into the employee pension and welfare fund for employees that have not even been born yet is the financial crisis. That act wil expire this year. We will see if the Rs continue it for another 10 years?

The return of that income and those jobs would restore most of it. Of course, fair trade laws would have to be restored too to accomplish it.

Digest that, then on to corporate governance, antitrust and monopolies, corporate welfare and hiding assets off shore. If corporate tax rate was 100%, it would not affect their loopholes or the amount of tax they pay ;-(


----------



## DrDirt

> #1. Correct the shipment of middle class jobs to China and others to break the backs of labor unions. No job, no union.
> 
> #2. Restore wages and benefits lost when the Business Round Table created an artificial recession in the construction industry to break the trade unions in the early 80s.
> 
> #3. Repeal the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act passed in 2006 to cripple the Post Office to destroy that public employee union. All the BS about email, ect cutting into revenues may be an minor inconvenience, but not crippling to the PO. The $5 billion per year deposits into the employee pension and welfare fund for employees that have not even been born yet is the financial crisis. That act wil expire this year. We will see if the Rs continue it for another 10 years?
> 
> The return of that income and those jobs would restore most of it. Of course, fair trade laws would have to be restored too to accomplish it.
> 
> Digest that, then on to corporate governance, antitrust and monopolies, corporate welfare and hiding assets off shore. If corporate tax rate was 100%, it would not affect their loopholes or the amount of tax they pay ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Agree completely - - Follow Henry Fords example, provide people jobs making things at a salary the allows them to afford what they are making.
Just jacking McDonalds pay to 15 bucks, hammers inflation, and drives further automation. we need the "rising tide" you describe that can pull the economy up.

We shipped off the good jobs, and those former middle class folks now work 2 jobs at Walmart and McDonalds…. but we claim Unemployment is down.

THAT lost income from outsourcing inserted into the pockets of the people would move the country forward. Not confiscation of salary deemed too high, of a few hundred CEO's.

Not saying the CEO's are deserving of their pay… just that confiscation/redistribution of a few hundred people is like using a 5 gallon bailing bucket to try to save the Titanic. Sure, water is being moved, but it has no effect on fixing the problem.


----------



## RobS888

Citations are nice it adds much needed realism to the argument.

CEO pay isn't the problem, it is a symptom of the problem, even you lament. Who sent jobs overseas? Not the workers. The CEOs had to decide that was a good thing. If they aren't allowed to skim as much as they want they may think of the company more than themselves.

The 1% may not be CEOs, but they benefit greatly, massively, ginormously from what the CEOs do.

When you consider yourself and 1% of the population over the rest of the country you are un-American.

Since when does the secretary of state make Justice department decisions? Oh right they don't, so why place blame for no one being jailed on HRC? Even the President can't make laws. The thieves will always find a way as long as thieving pays so well.

We don't need to confiscate their money, just take a lot of it until they start caring more for the company than their pocket.

$284 million in stock when he already has billions in stock? Why, it isn't even much for him? The greed boggles my mind.


----------



## RobS888

LoL, if someone tried to implement a pay increase like Henry Ford Conservatives would go nuts! It would be decried from every conservative's mouth as un-American.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Not saying the CEO s are deserving of their pay… just that confiscation/redistribution of a few hundred people is like using a 5 gallon bailing bucket to try to save the Titanic. Sure, water is being moved, but it has no effect on fixing the problem.
> 
> - DrDirt


It is not the size of the pay that is a problem. It is the damage the [email protected][email protected]$ do to the companies, the economy and the rest of us, US, to get it that matters. Goldman Sachs destroyed Greece and put a big, heavy dent in the EU to make their bonuses.


----------



## DrDirt

> LoL, if someone tried to implement a pay increase like Henry Ford Conservatives would go nuts! It would be decried from every conservative s mouth as un-American.
> 
> - RobS888


Doubt it - - Henry Ford decided what *he would pay HIS workers in HIS factory that HE owned*.

It is usually only when beltway pundits and such want to wave their hands and decide that McDonalds drive through attendant should be a 30K/year job conservatives the up in arms. Ford was criticized in his day for the practice because it forced his competitors (GM) to follow suit.

Conservatives think YOU can pay YOUR employees whatever outrageous salary you want

That is different than acting via government order to demand the minimum wage = single earner, support for family of 4..


----------



## DrDirt

> It is not the size of the pay that is a problem. It is the damage the [email protected][email protected]$ do to the companies, the economy and the rest of us, US, to get it that matters. Goldman Sachs destroyed Greece and put a big, heavy dent in the EU to make their bonuses.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Indeed there are a lot of criminals. I think only Bernie or Liz would actually take on the banks….. or at least TRY!! We now see what a attack dog machine Hillary has now that Bernie is being taken seriously.
I think all the canidates suck ass. But only the non establishment ones would make an attempt to change how government works…. better or worse.

I think we agree that salary confiscation will not actually repair the economy.

THe best way to a stronger economy is to have people with good jobs. I think Robs plan would make things worse. Millionaires are the kind of folks that "take their ball and go home". (Outsourcing).

WHen they close the doors to the facility… there is no workers to redistribute anything to, and now the underpaid workers are destitute and working 30 hours a week at Wal Mart.

I think the RObin Hood approach would be an abject disaster.

But if you want to go after rich folks: 
how about pro athletes?
#2 Ben Roethlisberger - $35,250,000
or Lebron James 71 million in pay + endorsements.

SInce we shoudl focus on education - maybe the college football and basketball coaches shouldn't be the highest paid government employees in nearly every state.









Movie stars seem to also be above the 10 Million dollar median of fortune 500 CEO's?
Actresses
Jennifer Lawrence: $52,000,000
Scarlett Johansson: $35,500,000
Melissa McCarthy: $23,000,000
Bingbing Fan: $21,000,000
Jennifer Aniston: $16,500,000

ACTORS
Robert Downey Jr.: $80 million
Jackie Chan: $50 million
Vin Diesel: $47 million
Bradley Cooper: $41.5 million
Adam Sandler: $41 million
Tom Cruise: $40 million
Amitabh Bachchan: $33.5 million
Salman Khan: $33.5 million
Akshay Kumar: $32.5 million
Mark Wahlberg: $32 million

I don't see govermnet thievery for their "betterment' working for the average joe.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Why go after actors and athletes? They are not hurting anyone, are they? Certainly not like health insurance CEOs whose bonus depends on how many patients they let die rather than approve treatment. Or, most of the fortune 500 who are taking the cheap money the fed prints by selling junk bonds to by back their shares to enhance the value of the shares upper management owns and sells rather than pay dividends to share holders.


----------



## RobS888

> LoL, if someone tried to implement a pay increase like Henry Ford Conservatives would go nuts! It would be decried from every conservative s mouth as un-American.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Doubt it - - Henry Ford decided what *he would pay HIS workers in HIS factory that HE owned*.
> 
> It is usually only when beltway pundits and such want to wave their hands and decide that McDonalds drive through attendant should be a 30K/year job conservatives the up in arms. Ford was criticized in his day for the practice because it forced his competitors (GM) to follow suit.
> 
> Conservatives think YOU can pay YOUR employees whatever outrageous salary you want
> 
> That is different than acting via government order to demand the minimum wage = single earner, support for family of 4..
> 
> - DrDirt


Do a little research on the "raise" and get back to us.


----------



## RobS888

> It is not the size of the pay that is a problem. It is the damage the [email protected][email protected]$ do to the companies, the economy and the rest of us, US, to get it that matters. Goldman Sachs destroyed Greece and put a big, heavy dent in the EU to make their bonuses.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Indeed there are a lot of criminals. I think only Bernie or Liz would actually take on the banks….. or at least TRY!! We now see what a attack dog machine Hillary has now that Bernie is being taken seriously.
> I think all the canidates suck ass. But only the non establishment ones would make an attempt to change how government works…. better or worse.
> 
> I think we agree that salary confiscation will not actually repair the economy.
> 
> THe best way to a stronger economy is to have people with good jobs. I think Robs plan would make things worse. Millionaires are the kind of folks that "take their ball and go home". (Outsourcing).
> 
> WHen they close the doors to the facility… there is no workers to redistribute anything to, and now the underpaid workers are destitute and working 30 hours a week at Wal Mart.
> 
> I think the RObin Hood approach would be an abject disaster.
> 
> But if you want to go after rich folks:
> how about pro athletes?
> #2 Ben Roethlisberger - $35,250,000
> or Lebron James 71 million in pay + endorsements.
> 
> SInce we shoudl focus on education - maybe the college football and basketball coaches shouldn t be the highest paid government employees in nearly every state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Movie stars seem to also be above the 10 Million dollar median of fortune 500 CEO s?
> Actresses
> Jennifer Lawrence: $52,000,000
> Scarlett Johansson: $35,500,000
> Melissa McCarthy: $23,000,000
> Bingbing Fan: $21,000,000
> Jennifer Aniston: $16,500,000
> 
> ACTORS
> Robert Downey Jr.: $80 million
> Jackie Chan: $50 million
> Vin Diesel: $47 million
> Bradley Cooper: $41.5 million
> Adam Sandler: $41 million
> Tom Cruise: $40 million
> Amitabh Bachchan: $33.5 million
> Salman Khan: $33.5 million
> Akshay Kumar: $32.5 million
> Mark Wahlberg: $32 million
> 
> I don t see govermnet thievery for their "betterment working for the average joe.
> 
> - DrDirt


Why deflect away from the problem, when taxes were higher for the 1% employment and wages were higher (buying power, not number). You're saying higher taxes will result in outsourcing? Yet the data shows massive outsourcing during the recent lower tax period.

Admit it, relaxing the rules based on the very hard lessons learned from the Great Depression have screwed most of us.


----------



## DrDirt

> Why go after actors and athletes? They are not hurting anyone, are they? Certainly not like health insurance CEOs whose bonus depends on how many patients they let die rather than approve treatment. Or, most of the fortune 500 who are taking the cheap money the fed prints by selling junk bonds to by back their shares to enhance the value of the shares upper management owns and sells rather than pay dividends to share holders.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Agree - Robs position is that "Nobody should earn that kind of money" when he points to the "Go Pro CEO"

His argument is for redistributive wealth confiscation.
Why is the policy ONLY for the 250 CEO's? above Median on the Fortune 500.

Seems to paint with a broad brush. We like to pprtray the CEO of Costco as the model which is fine. But to castigate EVERY company as evil if their CEO has more than 10 MM in total compensation is not correct either.

Should Bill Gates be exempt… just because he isn't CEO anymore… his income is "out of scope" for redistribution?

I threw in athletes - when you look at Taxpayer funded Stadiums… and Naming rights go to the team not the city that paid the bills.
What companies get the city to build thier office building?


----------



## RobS888

I don't think anyone can "earn" that kind of money, there is no $284 million dollar effort, they may take that kind of money, but that is getting into the theft area.

I never said 10 million was the cutoff, just pointed out it was the median for the S&P 500, I think 10 million is way too much as well. I defer to the expert that said 25 to 1 for the CEO to the average worker. Heck even do the average without the CEOs pay.

If the CEO wants more then raise the average.

Bill Gates used to earn less than a $1 million/year. His wealth came from the 45% of MS stock he owned from the IPO. I don't have a problem with that, he built the company. The go pro CEO is in the same category, he has billions in stock as a founder. Great for him. Taking another $284 million in stock is just greedy.

Actually, many companies get massive tax cuts and grants for many years to relocate or build new facilities. Tax exempt for a decade in some cases.

Why don't we talk about the problem you brought up, jobs for the middle class? *The CEOs you are defending caused the problem. *

P.S. applying a brush to only 250 people in the US would be a fine tip, not a broad stroke.


----------



## DrDirt

> Why deflect away from the problem, when taxes were higher for the 1% employment and wages were higher (buying power, not number). You re saying higher taxes will result in outsourcing? Yet the data shows massive outsourcing during the recent lower tax period.
> 
> Admit it, relaxing the rules based on the very hard lessons learned from the Great Depression have screwed most of us.
> 
> - RobS888


First - you mistake correlation with causation.
High taxes on top earners, is not the reason outsourcing was avoided in the 50's and 60's.
It is foolish to argue that CEO's said in the 70's "Because I pay high taxes… I won't have toasters made in Malaysia"

Second - you naively assume that people "PAID" 90% of their income as taxes. 
If you did any research - you would find that effective rates for the rich haven't actually changed much.
Why when Burger King merged with Tim Hortons…did they choose to have the joint headquarters in Canada instead of teh US? There are more people in California than in all of Canada… so it wasn't to serve a larger market.

For his faults - the basis of the Laffer curve are technically sound. That is at a 0% rate… the government collects nothing.
As you go to 1, 3, ...10%. People understand the use of government money for services, and the effort to shield the money is not worth the potential savings.
once you get into higher rates - people start (not illegally) putting money in Tax deferred or Tax exempt vehicles IRA's and other funds… as well as illegally (or at least unethical) creation of tax shelters.
The effect is that the higher tax rate starts to have diminishing return.
at 100% tax… people say 'F-ck it' why work.
All the research is finding where that "sweet spot" is for maximizing revenue, minimizing revolt.


> Why don't we talk about the problem you brought up, jobs for the middle class? The CEOs you are defending caused the problem.


Outsourcing is in large part the consumers drive for cheap stuff. Certainly there is a drive to be more profitable, and find low cost sources for components and finished goods.

But who is it driving for dirt cheap junk… the 'disposable' society?
Why is Harbor Freight so busy… but Midwest Tool, the Milwaukee dealer, a ghost town of a store? CEO greed? don't think so.
I bought a Schwinn LeTour back in the early 80's and it cost me 300 dollars. (299.99) Today I can get an aluminum frame 18 speed mountain bike at Walmart for 90 bucks…. 30 years later. What happened to inflation?
If your store full of products made at a living wage is empty, while "trader Joes" is bustling… is CEO greed really the driver of underemployment? Or do they Automate and outsource to compete.

A solution would be Tariffs. India protects its markets (primarily from China). Want to get a car into India… 125% duty. But Obama and Clinton implement the TPP with Asia, and NAFTA here. so we got to hear the "Giant Sucking Sound"

I hardly view CEO's as innocent victims… but if you owned Hamilton Beech or Sunbeam or Norelco. How would you compete against China with our wage structure? Automate=layoffs, outsource = layoffs, reduce pay = reduced pay/non-livable wage.

What is the CEO supposed to do versus the Corrupt bastard club in government who are supposed to be creating a level playing field with their trade actions?

A fun proposal would be to expand on your Drucker quote, and propose to cap CEO pay at say 25 or 30 times the lowest paid worker in the SUPPLY CHAIN… not just the local business. Once you say you cannot earn more than 25X the guy pushing the broom in Ho Chi Minh City… CEO's might offer a creative solution to cost management of US production.
Maybe Apple would stop supporting the suicides at Foxxconn, and SERIOUSLY consider makin products in texas. I don't believe that we cannot make 750 dollar I-pads profitably in the USA.


----------



## RobS888

Dr Dirt.
There is no data to support any of your claims. Even the Laughter (misspelled on purpose) curve has no evidence behind it. It is no more valid than saying without air you can't breathe. True, but not helpful.

I believe people were more patriotic in the 50s and 60s and wouldn't do things CEOs regularly do today. We know that CEOs in the 70s made 25X the average. Heck, their GREED since RayGun took over practically necessitates moving overseas.

I have no problem with duties on Chinese products, but how can you convince the corporations to allow it? They are more important people than us now. And they are funding the elections, they will block any move towards duties on China.

If the government as a whole is dirty, as you imply, it was corporations that helped them get dirty.

End lobbying, end corporate tax loopholes, anyone that moves out of the country pays a permanent duty 1% over the cost savings of moving overseas.

EDIT:

Burger King didn't move manufacturing to Canada it was a merger of similarly sized companies. The headquarters is in Canada to save taxes. Nothing close to what we were discussing except they are companies. Its inclusion in this discussion is just smoke screen.

Some details on the merger from the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/burger-king-in-talks-to-buy-tim-hortons-1408924294


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt.
> There is no data to support any of your claims. Even the Laughter (misspelled on purpose) curve has no evidence behind it. It is no more valid than saying without air you can t breathe. True, but not helpful.
> - RobS888


No evidence.??? good one, but wrong.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/12/30/why-the-laffer-curve-makes-sense-to-revisit-40-years-later
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-laffer-curve-at-40-still-looks-good/2014/12/26/4cded164-853d-11e4-a702-fa31ff4ae98e_story.html


> I believe people were more patriotic in the 50s and 60s and wouldn t do things CEOs regularly do today. We know that CEOs in the 70s made 25X the average. Heck, their GREED since RayGun took over practically necessitates moving overseas.
> - RobS888


yes people were more patriotic… and spiritual - nearly everyone went to church, and it was a rarity that people would Sue over Christmas decorations or the "holiday Tree" 


> I have no problem with duties on Chinese products, but how can you convince the corporations to allow it? They are more important people than us now. And they are funding the elections, they will block any move towards duties on China.
> - RobS888


Sure they would allow it - - they just either Jack the final price to cover the cost, or find a local supplier, for whom the "Landed Rate" for goods to their location was lower. It is really that simple.


> If the government as a whole is dirty, as you imply, it was corporations that helped them get dirty.
> 
> End lobbying, end corporate tax loopholes, anyone that moves out of the country pays a permanent duty 1% over the cost savings of moving overseas.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Burger King didn t move manufacturing to Canada it was a merger of similarly sized companies. *The headquarters is in Canada to save taxes.* Nothing close to what we were discussing except they are companies. Its inclusion in this discussion is just smoke screen.
> - RobS888


Permanent duty? Maybe if it were more attractive to build and hire here?
Maybe GE who outsourced Medical imaging (high $$ R&D not just manufacturing) to china while paying zero in US federal taxes, should be examined.

BK/Hortons

You were claiming before how back when taxes were high.. nobody was outsourcing…. People can and do move over tax rates.

At least in this case you Admit they chose Canada for the* tax savings.* So you can stop flinging that Red herring argument anymore.

Maybe if our rates were the same as Canada or slightly lower… those revenues would be collected by the USA instead. (See how that works? They collect a lower percent… and the result is WE USA collect nothing)


----------



## RobS888

The laughter curve is a nice theory, but where is the proof? Where is the data that shows what is the optimal point on the curve? There isn't any. It just describes an inverse relationship.

I said when CEOs made less there was Little or no moving of companies or production overseas.

Stop trying to deflect, taxes are low and outsourcing is massive, because CEOs want to do it.

Laffer was used to help justify supply side economics, that is pretty much dead now.

Burger King is not a case of outsourcing, it is at best tax avoidence. Same as having a Deleware address for your company. I don't think 2 10 billion dollar companies merged to avoid taxes. They just moved the headquarters of the resulting company for tax reasons… Burger King is owned by a South American company isn't it?

I find it strange you are blaming the economy on the government. Go look at history and see what happens when they don't try to influence it. The recent problems are from republicans tying the governments hands on the economy.

I'm starting to hope a republican gets elected president, then in 8 years after everything falls apart again we can have tighter controls for a few generations until everyone forgets again.


----------



## DrDirt

Your attack of the Laffer curve is pathetic

The theory is sound. The fact that politicians use it to justify their positions is different

It is sad that you argue the poit of theory that if the tax rate is zero. You would collect zero taxes

That is simple "fall out of the boat you could get wet" logic that you demand proof of
Maybe you need to get away from DC more often

The presence of wealth doesnt cause destitution. It is not a zero sum game economies grow. Distribution will always be unequal. But as Reagan Lamented in 1968. " so many people cannot see a fat man without thinking he got that way by screwing over the thin one". If that is true bill gates must make pol pot seem like mother theresa


----------



## RobS888

This scumbag, got a 30% raise for saving money via layoffs at JP Morgan.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/01/21/jpmorgan-ceo-gets-pay-raise-35-27m/79132018/


----------



## DrDirt

> This scumbag, got a 30% raise for saving money via layoffs at JP Morgan.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/01/21/jpmorgan-ceo-gets-pay-raise-35-27m/79132018/
> 
> - RobS888


yeah… all those poor poor hedge fund managers, left to eat beans and Ramen Noodles.

(1) no laws broken
(2) I can't work up a lot of sympathy over JP morgan employees getting cut like the rest of the country.


----------



## RobS888

Wrong, again.

The layoffs are across all lines of business. Have you ever heard of empathy? You might want to look it up. Or do you consider them losers like Trump would and unworthy of any feelings?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/j-p-morgan-expected-to-lay-off-more-than-5-000-by-next-year-1432834029

The travesty is the CEO got performance bonuses by laying people off. Not by making the company better, but by reducing expenses. I wonder how many will end up in lower paying jobs? Isn't that what concerned you that people were being laid off and falling down the economic ladder?

Oh, I was wrong it wasn't 30%, it was a 35% increase.


----------



## DrDirt

> Wrong, again.
> 
> The layoffs are across all lines of business. Have you ever heard of empathy? You might want to look it up. Or do you consider them losers like Trump would and unworthy of any feelings?
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/j-p-morgan-expected-to-lay-off-more-than-5-000-by-next-year-1432834029
> 
> The travesty is the CEO got performance bonuses by laying people off. Not by making the company better, but by reducing expenses. I wonder how many will end up in lower paying jobs? Isn t that what concerned you that people were being laid off and falling down the economic ladder?
> 
> Oh, I was wrong it wasn t 30%, it was a 35% increase.
> 
> - RobS888


zzzzzzzzzzzz

It is not lack of empathy… just that I feel when they slash jobs at Caterpillar, while we import Tractors and other things from Mahindra, Komatsu, and others. That is a real crime.
Or
what happened to Tim Cooks big 2012 promise to make Apple Computers in Texas? Guess keeping Foxconn busy and raking in half a billion in stock options was more important?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324640104578162992446387774

Is Tim Cook's 378 million dollar pay acceptable, but JP Morgan CEO moving from 20->27 million is the scourge of the nation?

I have more empathy for blue collar workers than Bankers and Lawyers, who add little value, but just rake in cash by 'skimming the till', while contributing nothing.

I worry more about the life of the Shark (USA)... not so much the Remora's attached to him.

Akin to the old lawyer joke… 
Q:What is the difference between a dead lawyer and a dead skunk on the road??

A: There are Skidmarks before the skunk.

I notice you chose JP Morgan and not Goldman Sachs…. Is that because Sachs is financing Hillary? because if it is just Bank pay - - seems Sachs is more deserving of scorn.
But apparently it is just faux partisan rage you have?

*My goal isn't deflection, but I don't understand your highly selective outrage.*

Does carrying water for Hillary ever get old?
each one of the senior managers at Sachs… make almost double (some much more) what Dimon's new pay is… but crickets!!

His claim that he should be paid 38% of his counterpart at Sachs is outrageous? What makes his pay egregious, but Hillary's buddy is just a stand up guy?


----------



## RobS888

JPMorgan's increase made news in light of the layoffs. Him getting an increase while he lays off people makes him worse than Tim Cook. Tim Cook is overpaid 378 times what he is worth.

I consider all of the Goldman Sachs people listed as scumbags as well. In fact my general complaint about CEO pay includes them. I bet Jon Winkelried is upset he makes a million less than Gary Cohn.

If you make more than 25 times the average pay at your company I think you are overpaid.

We are talking about CEOs, but all of these on your list are paid too much. How about this, since you get stuck on the verbiage: *no one at a company should get paid more than a maximum of 25X the average.* Want a raise for the CEO, increase the average.

Your assumptions of motive are your problem.


----------



## DrDirt

> Your assumptions of motive are your problem.
> 
> - RobS888


Which motive is that ?

I think what the CEO compensation is , is frankly nobody's business but their own.

Government shoud take a role to level the global playing field, which they can accomplish with tariffs.

Picking out some greedy a-holes, solves nothing.
You seem to assume still that the money going to the CEO would actually be redistributed in a rational or equitable manner.
(1) That is not the role of government
(2) as shown - redistributing amongst the thousands of employees makes a meager change (irrelevant compared to losses under Barry of ~10% in real income)

You simply espouse a social utopia where you swoop in and decide who is being paid too much and confiscate it. That won't work, and never has.

Show us an example of the rich folks back in the 50's that actually PAID 90% of their income as taxes. It never has worked.


----------



## RobS888

Ascribing motives to me, puppy.

Please prove points 1 and 2 ^ I have no idea where they come from. I'm not suggesting 90% tax, the experts that argue about the Laughter curve believe the sweet spot is between 45% and 70% tax rate. Again no proof on that just opinions.

You're (purposely?) conflating 2 issues, massive unreal, unethical pay for some and taxing the wealthy. We are talking about the huge disparity in pay. Billionaires needing a $284 million bonus. I don't want to tax them I want to make it illegal to pay them that much. Saying it is their business is not at all true if it is a public company.

Taxes are another issue.

How can you decry layoffs and plant closings without looking at the people that decided to do that? What is your agenda?


----------



## RobS888

I actually agree with you on this:

I have more empathy for blue collar workers than Bankers and Lawyers, who add little value, but just rake in cash by 'skimming the till', while contributing nothing.

Let's keep their hands out of the till. 25X average pay at the company.


----------



## DrDirt

Really - you want me to prove that CEO pay is not the role of the federal government?

I'll get right on that for you…..mmmm not!

2 - redistribution not having meaningful impact to the employees shown at post 3603 already by the AFLCIO.

If you think the unions are just full of ********************… show your own evidence.

You need to figure out the difference between 'Public Company'.... and being publicly traded. The company decides what to pay their employees. Not saying you need to agree with whatever formula they come up with, but as you like tyo point out… what was "ILLEGAL" about paying him 27 million dollars?

There are always a handful of over the top pay scales.
But the examples you cite, do a cherry picked study that looks at only 340 of the fortune 500 companies

Then makes a proclamation with the Headline* "CEO to Worker Pay Ratios: Average CEO Earns 204 Times Median Worker Pay"*

when in fact it is the average of a sample of fortune 500 companies.
the AVERAGE CEO makes ~180K. So far less than the 25X you propose. The entirety of the fortune 500 would represent <.2% of CEO's … nevermind talking about total population.

So you are carping about the pay rate for the sample of 0.14% of CEO's. 350 out of 248,000 CEO's in the USA.

Still - as proven already… capping *0.14% of the CEO's *will accomplish nothing meaningful.
Nor do I propose to give Department of Labor the authority to negotiate pay with K-street lobbyists.


----------



## RobS888

"If you think the unions are just full of ********************… show your own evidence."

Do you make these up on the fly? Stay with actual comments or citations please, not your crazy strawman gambits.

Try to prove your points, at least so I can pretend you understand what is going on. As I keep telling you *PROVE* with citations or it is just your opinion.

If the average is $160k then capping it at 1 million or 25x the average should be fine. I don't see the problem.

A public, publicly traded, publicly held company, or public corporation is a corporation whose ownership is dispersed among the general public in many shares of stock which are freely traded on a stock exchange or in over the counter markets. In some jurisdictions, public companies over a certain size must be listed on an exchange.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company.

At a minimum anyone who owns or wants to own a piece of stock may be very interested in executive compensation. You do understand they solicited the general public for money by selling sold chunks (stocks) of the company to anyone that would buy it?

I think you are confusing public and private companies. If you don't understand what a public company is and what their reporting requirements are you should stay out of this topic.

Hmmm, that ignorance would explain many of your comments.


----------



## DrDirt

> "If you think the unions are just full of ********************… show your own evidence."
> 
> Do you make these up on the fly? Stay with actual comments or citations please, not your crazy strawman gambits.
> 
> Try to prove your points, at least so I can pretend you understand what is going on. As I keep telling you *PROVE* with citations or it is just your opinion.
> 
> - RobS888


But you ignore what is presented, which is typical lib drivel, to just ignore what you don't agree with and say La la la la la "i don't hear you".... I presented CEO compensation (from AFLCIO in the graph in *post 3603* but you still claim it is unproven. You seem beyond help there R.P,. McMurphy).
What was also included is what the impact to the employees wiould be of distributing their pay… mostly around 1500 bucks a year (nice but not life changing).

I mention again that the redistribution is not going to accomplish anything and you say 'Provide Proof' So apparently you do not believe the information from sources…. so show your own Poindexter.



> If the average is $160k then capping it at 1 million or 25x the average should be fine. I don t see the problem.
> 
> A public, publicly traded, publicly held company, or public corporation is a corporation whose ownership is dispersed among the general public in many shares of stock which are freely traded on a stock exchange or in over the counter markets. In some jurisdictions, public companies over a certain size must be listed on an exchange.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company.
> 
> At a minimum anyone who owns or wants to own a piece of stock may be very interested in executive compensation. You do understand they solicited the general public for money by selling sold chunks (stocks) of the company to anyone that would buy it?
> 
> I think you are confusing public and private companies. If you don t understand what a public company is and what their reporting requirements are you should stay out of this topic.
> 
> Hmmm, that ignorance would explain many of your comments.
> 
> - RobS888


you made this (inane) statement of fallacy - (#3631)

*I don't want to tax them I want to make it* illegal *to pay them that much. Saying it is their business is not at all true if it is a public company.*

You are arguing that executive compensation should be controlled by the government (the making it ILLEGAL TO PAY them that much statement). and the law permits it because it is publically traded. Sorry not true.
Executive pay is not yours or my business… regardless whether the company is publicly traded. Neither is it my business what the Salary tier structure is for secretaries. Or whether the billing department works on a net 60 or net 90 day payment schedule.

Selling stock does not create a system where the government decides on compensation, beyond minimum wage laws.

Just because you WISH that were the case, doesn't make it so.

Most salaries are disclosed… but you claim that "At a minimum anyone buying stock would be interested in executive compensation" tells me how little investing you do.
I am not Dumping Apple Shares, because Tim Cook has a bunch of stock options. I look to P&L, growth history and dividends.
But good luck with whatever retirement and investment strategy you pursue, whether it be structured, or Tarot cards and a Ouija board.

I don't see where your proposals would help this situation… the opposite would be true. More corporations moving… or is the New York Times, to 'right wing' for you
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/business/dealbook/a-tidal-wave-of-corporate-migrants-seeking-tax-shelter.html
Or Apple operations in Italy? Offshored 181 BILLION in assets.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/01/25/apples-new-ios-center-naples-raises-eyebrows/79320404/

If you cap CEO salary - - all this would stop right?,,,,, doubt it.


----------



## RobS888

I don't doubt, the AFLCIO, I doubt you. Yes, you pointed out the graph and a list that showed some execs made more than the CEO. So what, their median pay is still $10 million. I'm contending it is wrong and greedy to take that much or more. Your chart and list doesn't prove they should make that much. It only shows how many were included in the study. Also $1,400/increase to 51,000 people is a lot of money and not for you to say it wouldn't change anything. I don't know about you, but I'd take it. That would stock up my garage with white oak.

If the government can set a minimum they sure can set a maximum. They tried once in 1993 by taking away the tax deduction over 1 million: unfortunately it seems to have contributed to the stock pay snowball.

In general

In the case of any publicly held corporation, no deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for applicable employee remuneration with respect to any covered employee to the extent that the amount of such remuneration for the taxable year with respect to such employee exceeds $1,000,000.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/162

Your Apple stock returned -2.8% over the past year, how much would it have returned if the $150 million in exec pay was reduced by $135million?
http://insiders.morningstar.com/trading/executive-compensation.action?t=AAPL

Before we go on can we discuss your *lack* of understanding what a public company is and what they are obligated to disclose? Also how public information is available to well… anyone.

*Please Prove:*

The Laffer curve, and show data that proves the point the government won't make more in taxes. Also data to prove the optimal tax point for economic activity.

The difference you claim exists here: "You need to figure out the difference between 'Public Company'…. and being publicly traded"

Where I said: *"If you think the unions are just full of ********************… show your own evidence."*

*Why is $1,400 from 10 CEOs to 51,000 workers wealth redistribution, but $1,400 from 51,000 workers to 10 CEOs isn't wealth redistribution? *


----------



## DrDirt

> *Why is $1,400 from 10 CEOs to 51,000 workers wealth redistribution, but $1,400 from 51,000 workers to 10 CEOs isn t wealth redistribution? *
> 
> - RobS888


Because you wrongly assume that the CEO pay was taken from the workers.
The workers got the paycheck they agreed to when they took the job. They didn't see their paycheck get an extra deduction marked "CEO Raise"

The CEO didn't just decdie to collect his raise by tapping the employee paycheck. Whereas the AFLCIO graph points out what it would mean to the rank and file taking (100%) of the CEO compensation including all stock options etc. And distribute that.

So one was an example/proposal to SEIZE all compensation and 'REDISTRIBUTE' it to the employees.

Over Obama's term, median household pay dropped more than the 1400 dollars you get under the Rob Plan..
1400 bucks is a nice "Christmas bonus" but doesn't nearly cover increase Health insurance cost, nor lost buying power. ergo - - getting 1400 bucks does nothing to actually SOLVE the failing middle class. You just hammered a couple hundred guys you "personally feel" make too much.

If you feel NOBODY deserves more than 10 million (even less as you point out), are you planning to go after Hollywood and Pro Athletes? Or is it just that they tend to be democrats they are 'designated' as safe from your plans?


----------



## RobS888

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

BLS reports that the average pay for America's 248,760 chief executives was only $178,400 is not germane to the discussion. There are about 5000 stocks large enough to warrant coverage by analysts of the major brokerages and financial institutions. Most of the rest are not big enough to be screwing up the economy.

If you are truly looking at investor data you should realize today's valuations have never been higher except for the collapses of 1929 and 2000, plus possibly 2008. Dividends are practically non-existent and PE ratios are historically in the stratosphere. Into this environment, the invested dollar is gambling on unwarranted share price escalation.

Upper management at most corps is managing for the highest bonuses and personal benefits rather sound business practices or the future of the company. An example of this is saddling the companies with unwarranted debt through corporate bonds to buy back shares to escalate the price so the upper management can exercise stock options at the highest profit. They pay taxes at capital gain rates rather then income tax rates like the rest of us, US.

If you had a clue about economic policies you would realize the CEOs and upper management are taking excess personal gain at the expense of us, US, to the detriment of the whole economy, not just at the expense of their own workers. A strong economy depends on a strong consumer base with confidence to spend. The dismantling of the social safety nets has crippled confidence and entrepreneurship. Tax policy is not about "redistribution of wealth" by writing checks to the under class. It is about creating the same type of economic engine that we had post WWII that has been destroyed by the polices started by Reagan following the Laughter theories.

In 1980, we were the world's exporter and world's creditor. Thanks to 35 years of Reaganomics, we are now the world's importer and world's debtor. Why? Because a few greedy authoritarians wanted dominion over the peons. There were not enough peons to satisfy there lust in 1980, so they destroyed us, US.


----------



## RobS888

> ...If you had a clue about economic policies you would realize the CEOs and upper management are taking excess personal gain at the expense of us, US, to the detriment of the whole economy, not just at the expense of their own workers…
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


100% correct!


----------



## RobS888

Looks like not only do public companies have to disclose CEO pay, but provide the ratio of CEO to median pay!

Does the SEC know the difference 'twixt "*'Public Company'…. and being publicly traded*" as Dr dirt says? I sure hope they know how to tell them apart.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2015-160 
Washington D.C., Aug. 5, 2015 - The Securities and Exchange Commission today adopted a final rule that requires a *public company* to disclose the ratio of the compensation of its chief executive officer (CEO) to the median compensation of its employees. The new rule, mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, provides companies with flexibility in calculating this pay ratio, and helps inform shareholders when voting on "say on pay." 
http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-160.html


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I'd like to know the difference between a public company and a public traded company. Maybe the SEC will issue a clarification?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The Powell Memorandum explains a lot.


----------



## RobS888

> I d like to know the difference between a public company and a public traded company. Maybe the SEC will issue a clarification?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Do you think if we asked them they would help us out?

Dear SEC,

Could you explain the difference between "*a public company*" and a company "*being publicly traded*"?

The seemingly eponymous financial expert Dr Dirt has chastised me for not knowing the difference. I've noticed that the SEC is in charge of regulating stock exchanges and the SEC uses the term *public company* perhaps you could point out where the scat lies?

Thank you for any assistance you could provide.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## RobS888

> The Powell Memorandum explains a lot.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I saw Tom Hartman on Bill Maher, he made sense.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Thom Hartmann is a national treasure. He will not say anything he cannot verify on the air. He will not even let someone make derogatory remarks about anyone who is not on to defend their position or answer the charges. 180 degrees out of phase with Faux News, Limbaugh, Beck and their ilk. From the right wing perspective, Michael Medved is the only credible source I can think of off the top of my head.


----------



## DrDirt

> BLS reports that the average pay for America's 248,760 chief executives was only $178,400 is not germane to the discussion. There are about 5000 stocks large enough to warrant coverage by analysts of the major brokerages and financial institutions. Most of the rest are not big enough to be screwing up the economy.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I agree with most of your points… the BLS report is germane, because if someone wants to make a case that "CEO' make too much" 
You cannot solely focus on 0.1% of CEO's as your proof.

Then you get to the "nobody does enough 'work' to justify making 27 million bucks"

OK… does "nobody" really mean NOBODY? or just a handful of CEO's or whatever group Hehr Comrade wants to take down?"

I thusly point out there are a lot of other folks in different professions making far more than the 0,1% target population.
Just as the poor are always with us..there will always be a 0.1%

Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Vanderbilt, JP Morgan….. Seems like there was VAST wealth inequity before Reagan. 
At least there hasn't been the use of Pinkertons to shoot striking workers.

I bet Andrew Carnegie made more than 25X the average steel worker. This isn't some outfall from Neocons.


----------



## RobS888

> Thom Hartmann is a national treasure. He will not say anything he cannot verify on the air. He will not even let someone make derogatory remarks about anyone who is not on to defend their position or answer the charges. 180 degrees out of phase with Faux News, Limbaugh, Beck and their ilk. From the right wing perspective, Michael Medved is the only credible source I can think of off the top of my head.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I'll check out some of his stuff. I was impressed that even though it was obvious he had more to say he didn't need to grandstand. There was a lady on 2 weeks back that had to be yelled at to let others speak. When did saying something replace having something to say?

EDIT: Her name is Liz Mair, passive aggressive comments about everything everyone said, while they were saying it.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Then you get to the "nobody does enough work to justify making 27 million bucks"
> 
> OK… does "nobody" really mean NOBODY? or just a handful of CEO s or whatever group Hehr Comrade wants to take down?"
> 
> Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Vanderbilt, JP Morgan….. Seems like there was VAST wealth inequity before Reagan.
> At least there hasn t been the use of Pinkertons to shoot striking workers.
> 
> I bet Andrew Carnegie made more than 25X the average steel worker. This isn t some outfall from Neocons.
> 
> - DrDirt


Nobody is no employee of a publicly traded company. What privately held companies do is nobody's business but their own as long as they are not a threat to democracy.

In the 21st century Walmart and others use more discrete methods to achieve the same goals the Pinkertons shooting strikers did in the 20th century. Actually, shooting is probably more humane that starving them or causing them to die of hypothermia. The growing plight of the homeless is evidence of these tactics in America today.

Teddy Roosevelt and FDR took care of the monopolies that were a threat to democracy and extended life expectancy when they cut into profit margins with workplace and food safety laws. Most of those people needed some sort of supervision. A world where the meanest, nastiest, rottenest [email protected][email protected] controls it all will never work very well. The last attempt was stopped in its tracks on May 8, 1945.

Why don't you read What Would Jefferson Do? and fine tune your postiions and get back to us?


----------



## RobS888

> Nobody is no employee of a publicly traded company. What privately held companies do is nobody s business but their own as long as they are not a threat to democracy.
> 
> In the 21st century Walmart and others use more discrete methods to achieve the same goals the Pinkertons shooting strikers did in the 20th century. Actually, shooting is probably more humane that starving them or causing them to die of hypothermia. The growing plight of the homeless is evidence of these tactics in America today.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt and FDR took care of the monopolies that were a threat to democracy and extended life expectancy when they cut into profit margins with workplace and food safety laws. *Most of those people needed some sort of supervision.* A world where the meanest, nastiest, rottenest [email protected][email protected] controls it all will never work very well. The last attempt was stopped in its tracks on May 8, 1945.
> 
> Why don t you read What Would Jefferson Do? and fine tune your postiions and get back to us?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


So true, most laws and regulations are written with the blood of victims. We need tighter controls on corporations not less. The law in Obama care that limits corporate deductions on CEO pay to $500,000 is a start.


----------



## Milled

There's only 3 or 4 of you still beating this thread to death. Dan feeds you every so often with a picture. You must all be retired…


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Looks like we still have readers to educate. As long as someone cares, the American Dream is not dead even though there are those trying to kill it ;-(


----------



## murch

"But Man, proud Man, most ignorant of what he is most assured….........."


----------



## RobS888

> "But Man, proud Man, most ignorant of what he is most assured….........."
> 
> - murch


I don't understand what you are saying with this. I follow the reference, but not the target, who is abusing their authority here?


----------



## DrDirt

> In the 21st century Walmart and others use more discrete methods to achieve the same goals the Pinkertons shooting strikers did in the 20th century. Actually, shooting is probably more humane that starving them or causing them to die of hypothermia. The growing plight of the homeless is evidence of these tactics in America today.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt and FDR took care of the monopolies that were a threat to democracy and extended life expectancy when they cut into profit margins with workplace and food safety laws. Most of those people needed some sort of supervision. A world where the meanest, nastiest, rottenest [email protected][email protected] controls it all will never work very well. The last attempt was stopped in its tracks on May 8, 1945.
> 
> Why don t you read What Would Jefferson Do? and fine tune your postiions and get back to us?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


So why do people shop at Harbor Freight. Buy a Grizzly Table Saw?

Certainly outsourcing has led to higher profits…. Until late 2014 Delta made the Unisaw here. They have followed suit to Taiwan with Powermatic and the others.

This is why I mentioned tariffs as a solution, versus Capping CEO's (or their pay).

People vote with their wallets, even when it is against our ultimate survival. They shout 'Buy American' and drive away in their Kia, talking on a Samsung Phone, to go to Burger King (Canadian)

CEO compensation aside for a moment - 
But is outsourcing Corporate Greed at the top…. or a Surrender that We (USA) cannot compete on price against 2 dollars an hour in Cambodia.

The answer is Yes and Yes

The answer is not capping CEO salary… not is it setting the 15 dollar an hour minimum wage - when the population has shown time and again they will not pay the price of goods made here.

Perhaps arguing that Delta should have just gone out of business, and we just directly bought our Grizzly tools… then we can say "they didn't chase $$ and outsource?" 
Guess I don't see that as a solution to income inequality

In Teddy and Franklins time - we didn't really have a world economy except in commodities.
Tell me about a economic change like Sony Toyota, Datsun, Mahindra Tractors, etc were ever issues pre WW2

What would FDR have done - if Toyota were streaming in cars that were taking market share from GM?


----------



## bonesbr549

I stop back by every now and and then just to see the musings here. I still find it funny how people feel govt taking money away from someone else makes ones lot in life better. I was just raised diff. I was dirt poor and was taught you want to not be that way effect a change. I decided i would get a skill and do the best to my ability. Envy is such a poor human trait. It is funny reading though.


----------



## RobS888

> I stop back by every now and and then just to see the musings here. I still find it funny how people feel govt taking money away from someone else makes ones lot in life better. I was just raised diff. I was dirt poor and was taught you want to not be that way effect a change. I decided i would get a skill and do the best to my ability. Envy is such a poor human trait. It is funny reading though.
> 
> - bonesbr549


Why do you feel envy has anything to do with it?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Dr Dirt, People buy mostly junk at HF because of the failed trade policies that have been put in place to facilitate Reaganomics. The precise amount of CEO and upper management compensation is not really the issue. The issues are the means to the greedy end. Disregarding long term interests and stability of the company and share holder returns to produce short term personal gains and goals should be prosecuted. Eric Holder helping Jamie Dimon of Chase cover their criminal acts during the mortgage melt down is a most glaring example.

Rob, Most people believe they are the norm. That is why liars don't believe anything anyone says. Honest people are easily swindled because they believe everyone until they are given good reason not to which is usually happens as the result of a scam they have just suffered. Consequently, there are those with a myopic view of the world and cannot understand anyone could have motivations beyond their personal greed or interests. It took 100,000 years of evolution to develop these psychological traits. There are not likely to change any time soon and the holders of those views are not likely to accept the fact that there are people with higher motivation than personal interest. It seems to generally fit as an authoritarian trait but I do not recall Prof. Bob Altemeyer addressing it specifically.


----------



## RobS888

Topo,

I see what you mean, it is like conservatism is the ultimate greed. Self-centrist over society-centrist.

I get a kick out of calls of envy or greed for even talking about the iniquity. I don't think you or I are after personal gain in this topic.

Bain capitol and other private equity companies spent $15 million ('07 & '08) bribing congress to maintain a tax loophole that cost $1 billion+ in tax revenue each year. That is Ok, not seen as greed, but us discussing how lopsided wealth distribution is is seen as envy, WOW!


----------



## RobS888

Apparently, that republican bubble is as strong as ever:

Trump claimed the US is the highest taxed country in the world! We are 27th of 30 OECD countries.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/06/donald-trump/trump-calls-us-highest-taxed-country-world/

Does he actually think this is true or is he pandering?

P.S. Dr Dirt, we were 1.5% lower than Canada.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dr Dirt,* People buy mostly junk at HF because of the failed trade policies that have been put in place to facilitate Reaganomics. The precise amount of CEO and upper management compensation is not really the issue. * The issues are the means to the greedy end. Disregarding long term interests and stability of the company and share holder returns to produce short term personal gains and goals should be prosecuted. Eric Holder helping Jamie Dimon of Chase cover their criminal acts during the mortgage melt down is a most glaring example.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


EXACTLY!!

How does WMH tools (Jet Powermatic) and Delta survive against Grizzly?

'We the people' are unwilling to pay the cost of goods produced at a living wage. That isn't a CEO Salary issue.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> We the people are unwilling to pay the cost of goods produced at a living wage. That isn t a CEO Salary issue.
> 
> - DrDirt


Dr Dirt, Reconcile that statement with what the CEOs have been doing for the last 20 + years.

Professor William Black has a few insights into the issue we face. You can skip to about the 2 minute mark to hear him.


----------



## RobS888

> We the people are unwilling to pay the cost of goods produced at a living wage. That isn t a CEO Salary issue.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Dr Dirt, Reconcile that statement with what the CEOs have been doing for the last 20 + years.
> 
> Professor William Black has a few insights into the issue we face. You can skip to about the 2 minute mark to hear him.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Great link, I also watched the one about Rafael Cruz being backed by religious fanatics. Thom makes a good point that if you replace bible with Koran, his supporters sound like the taliban.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The Tea Party is the American equivalent ;-(


----------



## RobS888

> The Tea Party is the American equivalent ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I wonder if either group considers themselves extremists?


----------



## DrDirt

> We the people are unwilling to pay the cost of goods produced at a living wage. That isn t a CEO Salary issue.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Dr Dirt, Reconcile that statement with what the CEOs have been doing for the last 20 + years.
> 
> Professor William Black has a few insights into the issue we face. You can skip to about the 2 minute mark to hear him.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Both links are interesting, the 6 steps Thom identifies are a bit more in line with the discussion on CEO and ousourcing issues with CEO pay.

The Professor black discussion was more about "too big to fail" wall street banks and Hillary refusint to endorse a return to Glass Steagle. Of course we haven't seen Loretta Lynch nor Eric Holder arresting anyone on Wall street 
When looking at oursourcing - - it seems to seldom be a M&A action. what caused Ford to build in Mexico, or Delta to go to Taiwan for their Unisaw.
We demand products at china prices… but that can only be achieved in China. While at the same time demanding 15 dollars an hour at McDonalds.
That doesn't work.

There is a linkage, as sources of money for Merger and acquisition, but Wall Street megabanks, like Sachs, Citicorp and other is different than outsourcing manufacturing of Ford to Mexico.

Fact is EVERYONE is greedy. Even the pope has his gilded palace. People take a ME first approach. That is even true of most philanthropists… sure they endow the arts like Carnegie Hall, but they don't do it at the expense of their own standard of living.

So your links don't address competition. and demand for cheap products.

It is an example of "We have seen the enemy and he is us" moment the Walmart world is our own doing, and we are unwilling to break away even though it is killing us..

The merger mania now is with China, who is flush with cash, purchasing and securing food production globally.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/how-china-purchased-a-prime-cut-of-americas-pork-industry/
In 2011, the year the five-year plan was announced, Chinese nationals owned $81 million worth of U.S. farmland.

By the end of 2012, the Chinese owned $900 million in U.S. farmland - a 1,000 percent increase - making them the largest buyers that year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Smithfield deal included another $480 million in U.S. farmland, which would push the Chinese stake to nearly $1.4 billion in less than two years.

WHen you have 1.4 billion people to keep fed and employed - we have to be careful when the ******************** hits the fan and there is a drought…. who is first in line for the US produced farm goods.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The Tea Party is the American equivalent ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> I wonder if either group considers themselves extremists?
> 
> - RobS888


How could they? If they were capable of empathy and critical thought processes would reveal they are extremists ;-)



> We the people are unwilling to pay the cost of goods produced at a living wage. That isn t a CEO Salary issue.
> 
> Fact is EVERYONE is greedy. Even the pope has his gilded palace. People take a ME first approach. That is even true of most philanthropists… sure they endow the arts like Carnegie Hall, but they don t do it at the expense of their own standard of living.
> 
> So your links don t address competition. and demand for cheap products.
> 
> It is an example of "We have seen the enemy and he is us" moment the Walmart world is our own doing, and we are unwilling to break away even though it is killing us..
> 
> The merger mania now is with China, who is flush with cash, purchasing and securing food production globally.
> 
> https://www.revealnews.org/article/how-china-purchased-a-prime-cut-of-americas-pork-industry/
> In 2011, the year the five-year plan was announced, Chinese nationals owned $81 million worth of U.S. farmland.
> 
> By the end of 2012, the Chinese owned $900 million in U.S. farmland - a 1,000 percent increase - making them the largest buyers that year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
> 
> The Smithfield deal included another $480 million in U.S. farmland, which would push the Chinese stake to nearly $1.4 billion in less than two years.
> 
> WHen you have 1.4 billion people to keep fed and employed - we have to be careful when the ******************** hits the fan and there is a drought…. who is first in line for the US produced farm goods.
> 
> - DrDirt


It all boils down to Reaganomics have been a failure for us, US. What is amazing is the US economy is so resilient, it survived the policies of Reagan and Bush, then Clinton selling out with NAFTA and Commodities Modernization, the total disaster of Bush the dumber 's attempts to destroy the world and now Obama supporting the TPP. How many more chances will we have to turn it around?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

George Carlin is usually very funny. Too bad this isn't


----------



## DrDirt

> How many more chances will we have to turn it around?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


There is no turning the government around.

I believe as Hartmann does that TPP is doom for the middle class.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2015/01/tpp-will-sink-middle-class

But we grant Obama fast track powers to ram it through, because otherwise we are "Racists" to demand our first black president work within the boundaries of our three branch system.

As to our resilience, I think we are not so unlike the soviet union before the wall came down. *We the People* are resilient and resourceful, and find ways around the party system.

Government has grown 'Too Big to be Changed'
The Check an balance system has been overrun - - the Supreme Court, is now more political rather than a check on overreach or constitutionality.

The Legislative branch has turned over law making to the executive branch… where the EPA, DOE, Ed department, all create the rules we will live under, without any representatives or senators voting it in. They just announce thier "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" have a comment period and presto here is a new law with the full enforcement, that never sees debate in the legislature.

Sure the "Secretary of Energy" is appointed by the sitting president so there is some linkage to the people and elections, fact is all the lifetime employees crafting these rules remain regardless of who is in the White House. This is why I say it is too late. We have an entire entrenched beaurocracy churning out thousands of pages of new rules per year.

Hey the FDA has decided it is illegal to own a turtle smaller than 4 inches… because you might put it in your mouth and get Salmonella…

per the DOT… people with Type 1 diabetes may not drive a commercial vehicle accross state lines. on and on and on…....none of this is voted on by our "representative government"

http://stosselintheclassroom.org/videos/america_ruled_by_regulations/


----------



## RobS888

> George Carlin is usually very funny. Too bad this isn t
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Pretty accurate and sad. I looked up when it was recorded to see if he is pointing at RayGun and it seems so.

I didn't know until recently that RayGun was an FBI informant during the late 40s turning over names of 'communist sympathizers'. Other than his opposition to nuclear weapons, I can't think of a single thing he did that I approve of. During his deification he was credited with a far greater impact than he actually had.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> How many more chances will we have to turn it around?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> There is no turning the government around.
> 
> Government has grown Too Big to be Changed
> The Check an balance system has been overrun - - the Supreme Court, is now more political rather than a check on overreach or constitutionality.
> 
> The Legislative branch has turned over law making to the executive branch… where the EPA, DOE, Ed department, all create the rules we will live under, without any representatives or senators voting it in. They just announce thier "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" have a comment period and presto here is a new law with the full enforcement, that never sees debate in the legislature.
> 
> Sure the "Secretary of Energy" is appointed by the sitting president so there is some linkage to the people and elections, fact is all the lifetime employees crafting these rules remain regardless of who is in the White House. This is why I say it is too late. We have an entire entrenched beaurocracy churning out thousands of pages of new rules per year.
> 
> Hey the FDA has decided it is illegal to own a turtle smaller than 4 inches… because you might put it in your mouth and get Salmonella…
> 
> per the DOT… people with Type 1 diabetes may not drive a commercial vehicle accross state lines. on and on and on…....none of this is voted on by our "representative government"
> 
> http://stosselintheclassroom.org/videos/america_ruled_by_regulations/
> 
> - DrDirt


It is never too late to turn it around until after the suicide is complete. If Bernie gets the White House, Congress will respond or the millennials will replace Congress. ;-) If Bernie doesn't get the White House, the millennials and the movement he started will do it in 2020. Hillary and the corporate Rs are dead, question is when?

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, says Bernie is dangerous to Wall Street and anyone else a little out of line ;-) This billionaire [email protected][email protected] thinks we, the people, need to lower our expectations. Within the next few years, he and his ilk may have to lower theirs; life in a federal pen would be an interesting change and proper for the crimes they have committed against us, US, not to mention what they have done to Europe.

Once the ball gets rolling, Congress could easily impeach the majority of corrupt justices at the Supreme Court. Hartmann has mentioned them many times. The fix is really easy when uncorrupted people occupy Congress.

Big business publicly bemoans regulations, but in private they lobby for more. Their goals is to get so many smaller competitors are frozen out of the market because they cannot afford compliance.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> George Carlin is usually very funny. Too bad this isn t
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Pretty accurate and sad. I looked up when it was recorded to see if he is pointing at RayGun and it seems so.
> 
> I didn t know until recently that RayGun was an FBI informant during the late 40s turning over names of communist sympathizers . Other than his opposition to nuclear weapons, I can t think of a single thing he did that I approve of. During his deification he was credited with a far greater impact than he actually had.
> 
> - RobS888


RayGun was pretty slick. He got credit for bringing down the Soviet Union, but presidents as far back and Nixon, maybe Johnson, knew there would never be a war with the Eastern Block. They knew they couldn't win.

It was all bluff and BS for Ronny. When they investigated Iran-Contra, the law was written so there would be no investigation of events prior to 1981. That way no one could uncover he and Daddy Bush committing treason to get the White House when Jimmy C. had the lead a few months before the election.

I worked on a Star Wars project right here in Seattle that was supposed to be top secret. Big laser with the power to vaporize a 747 over Moscow with mirrors on satellites around the earth. If I knew what we were doing, it wasn't a secret, much less top secret. All bluff and bs to make the Russians think we were building it ;-)

He saved Social Security alright, transferred the tax burden of his deficit to the middle class and we have never recovered. He built a nice oligarchy able to buy Congress. I fly my flag at half mast on Feb 9 to morn the loss of the middle class and the plight of the homeless.


----------



## DrDirt

> It is never too late to turn it around until after the suicide is complete. If Bernie gets the White House, Congress will respond or the millennials will replace Congress. ;-) If Bernie doesn t get the White House, the millennials and the movement he started will do it in 2020. Hillary and the corporate Rs are dead, question is when?
> 
> Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, says Bernie is dangerous to Wall Street and anyone else a little out of line ;-) This billionaire [email protected][email protected] thinks we, the people, need to lower our expectations. Within the next few years, he and his ilk may have to lower theirs; life in a federal pen would be an interesting change and proper for the crimes they have committed against us, US, not to mention what they have done to Europe.
> 
> Once the ball gets rolling, Congress could easily impeach the majority of corrupt justices at the Supreme Court. Hartmann has mentioned them many times. The fix is really easy when uncorrupted people occupy Congress.
> 
> Big business publicly bemoans regulations, but in private they lobby for more. Their goals is to get so many smaller competitors are frozen out of the market because they cannot afford compliance.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Congress actually doing their jobs and impeaching Supreme Court Justices?

Too many have gone to Washington DC claiming they will "drain the swamp" or empty the cesspool.

Then they arrive, decide the cesspool is really a Jacuzzi surrounded by money trees, and nothing happens.

I agree we are seeing a major shift in this election with Bernie and Trump.
Appears that both sides want to change the status quo.. and their messages are resonating. A Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton win, would ensure nothing changes for the next 8 years.

Neither McConnel, nor Harry Reid before him ever did the business of the people. They will work to see that Bernie is not the nominee.
Bernie went essentially 50:50 with Hillary in Iowa, and 60:40 win in New Hampshire. But the system doens't reflect that at all. It is a rigged system.

How can this be the "real" outcome of the primaries?? essentially a 90:10 Win for that Arkansas Stemwinder?
The DNC will bequeath unto us the "RIGHT" candidate regardless of how the voting went….


----------



## RobS888

> RayGun was pretty slick. He got credit for bringing down the Soviet Union, but presidents as far back and Nixon, maybe Johnson, knew there would never be a war with the Eastern Block. They knew they couldn t win.
> 
> It was all bluff and BS for Ronny. When they investigated Iran-Contra, the law was written so there would be no investigation of events prior to 1981. That way no one could uncover he and Daddy Bush committing treason to get the White House when Jimmy C. had the lead a few months before the election.
> 
> I worked on a Star Wars project right here in Seattle that was supposed to be top secret. Big laser with the power to vaporize a 747 over Moscow with mirrors on satellites around the earth. If I knew what we were doing, it wasn t a secret, much less top secret. All bluff and bs to make the Russians think we were building it ;-)
> 
> He saved Social Security alright, transferred the tax burden of his deficit to the middle class and we have never recovered. He built a nice oligarchy able to buy Congress. I fly my flag at half mast on Feb 9 to morn the loss of the middle class and the plight of the homeless.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Don't forget he cheated for the debate with Carter, that "there you go again" line was planned based on having Carter's prep notes. I watched that debate and when they discussed Reagan beating Carter, I was shocked! Carter answered questions, RayGun said he would put a team on it. By the end of the debate, I felt he needed thousands of monkeys for all the teams he would need to 'look into things'.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*Congress actually doing their jobs and impeaching Supreme Court Justices?*

There is a whole new generation of voters waking up to the realization they have no future and little chance of retiring before they are 100. They will no longer support the virtues of greed, monopoly and corruption in Congress or on Wall Street waiting for trickle down to start. They have no vested interests or ideological basis in protecting billionaires from tax increases.

It happened before in 1880s and the early 20th century. FDR was a corrupt NY politician when he ran for the presidency, but he rose to the occasion of the times and the people's demands. If Bernie is not elected, his legacy will be to have reawakened the sleeping giant. People will be so disappointed if Hillary wins and nothing really changes, they will demand a challenger in 2020. If she wins, she will be the last of the corporate presidents for the next 50 years.

The Rs are rapidly becoming totally moot. Supporting the oligarchy has just about run its course. When they turn Social Security and Medicare over to the criminals of Wall Street and insurance companies, their few remaining hot button issues will not provide enough cover for them to hide behind. They lost Congress for 50 years in the 30s and Eisenhower could easily have run as a D. He was Democratic Socialist; after all, he gave us the Interstate Highway system. If Nixon and Reagan hadn't committed treason to win the White House…............... Or, if LBJ and Everett Dirksen had been willing to expose Nixon promising the North Vietnamese a better deal if they held out until after the election, the world would be a very different place.


----------



## DrDirt

> *Congress actually doing their jobs and impeaching Supreme Court Justices?*
> 
> There is a whole new generation of voters waking up to the realization they have no future and little chance of retiring before they are 100. They will no longer support the virtues of greed, monopoly and corruption in Congress or on Wall Street waiting for trickle down to start. They have no vested interests or ideological basis in protecting billionaires from tax increases.


I would LIKE to think so - but it seems we have a ton of folks who have no interest in the system. We have a nation of government dependant ignoramuses….It is one thing to have contrary opinions. But people don't know who the VP is. They think New Hampshire is on Long Island. There is little awareness of what is happening, so long as the benefit card is 'recharged' on Friday.
The problem is that they will vote to ensure the gravy train they depend on keeps running.
That is why "the projects" and such have not lifted anyone out of poverty, instead we have crime ridden hellholes of generational dependency. They will never vote themselves 'off' the system. or out of their parents basements.



> If Nixon and Reagan hadn t committed treason to win the White House…............... Or, if LBJ and Everett Dirksen had been willing to expose Nixon promising the North Vietnamese a better deal if they held out until after the election, the world would be a very different place.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I wonder how different the world would be had Gore been President on 9/11….....
Sure I have always felt Gore is a putz, but if the response to the attack were on his shoulders, would we have ever gotten a Barack? Would Gore have even gotten a second term?
We likely would never have screwed up the middle east, and there would be no ISIS.

WHen Hillary attacked Bernie about her vote for the war, saying "My vote back then is not a 'plan' to deal with ISIS" 
He should have responded that "had that vote gone the other way, there would BE no ISIS, no Syrian refugee stream in to Europe, no Paris bombing….and a host of other problems that are a result of intervention in the 7th century ********************hole" 
Her support created the problem


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Glad to see you realize just how incompetent and destructive Bush the Dumber is and was.


----------



## DrDirt

> Glad to see you realize just how incompetent and destructive Bush the Dumber is and was.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Challenge was that Gore and Kerry are not very good either.

If the answer to the Paris Charlie Hebdoe attacks is, bring in James Taylor to sing 'You've got a Friend' .... that is a bit too far to the other extreme

Every offense isn't a call to war… but neither is every slight, a reason to roll into a fetal position and soil ones self… which has been the policy of the past 7 years too.
George Junior should have listened to his Dad instead of Rumsfeld and Cheney.

I hope that the mission of NASA will no longer be to make "our FOREMOST mission will be to reach out to Muslims and make them feel good about their contributions to science"


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Who knows exactly how Gore and Kerry would have reacted, but it is doubtful they would have given Bin Laden exactly whey he wanted: US troops out of Saudi, $100/barrel oil and the Muslim world united in jihad on us, US.

At least they got Bin Laden in the last 7 years instead of turning him down when offered. I'm not sure what the proper answer is to undo the damage Bush 43 has done to the middle east. It will be generations before it is back to anything close to a functioning economy. He has one hell of a legacy; millions of refugees created and expanded terrorist threat. One thing for sure, he and Cheney couldn't have done much more damage if they had nuked Sadam except they would not have saved Halliburton from bankruptcy in the process. Too bad he didn't march on Wall Street instead of Baghdad saving the world's financial system if he had to march on someone.


----------



## RobS888

> Who knows exactly how Gore and Kerry would have reacted, but it is doubtful they would have given Bin Laden exactly whey he wanted: US troops out of Saudi, $100/barrel oil and the Muslim world united in jihad on us, US.
> 
> At least they got Bin Laden in the last 7 years instead of turning him down when offered. I m not sure what the proper answer is to undo the damage Bush 43 has done to the middle east. It will be generations before it is back to anything close to a functioning economy. He has one hell of a legacy; millions of refugees created and expanded terrorist threat. One thing for sure, he and Cheney couldn t have done much more damage if they had nuked Sadam except they would not have saved Halliburton from bankruptcy in the process. Too bad he didn t march on Wall Street instead of Baghdad saving the world s financial system if he had to march on someone.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Looks like W crawled out of the woodwork and is stumping for his brother. I would hate to have another Bush in office, but he would be better than Rafael, Marco, the donald, or Ben. Bernie or Hillary would be best for most people and the country as a whole.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Hillary or Rs are the same ol, same ol for us, US. Bernie could move us, US, back towards prosperity.


----------



## DrDirt

> Who knows exactly how Gore and Kerry would have reacted, but it is doubtful they would have given Bin Laden exactly whey he wanted: US troops out of Saudi, $100/barrel oil and the Muslim world united in jihad on us, US.


Very True… but I guess I miss where Bush pulled us out of Saudi Arabia…and we are still there today.


> At least they got Bin Laden in the last 7 years instead of turning him down when offered. I m not sure what the proper answer is to undo the damage Bush 43 has done to the middle east. It will be generations before it is back to anything close to a functioning economy. He has one hell of a legacy; millions of refugees created and expanded terrorist threat. One thing for sure, he and Cheney couldn t have done much more damage if they had nuked Sadam except they would not have saved Halliburton from bankruptcy in the process. Too bad he didn t march on Wall Street instead of Baghdad saving the world s financial system if he had to march on someone.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Agree to the point that Bush got the ball rolling. But the Cut and run out of Iraq, let ISIS fill that vacuum.
Nevermind Obama and Google driving teh Arab Spring, to turn Egypt and Libya into crapholes, for no better reason that Bush had for getting rid of Saddaam… "Mubarak is a brutal dictator - - the Muslim brotherhood will be so much better as a voice of teh people, as they loot the Museum of Antiquities, and sell the contents to fund Jihad"

Barry owns this Bush didn't screw up North Africa.. And didn't leave the Yazidi's to be slaughtered on Mount Sinjar Iraq.

As for Osama - - how much money do we still give pakistan to prop them up, as if they had no idea Osama lived there.
Obama was the one to cast off the "multilateral' bull******************** and NOT TELL Pakistan the plan… just get it done.


----------



## RobS888

> Hillary or Rs are the same ol, same ol for us, US. Bernie could move us, US, back towards prosperity.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


From a financial perspective that is probably true, I was disappointed that HRC seems tied to wall street, but it is probably a more practical approach for her.

On the non-financial side, if any of the Rs wins they would work with the braindead congress Rs and set us back 25 years! They could gut the ACA, repeal anything that hurts the 1% and their favorite, of course, make it very difficult to get an abortion.

a little humor can help…

http://vlocal.ca/canada-for-us-president-in-2016/


----------



## DrDirt

Bernie will go after the banks which is good, but a 'long game' with respect to the economy.
More pressing is the outsourcing:

Just last week, two Indiana companies (Carrier Corp. and United Technologies Electronic Controls) announced they were moving their productions plants to Mexico. As many as 2,100 Americans are losing their jobs.

But it's not just 2,100 jobs. It's 2,100 families and coaches Girl Scout leaders, and PTA members. It's 2,100 taxpayers.

A UTEC executive told the Indianapolis Star that moving their company south of the border "is the best way for us to remain competitive."

---------------
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/15/joe-donnelly-blames-carrier-closing-cheap-labor-chase/80413488/


----------



## RobS888

That is what happens when CEOs are more concerned about their pay then the livelihood of their employees.

"In a statement, Chris Nelson, Carrier's president of HVAC systems and services for North America, pointed to "ongoing cost and pricing pressures driven, in part, by new regulatory requirements" as the reason for the decision to relocate the Carrier facility. Pence also pointed to federal corporate tax rates as a factor in why businesses relocate to foreign soil.

Donnelly, however, said Carrier executives were *unable to specify the federal regulations* prompting last week's announcement"

They can pay less for labor and give themselves more money. I doubt they will lower the price of their products.

I was happy to pay carrier a premium a couple years back, not sure I would do that now.

Carrier should be told they will incur a 25% (or 5% more than the savings would be from moving) import fee per unit if they relocate.


----------



## DrDirt

> Carrier should be told they will incur a 25% (or 5% more than the savings would be from moving) import fee per unit if they relocate.
> 
> - RobS888


That is the only route to change the tide. Head to head manufacturing versus third world is a loser every time.

Regulatory burden is a mess but a lot of that will apply whether imported or not (e.g. you notice Korean Refrigeration still has the big yellow "Energuide" sticker… and AC units will still have to meet DOE requirements for their SEER ratings to be sold here). 
The move is all about production costs… how that will translate to the CEO pay is small, but all about competition.

Suppose you could buy Trane… which is now Irish… and also made in Monterrey Mexico….

Is it really CEO salary that made the decision, or competing on price against Trane who left Lacrosse Wisconsin Pueblo Colorado, Spring hill a long time ago?
Is it just CEO greed - or could they not make an AC unit in Indianapolis as cheap as Mexico?
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2008/11/trane-sheds-270-jobs-moves-work-mexico
http://www.achrnews.com/articles/91325-trane-relocates-product-production
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-367202
The idea of tariffs is something only Trump has proposed…you crossing over to the 'dark side'?


----------



## RobS888

I'm iffy on protectionism, but not a punitive approach for exporting jobs.

From UTC's 2013 annual report, Their climate control division made $16.8B in 2013. That is $2B less than 2 years before, however they made more profit than 2 years before. Their profit ratio is 15%! That is pretty good, it means they are doing Ok. Why move?


----------



## DrDirt

<


> I m iffy on protectionism, but not a punitive approach for exporting jobs.
> 
> From UTC s 2013 annual report, Their climate control division made $16.8B in 2013. That is $2B less than 2 years before, however they made more profit than 2 years before. Their profit ratio is 15%! That is pretty good, it means they are doing Ok. Why move?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - RobS888


Always hard to judge how sectors 'cross polinate' and share resources, IT, HR, travel, 
Most industry (like government) is a group circling from company to company, so it is pretty incestuous
Semiconductors in Phoenix was notorius… Intel hired engineers from Motorola to be managers and vice versa - - little promotion from within, that was how they "Legally shared"

Figure Carrier hires a "production planner" from Trane or Shimadzu, or panasonic etc, and they say - - gee we pay X for compressors…. or Assembly or whatever.

So they all know what eachothers costs are. Someons said we need to move to be on same "COST" per unit.

Sure they could manage overhead differently and be profitable. But there is a grass is greener. " why do we pay X dollars per unit here, when we could be like ABC company and pay Y instead" Or commonly - - why don't wejust have them make it and stamp our name on it, then we can dump all the pension costs, Health care and have that just be part of the variable per unit cost we pay someone else??


----------



## RobS888

$2.5B is profitable, no need to change. See what I mean, there are other reasons to do it. It needs to cost them more to move out of the country than it saves them. I suspect the officers get a % of the savings. If so, nothing else will really matter to them.


----------



## DrDirt

> $2.5B is profitable, no need to change. See what I mean, there are other reasons to do it. It needs to cost them more to move out of the country than it saves them. I suspect the officers get a % of the savings. If so, nothing else will really matter to them.
> 
> - RobS888


Uncommon to get that kind of "sharing of gains" to make changes.

But changes are made over VERY small differences. Pennies per unit for commodities - - but if prodution (like light bulbs) is 150 million units each year…
They say "China is 2 cents cheaper" on a 50 cent (COST) that sells for 2 dollars. so you have 75% margin.
but see that "at 2 cents a piece" we can make an additional 3 million dollars per year…. so boom its gone.

The Import duties don't have to be that large, even like 10% will put the brakes on a lot of moves… like Carrier - or Ford. Adding 10% to the TOTAL price of the car, makes it more attractive to stay on this side of the Rio Grande.
Yet the Unions support the democrats like Clinton (NAFTA) and Obama (TPP) and back hillary who push these deals…. and then complain that companies that profit from their "Leadership" are evil.


----------



## RobS888

NAFTA was to open markets, not move companies, however the 'invisible hand' of the market has an invisible brain (meaning non existent) and likes a company that reduces costs anyway it can. Like rewarding people to breathe less, at some point you will run out of people. Theses companies will squeeze down until we won't buy the products anymore

Carrier reps couldn't name the regulation that was driving them to Mexico and they make a very healthy profit. Pursuit of more profit is why they are moving. It is just greed of the leaders including the CEO, COO, or whatever initials they come up with to help justify their indecent pay.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

My dad only finished grammar school, of course, the high school graduation rate was only 30% in the Depression. Even so, he was smarter than the majority of the people running this country. He used to say when a man cannot afford the product he makes, the country is in trouble. Today, if he cannot afford the product he used to make, the country is in trouble. I used to be a buy American guy, but if we install a heat pump system, it will not be Carrier. Probably Mitsubishi, at least the Japanese have moral values.

Interesting article about pitch forks


----------



## DrDirt

> NAFTA was to open markets,
> 
> - RobS888


Sure and Iraq and Kuwait - -were about Freedom and democracy and NOT about Oil either right?

That is the 'stated goal' however EVERYONE knew that it would result in Job losses here.
Ross Perot coined the "GIANT SUCKING SOUND"


----------



## DrDirt

> Probably Mitsubishi, at least the Japanese have moral values.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I wonder how many Japanese complain about the Honda Toyota and Subaru factories in the USA… where the Japanese jobs were "exported"?

Or when Sony Picture tubes were outside of Pittsburgh PA


----------



## RobS888

> My dad only finished grammar school, of course, the high school graduation rate was only 30% in the Depression. Even so, he was smarter than the majority of the people running this country. He used to say when a man cannot afford the product he makes, the country is in trouble. Today, if he cannot afford the product he used to make, the country is in trouble. I used to be a buy American guy, but if we install a heat pump system, it will not be Carrier. Probably Mitsubishi, at least the Japanese have moral values.
> 
> Interesting article about pitch forks
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Excellent article, I'm going to watch his Ted talk. For a billionaire he seems quite savvy.


----------



## RobS888

> Probably Mitsubishi, at least the Japanese have moral values.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> I wonder how many Japanese complain about the Honda Toyota and Subaru factories in the USA… where the Japanese jobs were "exported"?
> 
> Or when Sony Picture tubes were outside of Pittsburgh PA
> 
> - DrDirt


That is interesting, I don't see it being less costly to build a car in NA than Asia. I believe the cars are built here to avoid protectionism, not reduce costs.

On the surface that might seem to apply, but it really doesn't.


----------



## RobS888

> NAFTA was to open markets,
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Sure and Iraq and Kuwait - -were about Freedom and democracy and NOT about Oil either right?
> 
> That is the stated goal however EVERYONE knew that it would result in Job losses here.
> Ross Perot coined the "GIANT SUCKING SOUND"
> 
> - DrDirt


You should blame Bush the smarter then since he started it in 1990 and the republicans that supported it.

Seeing 132 republicans and 102 democrats voting for the same thing is amazing at this point.

After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

I don't believe it has been as bad as you imply. 
Could you provide stats to show the job migrations amongst the 3 countries please?

Most favored nation status for China is a problem to me, but NAFTA isn't.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

NAFTA report


----------



## RobS888

> NAFTA report
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Just sad that the execs found a way to pervert this treaty as well:

American manufacturing jobs were lost as U.S. firms used NAFTA's new foreign investor privileges to relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of that country's lower wages and weaker environmental standards. U.S. job erosion worsened as a new flood of NAFTA imports swamped gains in exports, creating a massive new trade deficit that equated to an estimated net loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004
This is from the link you provided.

I still think anyone that would fire fellow citizens to move to a country with lower wages is un American and the company should pay heavy duties.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

During Clinton's Administration, Michael Medved interviewed the owner of a manufacturing company who was being courted to move his company to the Yucatan Peninsula with the promise of cheap labor, freedom from labor union activity, minimum wages, or having to pay any other benefits. That was our own gov't promoting moving our jobs overseas in violation of the laws they were supposed to be enforcing. Everything they told him to get him to move under some economic development initiative they were doing at that time was illegal!

Clinton going corporate was the sealed the fate of middle class America.


----------



## DrDirt

> Probably Mitsubishi, at least the Japanese have moral values.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> I wonder how many Japanese complain about the Honda Toyota and Subaru factories in the USA… where the Japanese jobs were "exported"?
> 
> Or when Sony Picture tubes were outside of Pittsburgh PA
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> That is interesting, I don t see it being less costly to build a car in NA than Asia. I believe the cars are built here to avoid protectionism, not reduce costs.
> 
> On the surface that might seem to apply, but it really doesn t.
> 
> - RobS888


True that getting closer to the market may be driving the Toyota Exec's more than building the car Cheaper.

But I notice that teh Japanese plants are in "Right to work" states, and not UAW facilities.

Be that as it may - - How "Honorable" do the terminated workers feel when they are sent to "train the workers' in the USA to build the cars they used to make?

Sure it isn't third world slave wages like the china situation, but I don't think that softens the blow to the Japanese person standing in the Unemployment line.
Or the Kia worker as one of the largest car factories in teh world is built out by the airport in Monterrey Mexico. I was there in January, and there is a "little Korea" being formed around the plant, and the grocery has signs in the window in Korean Characters.
http://wardsauto.com/industry/construction-done-kia-mexico-plant-enters-next-phase

Where is the 3 billion dollar investment in US Manufacturing? 
Standing on 1,700 acres (688 ha) of land in Pesquería, Nuevo León, near Monterrey, the new complex comprises four plants for stamping, fully automated body welding, painting and vehicle assembly.

Kia says investment totals $3 billion, including outlays at 14 local supply operations that belong to the Hyundai Motor Group.

In total, 19 suppliers will provide parts for the Kia operation, 16 of which are "in final phases of construction within the Pesqueria complex, while three suppliers have erected their plants outside of the complex in other regions," the spokesman says.

16 new auto suppliers to support the plant are finishing construction…. don't see that in Detroit!!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> But I notice that teh Japanese plants are in "Right to work" states, and not UAW facilities.
> 
> - DrDirt


Ever notice most of the right to work states were formerly slave states?

When the news reported the cost of the tax breaks NC gave Boeing to build 747s there, they could have put those workers on full welfare for 50 years and it would have been a better deal for NC taxpayers ;-)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> NAFTA report
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Just sad that the execs found a way to pervert this treaty as well:
> 
> American manufacturing jobs were lost as U.S. firms used NAFTA s new foreign investor privileges to relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of that country s lower wages and weaker environmental standards. U.S. job erosion worsened as a new flood of NAFTA imports swamped gains in exports, creating a massive new trade deficit that equated to an estimated net loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004
> This is from the link you provided.
> 
> I still think anyone that would fire fellow citizens to move to a country with lower wages is un American and the company should pay heavy duties.
> 
> - RobS888


Well, money is involved perverting NAFTA. Same when Greenspan said the derivatives market didn't need regulation because "responsible" people were operating it ;-))) The stupid old fool admitted to Congress he was wrong after it all came tumbling down, but Congress didn't do anything about it.


----------



## DrDirt

> Ever notice most of the right to work states were formerly slave states?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


No-there are 25 right to work states. 
Alabama, *Arizona*, Arkansas, *Kansas*, Florida, Georgia,* Idaho, Indiana, Iowa*, Louisiana, *Michigan*, Mississippi,* Nebraska, Nevada*, North Carolina, *North Dakota, Oklahoma,* South Carolina, *South Dakota*, Tennessee, *Texas,Utah, *Virginia, *Wisconsin, and Wyoming.*

Seems to me 15 out of 25 were *not *slave states.

I also believe nobody should be compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. Carter was right when he got rid of collective bargaining in the federal government. I am sort of OK with private unions - - but I oppose public sector unions like SEIU, because the "Employer - at the negotiation table, has no actual business interest or accountability" they make decisions that the taxpayers are stuck with for generations.

But conditions, like the Boeing Plant, are then between Boeing and its workers to create their binding arbitration, based on the company goals/profits/losses etc.


----------



## RobS888

> Just sad that the execs found a way to pervert this treaty as well:
> 
> American manufacturing jobs were lost as U.S. firms used NAFTA s new foreign investor privileges to relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of that country s lower wages and weaker environmental standards. U.S. job erosion worsened as a new flood of NAFTA imports swamped gains in exports, creating a massive new trade deficit that equated to an estimated net loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004
> This is from the link you provided.
> 
> I still think anyone that would fire fellow citizens to move to a country with lower wages is un American and the company should pay heavy duties.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Well, money is involved perverting NAFTA. Same when Greenspan said the derivatives market didn t need regulation because "responsible" people were operating it ;-))) The stupid old fool admitted to Congress he was wrong after it all came tumbling down, but Congress didn t do anything about it.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Wasn't a new department created that has, ah not received any funding? It is like a police force was created then not paid.

Did you catch any of the republican keystone cops last night? Hi-sterical. It was like two little lap dogs attacking a Newfie.


----------



## RobS888

> Ever notice most of the right to work states were formerly slave states?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> No-there are 25 right to work states.
> Alabama, *Arizona*, Arkansas, *Kansas*, Florida, Georgia,* Idaho, Indiana, Iowa*, Louisiana, *Michigan*, Mississippi,* Nebraska, Nevada*, North Carolina, *North Dakota, Oklahoma,* South Carolina, *South Dakota*, Tennessee, *Texas,Utah, *Virginia, *Wisconsin, and Wyoming.*
> 
> Seems to me 15 out of 25 were *not *slave states.
> 
> - DrDirt


But *ALL* confederate (slave) states are right to work states, so his point is pretty good.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Just sad that the execs found a way to pervert this treaty as well:
> 
> American manufacturing jobs were lost as U.S. firms used NAFTA s new foreign investor privileges to relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of that country s lower wages and weaker environmental standards. U.S. job erosion worsened as a new flood of NAFTA imports swamped gains in exports, creating a massive new trade deficit that equated to an estimated net loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004
> This is from the link you provided.
> 
> I still think anyone that would fire fellow citizens to move to a country with lower wages is un American and the company should pay heavy duties.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Well, money is involved perverting NAFTA. Same when Greenspan said the derivatives market didn t need regulation because "responsible" people were operating it ;-))) The stupid old fool admitted to Congress he was wrong after it all came tumbling down, but Congress didn t do anything about it.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Wasn t a new department created that has, ah not received any funding? It is like a police force was created then not paid.
> 
> Did you catch any of the republican keystone cops last night? Hi-sterical. It was like two little lap dogs attacking a Newfie.
> 
> - RobS888


Missed it. Had family here for dinner. Bet it was funny ;-)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Ever notice most of the right to work states were formerly slave states?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> No-there are 25 right to work states.
> Alabama, *Arizona*, Arkansas, *Kansas*, Florida, Georgia,* Idaho, Indiana, Iowa*, Louisiana, *Michigan*, Mississippi,* Nebraska, Nevada*, North Carolina, *North Dakota, Oklahoma,* South Carolina, *South Dakota*, Tennessee, *Texas,Utah, *Virginia, *Wisconsin, and Wyoming.*
> 
> Seems to me 15 out of 25 were *not *slave states.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> But *ALL* confederate (slave) states are right to work states, so his point is pretty good.
> 
> - RobS888


They are up to 25 slave states now ;-(

DrDirt, Why should shoiuld good men be compelled to support the benefits given to scabs? Everything you enjoy today as "socially accepted" conditions, 40 hrs, weekends, ect were bought and paid for with blood in the early 20th century.


----------



## RobS888

> Just sad that the execs found a way to pervert this treaty as well:
> 
> American manufacturing jobs were lost as U.S. firms used NAFTA s new foreign investor privileges to relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of that country s lower wages and weaker environmental standards. U.S. job erosion worsened as a new flood of NAFTA imports swamped gains in exports, creating a massive new trade deficit that equated to an estimated net loss of one million U.S. jobs by 2004
> This is from the link you provided.
> 
> I still think anyone that would fire fellow citizens to move to a country with lower wages is un American and the company should pay heavy duties.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Well, money is involved perverting NAFTA. Same when Greenspan said the derivatives market didn t need regulation because "responsible" people were operating it ;-))) The stupid old fool admitted to Congress he was wrong after it all came tumbling down, but Congress didn t do anything about it.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Wasn t a new department created that has, ah not received any funding? It is like a police force was created then not paid.
> 
> Did you catch any of the republican keystone cops last night? Hi-sterical. It was like two little lap dogs attacking a Newfie.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Missed it. Had family here for dinner. Bet it was funny ;-)
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Oh, it was. I think CNN is rebroadcasting it tonight.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Hartmann reported today that employment in only 14 states has recovered to pre 2008 crash levels. The worst news was that China's exports to the US have dropped significantly in the last few months. I thought he said they are down 60%, but my hearing was probably off. That is a lot and I couldn't verify that number on Google.

Citi economists also report bad news ahead. They say there is no other economy in the world that can make up for lower spending by the US consumer. As goes us, US, so goes the world. The 1% has just about destroyed their market and there assets will certainly drop significantly in a world wide recession.

He also mentioned desperate people do radical things. If the economy collapses rapidly in the next few months, Trump could energize a base that could put him in the White House following the same pattern of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco in the 1930's ;-(


----------



## DrDirt

> DrDirt, Why should shoiuld good men be compelled to support the benefits given to scabs? Everything you enjoy today as "socially accepted" conditions, 40 hrs, weekends, ect were bought and paid for with blood in the early 20th century.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


ONCE upon a time…. unions did some good things.

How about the past 60 years?

Nor is it remotely accurate to think that if unions went away - we would return to 1800's standards.

SOCIETY here won't send their 9 year olds to work in the factories… of course there are no factories, so that is moot.
Todays Union worker dues has NOTHING to do with working conditions of the past decades. So their Dues are not going to workplace improvement, instead it goes to political campaigning.

AFLCIO and the NEA makes Koch brothers seem like carpet baggers. People are right to demand their dues not be spent that way.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026
Of course Koch money is not stripped from your weekly check against your will.

What have the unions done to slow or reverse Outsourcing? It is easy to argue that some Union demands have simply driven business off shore faster.
We had that Here…Hawker/Beechcraft moved from Kansas to Mexico, after the 2008 strike.

Remember the 2008 economy? they demanded 4% raise each year for 08,09,and 10, and no increase in healthcare premiums.
Now the building is empty. Gone to Mexico like Ford, and Nabisco - - Unions roll into town, CREATE strife and unrest that "ONLY THEY" can fix…. then they watch the job go overseas, supporting the politicians making the agreements and return to New York First Class.

I see nothing good about unions TODAY in practice.

If Unions fought for Jobs… I would be first in line supporting them… I see the opposite. Tell me about something good the Unions did for people since say 1990, that would encourage one to be supportive today.


----------



## RobS888

Unions represent hundreds of thousands of workers. The Kochs, just 2. Even really small unions would still represent more opinins than the Kochs, so the comparison is ridiculous.

Look at the end of the Roman Empire to see how this will end.


----------



## DrDirt

> Unions represent hundreds of thousands of workers. The Kochs, just 2. Even really small unions would still represent more opinins than the Kochs, so the comparison is ridiculous.
> 
> Look at the end of the Roman Empire to see how this will end.
> 
> - RobS888


Yawn… if they REPRESENTED the workers, there would not be a supreme court case about conscription, and the members being forced support of the union politics.

As for the Kochs just being 2 people, that is foolishness. the Koch dark money work involves bundling from many individuals, employee contributions to their PAC's etc. Not just David Koch writing a check.
By your logic…. the AFLCIO money is just coming from 1 guy… Richard Trumpka.
It is a way of looking at things…. but it is misleading at best.

Notice you couldn't respond to something unions have had a positive effect on/cause they advanced since Bush the elder.

People crow about the 8 hour day….that battle was hard fought…. Around the time of teh US civil war.

How about somthing not 150+ years ago??
August 20, 1866: A new organization named the National Labor Union asked Congress to pass a law mandating the eight-hour workday. Their efforts technically failed, but they inspired Americans across the country to support labor reform over the next few decades.

May 1, 1867: The Illinois Legislature passed a law mandating an eight-hour workday. Many employers refused to cooperate, and a massive strike erupted in Chicago. That day became known as "May Day."

May 19, 1869: President Ulysses S. Grant issued a proclamation that guaranteed a stable wage and an eight-hour workday - but only for government workers. Grant's decision encouraged private-sector workers to push for the same rights.

Child labor ended in 1938 (formally)
So tell me about the GREATNESS of being a union worker in the 21st century - admittely there is a wage gap, where on average unions pay more than non-union spots. But it seems that the UNION shops are closing and moving away faster than non-union shops. SO what is the benefit? You make more right up til they close the gates and send you packing?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-manufacturing-bounces-back-from-recession-unions-are-left-behind/2013/01/16/4b4a7368-5e88-11e2-90a0-73c8343c6d61_story.html


----------



## RobS888

Union leaders are elected, Kochs aren't. Unions represent their members. Kochs don't represent anyone except themselves and their superpacs are formed for the purpose that the Kochs decide. One is democratic, the other is Plutocratic. A $million from the kochs represents 2 opinion's, a $million from the UAW represents 390,000 members.

If you can't/won't see the difference that is your problem. Most people know there is something wrong with this and it will end someday. The first big clash for HRC will be getting Obama confirmed to SCOTUS.

Blaming unions for what CEO scumbags do is pretty irresponsible.


----------



## dbray45

Thought I would look in on this - hmmm!

Rob - you are not necessarily correct on this. In the union local that I have to be in, there was only one election and there was no opposition for the president. There has been no election since and no provision for it. Unions do not represent the members, in ways that you may think. First they are partners to the organization. When we did not get the raise that that was in our contract and other contracts were honored, at this point, they are more of an arm of the management and less of a representative of the people that are required to cough up out of their pay.

Seems Dad wanted to retire - and the daughter took over.

Union fees are broken up so that a part of the "contribution" is earmarked for political contribution of what democrat that they feel will champion the union's cause.

CEOs are bound by their board of directors and by the stockholders unless it is a private company - then they own it.


----------



## RobS888

> Thought I would look in on this - hmmm!
> 
> Rob - you are not necessarily correct on this. In the union local that I have to be in, there was only one election and there was no opposition for the president. There has been no election since and no provision for it. Unions do not represent the members, in ways that you may think. First they are partners to the organization. When we did not get the raise that that was in our contract and other contracts were honored, at this point, they are more of an arm of the management and less of a representative of the people that are required to cough up out of their pay.
> 
> Seems Dad wanted to retire - and the daughter took over.
> 
> Union fees are broken up so that a part of the "contribution" is earmarked for political contribution of what democrat that they feel will champion the union s cause.
> 
> CEOs are bound by their board of directors and by the stockholders unless it is a private company - then they own it.
> 
> - dbray45


Not arguing your points, but it sounds like you're saying the union is less democratic than the corporation?


----------



## DrDirt

> Blaming unions for what CEO scumbags do is pretty irresponsible.
> 
> - RobS888


Riiiiight…. that is what it is.

My humble opinion is that the reason Unions started, was to be a bulwark against CEO's.
That they would work to preserve jobs for the rank and file that pay their dues.

Why do unions contribute instead to the leaders that offshore the jobs.
The Unions have a huge voice on Capitol hill… WHy don't they stand up like Bernie has and say TPP is bad for jobs, and "Pressure the politicians they have financially supported"?

Besides Collecting dues - - I do not see Unions actually supporting workers. It is not blaming Unions for CEO actions, but blaming INACTION of Unions, while they siphon dues to political causes, while job losses mount.

Why aren't unions asking for Import duties, which would Protect Union jobs?

Still - - you cannot name what the Unions have done in the past 50 years to advance anything but their own power, and wealth. But much like our Political Oligarchy… they don't fight for nor Represent workers.

But once upon a time they did.

I had a union job as a teenager, when the Federal Minimum Wage was 3.85/hour.
As a union "courtesy clerk" (fancy name for grocery bag boy) I got 3.82/hour.

Glad the union FOUGHT for a subminimum wage. Indeed they get to do that if you are part of "Collective Bargaining" (United Food and Commercial Workers Union 1496 in Anchorage Alaska 82-84)
But Union Dues were extracted before I saw the check.

I would have opted out if Alaska were right to work, and got a raise.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I see nothing good about unions TODAY in practice.
> 
> If Unions fought for Jobs… I would be first in line supporting them… I see the opposite. Tell me about something good the Unions did for people since say 1990, that would encourage one to be supportive today.
> 
> - DrDirt


They have been fighting an uphill battle since Reagan set union busting in motion full bore. There have been many successes battling individual abuses. Clearly, employers like WalMart being able to externalize labor costs by teaching their employees how to access public food services, public housing, public health, ect is a major failure of labor and demonstrates how the deck has been stacked against them.

What has "Capital" or conservatives ever done for the well being of the people since the beginning of time? That means substantial contributions, not a few minor philanthropic efforts.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> So tell me about the GREATNESS of being a union worker in the 21st century - admittely there is a wage gap, where on average unions pay more than non-union spots. But it seems that the UNION shops are closing and moving away faster than non-union shops. SO what is the benefit? You make more right up til they close the gates and send you packing?
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-manufacturing-bounces-back-from-recession-unions-are-left-behind/2013/01/16/4b4a7368-5e88-11e2-90a0-73c8343c6d61_story.html
> 
> - DrDirt


That is the point of this thread; the inequity of Reaganomics and destructive forces and criminal elements they have loosened upon us, US. Breaking labor is a major component of capital's agenda.


----------



## RobS888

CEO compensation has the sky as a limit, but unions don't!

I don't see how anyone could advance that position.


----------



## RobS888

You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Unions didn't start to save jobs, but to save lives. History is your friend, your mind is infected with republican "rhetoric", corporations are good regulations bad. Unions are bad, CEOs are good. Your children will pay for your shortsightedness, The Donald will see to that.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

DrDirt, Here is a real peach of a guy who killed 29 miners in the name of the almighty dollar. He set mine safety back 100 years. What makes you think he wouldn't do the same for child labor?


----------



## dbray45

The only jobs that unions are aggressively willing to save - in my opinion - is theirs.


----------



## RobS888

> The only jobs that unions are aggressively willing to save - in my opinion - is theirs.
> 
> - dbray45


Unless, I'm misunderstanding, that is exactly what a union is for, these days.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The only jobs that unions are aggressively willing to save - in my opinion - is theirs.
> 
> - dbray45


Why should they put their time, money and efforts into working for free for scabs who hate unions? Do you work for free to save anyone's job?


----------



## dbray45

I am not speaking about union members that are required to pay for the union services - as in the employees of the companies that they "represent," I am talking about the actual union employees.

The policies that the unions submit to the companies to "take care of their members" takes away the ability and desire of the employee to achieve. They turn advancement, for pay purposes, into a paper work event instead of actually knowing what the higher paid job does. This does several things, first, all of those non-skilled jobs over time, gets the same pay as the people that actually worked to get where they are, without knowing what was required to perform the job. Then, all of the experienced and skilled or professional people stop putting themselves out and trying to do the job they were doing because their new coworkers and "peers" can't do the same job but are paid to do it. At that point, what standards that you had quickly deteriorate.

Its that socialist thing where we want to pay everybody the same whether they can do the job or not - because they "deserve it!"


----------



## dbray45

Bob - as you can tell, I am not a big fan of the unions.

I have watched what unions do to companies all my life and in the beginning, they were a necessity (sadly). Over the last 50 years, they (like so many other things) got caught up in their own desires and power and have become a bigger issue than what they are supposed to solve.

What is even sadder - the organizations, especially government, have practices that nullify any good that the unions are there to fix and what is left becomes a burden to the employee in its own right.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Maybe not a fan, but you sill owe your quality of middle class life to them.

The saddest of all is how capital organized to destroy the lives of millions of middle class citizens putting them on the street and to bed hungry every night ;-(


----------



## dbray45

I disagree. It was a very directed goal for some time by a variety of administrations (shall we say democrat) to shut down all of our manufacturing and move it off shore - and yes the unions took part in this with their eyes wide open.

Through taxation and the EPA, they made it impossible to manufacture in the US. When I was building computers, I was made painfully aware of this through the paint and assembly processes.


----------



## RobS888

Why would democrats be particularly interested in moving union jobs overseas? Does it stop during republican administrations?


----------



## DrDirt

> DrDirt, Here is a real peach of a guy who killed 29 miners in the name of the almighty dollar. He set mine safety back 100 years. What makes you think he wouldn t do the same for child labor?
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


That is quite a stretch… he cut corners where HE managed things.

How did he set ALL MINE SAFETY (or ANY mine safety) back 100 years?

Your story shows him being prosecuted for breaking the law….Why didn't OSHA and MSHA catch all this. doesn't our dear leader care about working folks? WHy didn;t the 'regulations' prevent this.

For the same reason murder has been illegal since the beginning of time… but people still kill each other?

Besides - Obama is working to make sure there are no coal mines anymore, just like there are fewer factories… so problem solved?

There are studies that Union mines are safer…. but it is a little screwy with statistics.
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2010/04/18/Are-union-mines-safer/stories/201004180265

seems pretty solid, but doesn't really account for (in the percentages).... that like in Kentucky - - -there are NO UNION MINES…. so EVERY accident becomes a "non-union accident" 
So like the gasette shows 31 people died in 2010… 29 in one incident you already reference. Pretty tough to statistically say one is safer when the actual frequency is very low.
It is like picking the "Most terrorist friendly airline".... small numbers of incidents give skewed results.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1458e9c8e8444067975932e10a9e6037/no-union-mines-left-kentucky-where-labor-wars-once-raged

WHen as in my town the union is the cause of job losses… the argument that the middle class owes its existence to unions is pretty thin for this century


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I disagree. It was a very directed goal for some time by a variety of administrations (shall we say democrat) to shut down all of our manufacturing and move it off shore - and yes the unions took part in this with their eyes wide open.
> 
> Through taxation and the EPA, they made it impossible to manufacture in the US. When I was building computers, I was made painfully aware of this through the paint and assembly processes.
> 
> - dbray45


No doubt the Clintons went corporate to cash in on the presidency. Nobody represents us, US ;-( That is about to change ;-)


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

DrDirt, I do not see why a guy that would promote death and black lung would not also promote child labor. Is one more evil than the other? What is the criteria for the ranking?

Mines like what he ran haven't been that way for 100 years and he isn't going to prison where he belongs because the prosecutor had a misdemeanor charge as an option. The jury thought they were all felony option or he would be where he belongs.

One thing I noticed in the last 50 years is corps safety response is largely lip service with a few notable exceptions.

It doesn't matter which monitoring department you look at, FDA, mine safety, SEC, ........even the VA. The Rs under fund them to advance their agenda of eliminating all gov't agencies because they don't work. Of course they don't work, no operating budget. This is about to end


----------



## RobS888

Very interesting article Topamax,

I'm going to register as a republican and try and vote in the MD republican primary. Guess who I'll vote for?

Any help to further the Republican swirling down the drain will be my pleasure to give.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

They really have no core values other than suppression of US peons and accumulation of wealth for the sake of more for the 1%. They only reason they support any other issues is because the 1% cannot win on election day alone. It is unfortunate that the Clintons joined the corporate movement. What ever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you? Ask what yoiu can do for your country?" Seems to have been replaced with ask how can I exploit my country for personal gain and gratification? ;-(


----------



## dbray45

Rob - This process started a while ago. It was for our good you know, to stop the pollution and to save our resources. How did the speech go - we should not be the labor pool for the world, we should be the administrators - or something like that.

Not long after that the corporate taxes and fees to manufacture went up and imports went down. Not the income tax but the fines for the pollution, the costs to upgrade the plants and the hoops that companies had to go through to be in compliance. I remember when the steel mills went dark in the late 60s and early 70s because the cost of labor, the cost of upgrades, the fines for this and that - they just closed their doors.

I remember when the family business shut down because the labor costs were too high to be competitive against the imports.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

David, those are failures of trade policy in favor of the oligarchy. Manufacturing can be done responsibly without poisoning future generations. The oligarchy is not will to accept lower profit margins or to be responsible citizens of the world.


----------



## RobS888

> Rob - This process started a while ago. It was for our good you know, to stop the pollution and to save our resources. How did the speech go - we should not be the labor pool for the world, we should be the administrators - or something like that.
> 
> Not long after that the corporate taxes and fees to manufacture went up and imports went down. Not the income tax but the fines for the pollution, the costs to upgrade the plants and the hoops that companies had to go through to be in compliance. I remember when the steel mills went dark in the late 60s and early 70s because the cost of labor, the cost of upgrades, the fines for this and that - they just closed their doors.
> 
> I remember when the family business shut down because the labor costs were too high to be competitive against the imports.
> 
> - dbray45


I guess I feel that any policy approach that has survived 5 terms of Republican presidents and 4 terms of Democratic presidents must be generally acceptable to all of them.

I think Topo is right, they are all the same. The promises are nice, but don't mean much for either side. Once in office they have to tow the party line and vote as told or they are gone at the next primary. Add in the companies that donate to them and they are bought and paid for before they go to DC. If congress has to vote the way their party says, aren't they really run by 2 people? Mitch and Paul Ryan have far more power than the President does.

As I posted above NAFTA had 130 republicans and 102 democrats vote for it. That would be unthinkable today!


----------



## DrDirt

> They really have no core values other than suppression of US peons and accumulation of wealth for the sake of more for the 1%. They only reason they support any other issues is because the 1% cannot win on election day alone. It is unfortunate that the Clintons joined the corporate movement. What ever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you? Ask what yoiu can do for your country?" Seems to have been replaced with ask how can I exploit my country for personal gain and gratification? ;-(
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Hillary was part of the corporate movement for a LONG time.
SHe spent 6 years on the Walmart board of directors starting in 1986
http://www.progressivepress.net/hillary-clinton-was-a-wal-mart-director-for-6-years.

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first. *Ronald Reagan*


----------



## DrDirt

> I think Topo is right, they are all the same. The promises are nice, but don t mean much for either side. Once in office they have to tow the party line and vote as told or they are gone at the next primary.
> 
> - RobS888


Wow! Rob has seen the light?

Used to be near Unanimous on Justice confirmations too….

Scalia, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan, was confirmed by a vote of 98-0 on Sept. 17, 1986. Ginsburg, nominated by President Bill Clinton, was confirmed by a vote of 96-3 on Aug. 3, 1993. 
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/13/lindsey-graham/supreme-court-nominees-got-senate-votes-big-margin/

Then we had a Republican president who got us into a wretched war in the middle east… and suddently Dems started us down a dark path of block everything the president wants…. and not crying when Repubs do the same to thier guy
Question:
Didn't Senator Obama support a filibuster to block Alito from the court? (psst yep!)

Democrats do the same crap today that McConnell is doing now….
1. Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn't get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. 
"We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances," Schumer said in a speech to the liberal American Constitution Society. *"They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not*."

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/16/10-times-democrats-vowed-to-block-republican-nominees/

Sounds a lot like what we hear now from the Senate today with the prospect of Obama appointing another judge….eh?

From the choices available in the race….
I would choose Trump then Sanders, then Cruz, then Kasich… then NOBODY. I would chose to vote for a goldfish before Hillary.


----------



## dbray45

Congrats Rob -

In the last 30-40 years they may talk a good line but there is one thing that is common to all of them - they want a 2 party system (politicians and everybody else) and have been working hard to get there.


----------



## DrDirt

I actually like both of them - - Bernie would work over Wall Street
Trump would work on trade and jobs.

Neither ones "wackier" ideas would ever happen anyway - - but they both are a kick in the nuts to the D's and R's that only speak to us peons during campaign season.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Neither ones "wackier" ideas would ever happen anyway - - but they both are a kick in the nuts to the D s and R s that only speak to us peons during campaign season.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - DrDirt


Most of one of them's wacky ideas were the way it was 50 years ago. Can you guess which one?

The other's wacky agenda and rhetoric was very successful in Germany 90 year's ago. If you got the first question correct, you know who this one is.


----------



## DrDirt

> Most of one of them s wacky ideas were the way it was 50 years ago. Can you guess which one?
> 
> The other s wacky agenda and rhetoric was very successful in Germany 90 year s ago. If you got the first question correct, you know who this one is.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


True - but the wacky I speak of is - Prison for Climate deniers, Free College, and Medicare for all.

None ow which were part of our country historically. And won't pass through congress if he is elected.

Basically the things he CAN do… I support. The troubling stuff - - won't happen anyway.


----------



## RobS888

Free college was around until the 70s. Here is the history of university of California tuition rates.

http://www.dailycal.org/2014/12/22/history-uc-tuition-since-1868/

Here is politifacts review of Bernie's claim:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2016/feb/10/free-college-american-history-bernie-sanders-insis/

As he admits he can't do anything unless there is a huge change in voting that swings the house and senate his way. Unless there is massive forced psychotherapy for many Republicans (to get to the root of their hatred) that can't happen.

He can help move the ball a little to the left and that is good.

Hey Dirt, was it you that defended the Koch brothers because they give money for the arts in NYC?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> True - but the wacky I speak of is - Prison for Climate deniers, Free College, and Medicare for all.
> 
> None ow which were part of our country historically. And won t pass through congress if he is elected.
> 
> Basically the things he CAN do… I support. The troubling stuff - - won t happen anyway.
> 
> - DrDirt


FDR faced the same issues when he was elected. Thom Hartmann recently related the history of overwhelming mail and telegraph campaign the public waged against Congress telling them to give him anything he wanted. The rest, as they say, is history.

Many of the early 20th century immigrants' letters home told of the free educational opportunities they took advantage of when they arrived in America. As Rob mentioned, college was basically free until the 70s. Kids could put themselves through college on a minimum wage job without crushing debt load upon graduation entering into an economy that held little hope of finding a middle class job.

Medicare started as Phase I of single payer, but seeing no profit or CEO and upper management bonuses in that system, the Rs put an end to it. The result has been double digit inflation in health care for decades to support that 30% overhead. Doubt it? Look at Dollar Bill Mcguire at United Healthcare or the Wall Street scams of Richard Scrushy of Healthsouth.

The new trend that seems to be emerging is buying up existing treatments to increase the costs by 1000s%. Isn't that humanity at its finest! Pfizer wants to merge so they can call themselves a foreign company saving billions in taxes. They already charge Americans 10 to 20 times what they charge in other countries. Many say this should be stopped. I disagree, Let the crooked [email protected][email protected]$ go. Deny them access to the US market without paying duty of a magnitude of at least 2x what their previous tax burden was ;-) Deny them access to the research at American Universities at taxpayer expense.

I'm sorry you are not old enough to remember the America of my youth, but your denial does not mean it did not exist. The facts are there, but you have to dig deep and just not skim over the top of history or cherry pick stats.

As Thom Hartmann so aptly explains it, there is a 4 generation/ 80 year cycle of economics. Every generation seems to think they are smarter than the previous and have to learn the hard way. The reason we are in such a mess today is the bulk of the leaders coming to power in the 80s had no personal memory of the Great Republican Depression. We have just been through the Great Republican Recession without a middle class recovery but with another Great Republican Depression still looming on the horizon. I'm sure you will reply Reagan was old enough to remember. Yes, he was and the greedy SOB should have know better. Please fly your flag at half mast on Feb 6 to mourn the end of America's manifest destiny.


----------



## RobS888

The 80 year cycle sounds right. To bad we don't have an 80 year war cycle… can we even find 8 months without fighting someone somewhere?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Looking at world history there are only 3 natural states of mankind; war, recovery from war and preparation for war. Without war, we would have no history ;-(


----------



## DrDirt

No Medicare was not Phase 1 of single payer.

It, much like social security was designed and implemented as a Retiree (no longer working) persons way to have health coverage. Sure some look to it as a model to be expanded. But that was not the goal of the 1965 legislation.

Sure California started a free college - - couldn't afford it and fees have gone up since well before teh 1970's.
The distinction is that is California deciding what to charge residents attending U of C and was at it's inception only the UC berkely campus.

We are talking about Bernie Sanders and Free tuition nationwide… like the president can just sign an executive order and declare Penn State is now "Free" 
Never going to happen… which is why I have no misgivings about the proposal… it is just a plattitute. Sure bernie believes in it. But it will never happen.

So called "free medical" by medicare is a joke - Tell us Bob - - how much does your 'Free" healthcare cost per month.

The retiree I replaced in February is paying 540 a month for he (70 and his wife 66) to have Medicare+Supplement+ Prescriptions.
I pay 550 a month for a family of 5 (+ employer offset).... how is it that retirees have the same premium I do for the whole family on this great "FREE" healthcare system?

Let's at least be honest about "Single Payer" cost. *Assuming you can find a doctor that will accept new medicare patients.* before talking about how great it will be.

What is so "affordable" about Medicare:









https://www.hvsfinancial.com/PublicFiles/Data_Release.pdf


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

The intention of the time was for Medicare to be expanded to the entire population eventually. It had bipartisan support but Jude Wanniski could not stand to see the middle class living a comfortable life style. The Rs have been able to destroy that comfortable life style in the long game.

Obamacare would include a single payer option but they had to give that up to get it through Congress. The Rs had to preserve their 1%'s excessive salary and bonus programs. That extra 30% they have to charge could never compete with most popular medial program in the history of us, US; Medicare. The VA is the second most popular. The Rs filibustered the VA funding bill 13 times in a row but finally had to let it pass when the scandal popped up a couple years ago. They were not able to destroy it and move it into privatization program.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/15/peter-defazio/peter-defazio-says-medicare-passed-virtually-no-re/

_The House adopted a conference report-a unified House-Senate version of the bill-on July 27, 1965, and passed it by a 307-116 margin. That included 70 Republican "yes" votes, against 68 "no" votes.

Then, on July 28, 1965, the Senate adopted the bill by a vote of 70-24, with 13 Republicans in favor and 17 against. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it two days later._

Where do you come up with these crackpot ideas? Nobody ever said anything about free medical care. Of course costs go up as people age. The US probably spends the majority in the last 10 years of life. I am not even going to bother to find the data. Nobody ever said FREE MEDICAL! When the 30% overhead is taken out, your costs will drop overall. Why do you continue to argue to support CEOs and insurance companies excessive monetary gains at the expense of us, US? How many cancer patients could have been treated on the billion Dollar Bill McGuire took out of United? What can one manager do that is worth a billion dollars a year? The only way it can be justified is making money by denying coverage to the insured and letting them die. Your plan is disgusting.

I don't get free medial care so it doesn't cost anything per month. There is no such thing.

When I started college I had a full academic scholarship. When I registered and saw the pittance that was waived I couldn't believe it. It was such a measly amount a full academic scholarship really didn't mean anything and I was making minimum wage milking cows and bucking hay bales. See if anyone says that today? Bernie might not get totally free college, but if he just gets it back the way it was before everyone involved saw it as a personal gold mine to be exploited at student expense, it will be so close to free; the balance will be a moot point. Too bad you never saw the America we had pre Reagan!

Remember, please fly your flag half mast to honor our lost America on Feb. 6th.


----------



## DrDirt

From Bernies Site MEdicare for ALL he says this:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/
What It Means for Patients

As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card. Bernie's plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges.

So his "no copay no deductible" plan - - he is stating in black and white that you pay nothing. It is all just rolled into the taxes he will raise on the rich and the death taxes.

That won't work. Today Medicare is SUPPOSED to be covered by taxes. Yet, there are still monthly premiums, and if you want it to ACTUALLY COVER anything, you need to buy a private medicare supplement.

If you need 500 dollars a month in 'supplemental insurance' to have decent healthcare, ON TOP OF the Taxes used to fund the Medicare program itself (and its fat government slow bureaucracy) then maybe Medicare isn't such a great plan to cover everyone..

I don't disagree with your other points about cronyism and corruption… I still am pointing at the things that "WON'T HAPPEN" that Bernie wants.

Of course the colleges are run by democrats almost exclusively. the mandates, the Title 9, the diversity training, womyns studies, safe spaces…. that is all progressives


----------



## RobS888

I doubt in the 60s they had any idea that greed would take over the medical system.

Take out the excessive CEO/executive pay, get lawyers out of it, so Doctors don't have to pay so much in malpractice insurance. US doctors can pay 10 times as much as in Canada. Hundreds of thousands per year.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/canada-keeps-malpractice-cost-in-check/1021977

Just those 2 changes would make the medical system less expensive. To paraphrase Topo everyone shouldn't make a pot of gold.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Dirt, So what if the taxes increase slightly if the total cost is reduced 25% -/+ and your total grief with insurance companies is reduced to zero and your medial quality of life is increased 1000s of %? Wouldn't you rather have an elected body in charge of healthcare than a SoB like Dollar Bill McGuire or Richard Scruchy that made billions letting people die or scamming the system? You need to get over this R idea that all gov't is bad and all chaos is good.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> I doubt in the 60s they had any idea that greed would take over the medical system.
> 
> Take out the excessive CEO/executive pay, get lawyers out of it, so Doctors don t have to pay so much in malpractice insurance. US doctors can pay 10 times as much as in Canada. Hundreds of thousands per year.
> http://www.tampabay.com/news/canada-keeps-malpractice-cost-in-check/1021977
> 
> Just those 2 changes would make the medical system less expensive. To paraphrase Topo everyone shouldn t make a pot of gold.
> 
> - RobS888


Unfortunately, it is just a few sociopaths and criminals raking it in ;-( Scruchy walked away scott free and all his CFOs went to prison!


----------



## RobS888

> Dirt, So what if the taxes increase slightly if the total cost is reduced 25% -/+ and your total grief with insurance companies is reduced to zero and your medial quality of life is increased 1000s of %? Wouldn t you rather have an elected body in charge of healthcare than a SoB like Dollar Bill McGuire or Richard Scruchy that made billions letting people die or scamming the system? You need to get over this R idea that all gov t is bad and all chaos is good.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Most R's don't seem to care what benefit others might get, if their tax dollars don't help them directly then it is excessive. That's how we end up with nuts claiming we pay the highest taxes. I don't get how the most patriotic sounding seem to care the least about their fellow countrymen. It is just a smaller scale greed.


----------



## RobS888

> I doubt in the 60s they had any idea that greed would take over the medical system.
> 
> Take out the excessive CEO/executive pay, get lawyers out of it, so Doctors don t have to pay so much in malpractice insurance. US doctors can pay 10 times as much as in Canada. Hundreds of thousands per year.
> http://www.tampabay.com/news/canada-keeps-malpractice-cost-in-check/1021977
> 
> Just those 2 changes would make the medical system less expensive. To paraphrase Topo everyone shouldn t make a pot of gold.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Unfortunately, it is just a few sociopaths and criminals raking it in ;-( Scruchy walked away scott free and all his CFOs went to prison!
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


A few that got caught. I just don't get the greed, like those city managers in CA that were taking $400,000/yr each from a city with 20,000 people. Were they surprised when they got caught and went to jail? Maybe it is greed masquerading as entitlement somehow.


----------



## DrDirt

> Dirt, So what if the taxes increase slightly if the total cost is reduced 25% -/+ and your total grief with insurance companies is reduced to zero and your medial quality of life is increased 1000s of %? Wouldn t you rather have an elected body in charge of healthcare than a SoB like Dollar Bill McGuire or Richard Scruchy that made billions letting people die or scamming the system? You need to get over this R idea that all gov t is bad and all chaos is good.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Well are you talking about free trips to the Elysium Space station for gene recoding?

How many have died waiting for VA care while they give out millions in bonuses for performance by dropping patients? OK Scrushy at Healthsouth is a dirtbag.

Don't want to go to a Medicare model any more than I would have considered putting my parents in a medicaid nursing home.

Show me the people that are retired and saying "Man I am glad I don't have Blue Cross anymore!!" "sure love the long lines and waits to see my doctor." 
Or talk to the people who lost their doctor, and cannot find a new one that will accept medicare.

Sure Medicare is DESIGNED as this retiree program. Is my cost really going down 25%? Or is this the same Obamacare promise that my insurance would go down 2500 dollars per year that never happened.

If you believe a government program will EVER lower costs… I have a bridge to sell you.
Maybe it is just Democratic Koolaid, that a bloated government run program with a history of Bail outs…. Donut hole fixes annually, will lower costs 25%.....

WOw "Uncle same is going to save me 25% on costs bu only…. *Slightly* increase taxes on some people I am supposed to hate, and I will *"1000s of % better care".*... and you say I need to get over party line fallacy?? THOUSANDS of percent better…. that is really rich!


----------



## RobS888

How much are you laughing as you type this?

"If you believe a government program will EVER lower costs… I have a bridge to sell you.
Maybe it is just Democratic Koolaid, that a bloated government run program with a history of Bail outs…. Donut hole fixes annually, will lower costs 25%....."

I hope you get some enjoyment out of it.


----------



## dbray45

Social Security - as it started out was a great idea and was designed to cover all those hourly waged folks that did not have a retirement (a standard part of most of the working people's salary until the mid to late '60s). The allocation of money as implemented, would actually give people a respectable retirement - just like the money that is paid for jury duty. In the early '50s, $12.00 a day was a normal wage.

Once the Social Security coffers started to amass some serious money (for the time) and the interest was also serious, Congress (Democrat at the time (1969 if I remember)) decided to start the IOU process and put the money into the General Fund ($60 million at the time). To compensate for the lack of funds, Congress came up with the convoluted CPI scheme that doesn't take into consideration things like cost of food. To pay back the IOUs with interest, the money would be into the trillions.

With companies having to contribute to Social Security and retirements, they slowly stopped the retirement plans because Social Security was to provide for retirement. All in all, Congress gets a great retirement plan and the the people got screwed - again and again.


----------



## RobS888

Why are members of congress able to benefit financially from their time in congress? It seems like it should be illegal to profit from any info/vote/regulation that passes your hands.


----------



## DrDirt

> How much are you laughing as you type this?
> 
> "If you believe a government program will EVER lower costs… I have a bridge to sell you.
> Maybe it is just Democratic Koolaid, that a bloated government run program with a history of Bail outs…. Donut hole fixes annually, will lower costs 25%....."
> 
> I hope you get some enjoyment out of it.
> 
> - RobS888


I am not the one who said Medicare for all will be THOUSANDS of percent better care and 25% cheaper for everyone.

Tell me about the Cost saving government (VA? GSA? Pentagon? hmmm)..... zzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm still waiting for my 2500 a year Obamacare savings.
Until that emerges - - -any claim that government will offer better service at lower cost than the private sector….Bwa ha ha ha ha ha Not just like 10% better… but THOUSANDS of percent better!!!! not my measure of government reatness.


----------



## RobS888

How is Medicare bloated?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*Dirt,* It is 1000s % better for all those who get treated in a timely manner instead of fighting their insurance company until it is too late so those treatment costs can be used to finance CEO and upper management bonuses.

Obviously you don't have a clue about Medicare. If you chose Parts A & B there is no line longer than there was pre-retirement to see your regular doctor. If you choose Medicare Advantage, you have chosen advantages for the insurance companies and the every thing you have said and worse is true. The choice is your's to make.

Your Medicade is a state issue. All the states controlled by Rs have opted out of the Obamacare operation to kill the program. They cannot afford for people to see how it works. They are willing to kill their citizens than see it operating well.

Ignorance of the programs and unconditional support for the oligarchy by 1/3 of us, US, is the real problem we face. With the Rs representing 1%, the Ds representing 9%, the rest of us, US, are not represented in Congress. That will change shortly, for the better or worse.

*David,* The problem with retirement financing is multifaceted. Reagan doubled payroll taxes to save the system because the baby boomers were going to break it. We were the first generation that had to pay our own way. To hide the deficits he was running up, Reagan moved the cash influx to the general fund to hide them from the public who thought he was God or somebody.

REagan changing the accounting rules allowing retirement programs to be corporate assets instead of liabilities allowed the scammers like Milkin & Romney, et al, to buy companies on credit, liquidate the assets, move the jobs overseas, let the junk bond holders who financed it lose their investments and leave the retirees without a defined benefit plan while raking in billions for themselves.

Another big issue is the Wall Street skimming a 50% of the lifetime returns off IRAs and 401Ks. Additionally, their scams destroy the viability of union and public employee pensions and health and welfare programs. Many books have been written on the criminal activity and corruption of Wall Street and other corporate entities. Unfortunately, the SEC and Justice department do little about it and Atty General Eric Holder even aided Chase covering their criminal activities.

I know that no authoritarian minds will ever be changed. We can only hope the uneducated, ignorant and naive will look in occasionally seeing how the cards have been stacked against them in the last 35 years. When the truth is known, hopefully, they will be inspired to become active in the process that puts America back together again.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Bringing this wealth distribution back to woodworking, Popular Woodworking is concerned about the monopoly, predatory economic policies of the last 35 years. Rightfully so, it takes at least 30 players to have competition and innovation in the marketplace.


----------



## DrDirt

> Bringing this wealth distribution back to woodworking, Popular Woodworking is concerned about the monopoly, predatory economic policies of the last 35 years. Rightfully so, it takes at least 30 players to have competition and innovation in the marketplace.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Interesting example…. yet you want a single all powerful government to decide what your medical care will be, and get rid of all competition…

You make great points, but i still don't see a pathway where Bernie gets Medicare for all Passed. So Still - I have no concerns about votin for him because that proposal which I don't like, has zero chance of becoming law - - so nothing to fear.


----------



## RobS888

Wood finishes should be a for profit business, health care shouldn't be subjected to a profit motive.

Single payer is a much better system for delivering the best health care to the most people. My doctor has 2 1/2 admin people for a sole practitioner! Most of their work is insurance related. Imagine if there was just one insurance company with a mandate to help people. We could start by reducing the age for medicare and having a public option in the ACA.

I think it is better to go into debt caring for people than killing them in really stupid wars!


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Dirt, When a leader emerges, Bernie or some other non-corporate personality, the people will demand Congress support sanity just as they did for FDR.

Before Reagan enabled the destructive forces of personal greed to take precedence over and become the driving force over all facets of American life, healthcare was mostly nonprofit for the sake of humanity just as education was. Single payer does not get rid of competition, it is the funding source that lacks a personal greed component. Anyone who could or wanted to compete with it would be willing to do so. That is why the Rs and corporate Ds kept it out of Obamacare; it would be the end of hyper inflationary excess profit taking on the backs of the chronically and terminally ill and their heirs.


----------



## DrDirt

> Wood finishes should be a for profit business, health care shouldn t be subjected to a profit motive.
> 
> Single payer is a much better system for delivering the best health care to the most people. My doctor has 2 1/2 admin people for a sole practitioner! Most of their work is insurance related. Imagine if there was just one insurance company with a mandate to help people. We could start by reducing the age for medicare and having a public option in the ACA.
> 
> I think it is better to go into debt caring for people than killing them in really stupid wars!
> 
> - RobS888


Gee talk about false equivalency…. healthcare debt vs war. Good for you!


----------



## DrDirt

> Dirt, When a leader emerges, Bernie or some other non-corporate personality, the people will demand Congress support sanity just as they did for FDR.
> 
> Before Reagan enabled the destructive forces of personal greed to take precedence over and become the driving force over all facets of American life, healthcare was mostly nonprofit for the sake of humanity just as education was. Single payer does not get rid of competition, it is the funding source that lacks a personal greed component. Anyone who could or wanted to compete with it would be willing to do so. That is why the Rs and corporate Ds kept it out of Obamacare; it would be the end of hyper inflationary excess profit taking on the backs of the chronically and terminally ill and their heirs.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


The democrats will never allow Obamacare to be discussed. Many see issues with the ACA, but it is untouchable legislation. It will continue to be. Americans havent 'demanded' anything in 50 years. Only Illegals and Black Lives matter.
What people on Wall Street were brought to justice because of Occupy Wall Street?

For Healthcare - Single payer is expected to have the effect of tamping down new innovation and investment in drugs and devices.
Cost savings will come from rationing, becauseDoctors won't take a pay cut to get what Canadian and European doctors earn.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-doctors-still-make-dramatically-less-than-u-s-counterparts-study

We will have a 2 tier system like they have in India, where you have socialized public medicine, with long lines, then you have many of the same doctors hawking their skills at private clinics.
So in the end you have EXACTLY the same problems. Crummy Medicare/medicaid public clinics, and then good facilities for the rich that can afford it or have purchased a healthcare supplemental plan to get access to decent care.

It will be like Waiting at the VA… or going to the local ER with private insurance.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Americans havent demanded anything in 50 years.


They will even if it isn't until after the second Great Republican Depression. Just wait until Congress tries to pass emergency legislation to cover the gambling losses of the megabanks when the derivative market blows up by declaring people's accounts as unsecured loans. Something will hit the fan ;-)


> What people on Wall Street were brought to justice because of Occupy Wall Street?


Nobody on Wall Street was brought to justice. There was no overwhelming barrage of letters to Congress demanding anything yet.



> For Healthcare - Single payer is expected to have the effect of tamping down new innovation and investment in drugs and devices.
> Cost savings will come from rationing, becauseDoctors won t take a pay cut to get what Canadian and European doctors earn.
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-doctors-still-make-dramatically-less-than-u-s-counterparts-study
> 
> We will have a 2 tier system like they have in India, where you have socialized public medicine, with long lines, then you have many of the same doctors hawking their skills at private clinics.
> So in the end you have EXACTLY the same problems. Crummy Medicare/medicaid public clinics, and then good facilities for the rich that can afford it or have purchased a healthcare supplemental plan to get access to decent care.
> 
> It will be like Waiting at the VA… or going to the local ER with private insurance.
> 
> - DrDirt


That remains to be seen. But single payer is not socialized medicine. It is hard to educate and debate those who do not or will not understand and comprehend the basic definitions of the terms used.

We now have a 4 tier system; the oligarchs, the well insured, the marginally insured and the uninsured. 2 tier would be an improvement.

The reason you have long waits in ER is it is full of uninsured with no where else to go. Now that the Rs have been forced to quit filibustering VA funding, it is improving, but it will take time to bring staff up to par. My brother is not having any problems with them. Matter of fact, he and his wife are quit complimentary about how well they are treated. I haven't heard of any complaints from the many retirees I know around JB Lewis McChord.


----------



## dbray45

Bob - Congress during the LBJ term started moving funds to the General Fund from Social Security. Reagan could not have done it, only Congress. By the time Reagan was in office, 16 billion had already been siphoned off.

Reagan increased it because the the Democrats had already taken too much out to keep it solvent. I have been writing letters to Congress about this since 1987.

I wrote a letter to Reagan asking him to pay back some of the IOUs instead of raising it - I had a small business at the time and the increase was very annoying.


----------



## DrDirt

> That remains to be seen. But single payer is not socialized medicine. It is hard to educate and debate those who do not or will not understand and comprehend the basic definitions of the terms used.
> 
> We now have a 4 tier system; the oligarchs, the well insured, the marginally insured and the uninsured. 2 tier would be an improvement.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Of course single payer is socialize medicine. No other way it can work. Sure they want to "officially' say it is private.
Kind of how people dishonestly claim that the US post office is private.

You cannot have the government as sole financier and decider of what care will be provided at what price, and to whom….... and then claim "but the doctors are not government workers… so it isn't socialized"

That is a Clintonesque argument about "what the definition of "Is" is."

medicare for all is socialized medicine. Anyone that thinks the uber rich won't just go to whatever private clinic they choose are delusional… just get over the fact that a Billionaire will get Concierge service. They will also get front of line service at restaurants, and hang out in the skybox like Barbara Streisand at teh DNC convention… not out on the floor with the travelling freak show.
They also arrive on thier Gulfstream V…. not Jet Blue.


----------



## DrDirt

I don't see the next generation as being mentally tough enough to manage in a global environment.

Somebody wrote "Trump 2016" on the concrete… lets curl into the fetal position and start a thumb sucking support group in our Safe Zone!"


----------



## DrDirt

Anybody wonder why we are not in the top 20 for education?


----------



## RobS888

> Wood finishes should be a for profit business, health care shouldn t be subjected to a profit motive.
> 
> Single payer is a much better system for delivering the best health care to the most people. My doctor has 2 1/2 admin people for a sole practitioner! Most of their work is insurance related. Imagine if there was just one insurance company with a mandate to help people. We could start by reducing the age for medicare and having a public option in the ACA.
> 
> I think it is better to go into debt caring for people than killing them in really stupid wars!
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Gee talk about false equivalency…. healthcare debt vs war. Good for you!
> 
> - DrDirt


One saves and one kills, definitely comparable.


----------



## RobS888

> The democrats will never allow Obamacare to be discussed. Many see issues with the ACA, but it is untouchable legislation. It will continue to be. Americans havent demanded anything in 50 years. Only Illegals and Black Lives matter.
> What people on Wall Street were brought to justice because of Occupy Wall Street?
> 
> For Healthcare - Single payer is expected to have the effect of tamping down new innovation and investment in drugs and devices.
> Cost savings will come from rationing, becauseDoctors won t take a pay cut to get what Canadian and European doctors earn.
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-doctors-still-make-dramatically-less-than-u-s-counterparts-study
> 
> We will have a 2 tier system like they have in India, where you have socialized public medicine, with long lines, then you have many of the same doctors hawking their skills at private clinics.
> So in the end you have EXACTLY the same problems. Crummy Medicare/medicaid public clinics, and then good facilities for the rich that can afford it or have purchased a healthcare supplemental plan to get access to decent care.
> 
> It will be like Waiting at the VA… or going to the local ER with private insurance.
> 
> - DrDirt


As soon as they offer a better plan we can talk… ending the ACA it isn't the solution. Maybe the Republican think tank that invented what the ACA is based on could come up with something better.

Weird, if doctors make less in Canada why do they return from the US? Massive malpractice insurance and 3,100 insurance companies to deal with might be a reason. It isn't all about money to everyone… mostly us.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2005/august/more-doctors-returning-to-canada-than-leaving-first-time-in-30-years.

Also,

Health insurance companies don't innovate, universities do most of the medical innovation. No one is close to as innovative as the US, but then again there is a huge brain drain to the US. The UK does pretty well and they have a more socialist system than Canada or Oz, so there isn't any data to support that "assertion".


----------



## RobS888

> That remains to be seen. But single payer is not socialized medicine. It is hard to educate and debate those who do not or will not understand and comprehend the basic definitions of the terms used.
> 
> We now have a 4 tier system; the oligarchs, the well insured, the marginally insured and the uninsured. 2 tier would be an improvement.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Of course single payer is socialize medicine. No other way it can work. Sure they want to "officially say it is private.
> Kind of how people dishonestly claim that the US post office is private.
> 
> You cannot have the government as sole financier and decider of what care will be provided at what price, and to whom….... and then claim "but the doctors are not government workers… so it isn t socialized"
> 
> That is a Clintonesque argument about "what the definition of "Is" is."
> 
> medicare for all is socialized medicine. Anyone that thinks the uber rich won t just go to whatever private clinic they choose are delusional… just get over the fact that a Billionaire will get Concierge service. They will also get front of line service at restaurants, and hang out in the skybox like Barbara Streisand at teh DNC convention… not out on the floor with the travelling freak show.
> They also arrive on thier Gulfstream V…. not Jet Blue.
> 
> - DrDirt


Single payer is not socialized medicine it is socialized medical insurance. Canadian doctors work for themselves, UK doctors work for the government. The UK is socialized medicine.


----------



## DrDirt

> That remains to be seen. But single payer is not socialized medicine. It is hard to educate and debate those who do not or will not understand and comprehend the basic definitions of the terms used.
> 
> We now have a 4 tier system; the oligarchs, the well insured, the marginally insured and the uninsured. 2 tier would be an improvement.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Of course single payer is socialize medicine. No other way it can work. Sure they want to "officially say it is private.
> Kind of how people dishonestly claim that the US post office is private.
> 
> You cannot have the government as sole financier and decider of what care will be provided at what price, and to whom….... and then claim "but the doctors are not government workers… so it isn t socialized"
> 
> That is a Clintonesque argument about "what the definition of "Is" is."
> 
> medicare for all is socialized medicine. Anyone that thinks the uber rich won t just go to whatever private clinic they choose are delusional… just get over the fact that a Billionaire will get Concierge service. They will also get front of line service at restaurants, and hang out in the skybox like Barbara Streisand at teh DNC convention… not out on the floor with the travelling freak show.
> They also arrive on thier Gulfstream V…. not Jet Blue.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Single payer is not socialized medicine it is socialized medical insurance. Canadian doctors work for themselves, UK doctors work for the government. The UK is socialized medicine.
> 
> - RobS888


Right…. lets see, under medicare for all, you only get to see Medicare patients. The Governmetn Medicare program adminitrator will decide what they pay, who gets treatment. There is no other source of income to the doctor. You claim that because the doctors paycheck doesn't have an HHS emblem means it is not socialized medicine.

Good luck with that.


----------



## DrDirt

> - DrDirt
> 
> As soon as they offer a better plan we can talk… ending the ACA it isn t the solution. Maybe the Republican think tank that invented what the ACA is based on could come up with something better.
> 
> Weird, if doctors make less in Canada why do they return from the US? Massive malpractice insurance and 3,100 insurance companies to deal with might be a reason. It isn t all about money to everyone… mostly us.
> http://www.pnhp.org/news/2005/august/more-doctors-returning-to-canada-than-leaving-first-time-in-30-years.
> 
> Also,
> 
> Health insurance companies don t innovate, universities do most of the medical innovation. No one is close to as innovative as the US, but then again there is a huge brain drain to the US. The UK does pretty well and they have a more socialist system than Canada or Oz, so there isn t any data to support that "assertion".
> 
> - RobS888


Never said ending ACA was the solution… however to change obamacare… means putting the ACA back on the "operating table" subject to ammendments and authorization.

Because of this. it will be kept in its present form, to avoid it getting disected by republicans.

This is why I don't believe Bernie can get a Medicare for all vote.
Not stating whether it is necessarily good nor bad. I don't support medicare for all, but I am saying because of the potential pitfalls. Democrats will guard the status quo. So Bernies plan has no chance.

Do tell me why you think there will be a new healthcare debate. I don't see it happening.

Doctors don't care about insurance companies. They like everyone else are greedy, go on junkets paid for by Pharmaceutical companies. That they hire some lackeys to handle billing is irrelevant to them, versus getting a "Canadian Paycheck"

Universities do a lot of research, but the don't make pharmaceuticals. Many are convenient labor pools where instead of paying full wages to a team of PhD and MD Researchers, they pay for a professors grad students to do the work.

When you take the money out… the grants to universities also go away. It is a double edge sword. Where does innovation come from? (not really the universities)


----------



## RobS888

> That remains to be seen. But single payer is not socialized medicine. It is hard to educate and debate those who do not or will not understand and comprehend the basic definitions of the terms used.
> 
> We now have a 4 tier system; the oligarchs, the well insured, the marginally insured and the uninsured. 2 tier would be an improvement.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Of course single payer is socialize medicine. No other way it can work. Sure they want to "officially say it is private.
> Kind of how people dishonestly claim that the US post office is private.
> 
> You cannot have the government as sole financier and decider of what care will be provided at what price, and to whom….... and then claim "but the doctors are not government workers… so it isn t socialized"
> 
> That is a Clintonesque argument about "what the definition of "Is" is."
> 
> medicare for all is socialized medicine. Anyone that thinks the uber rich won t just go to whatever private clinic they choose are delusional… just get over the fact that a Billionaire will get Concierge service. They will also get front of line service at restaurants, and hang out in the skybox like Barbara Streisand at teh DNC convention… not out on the floor with the travelling freak show.
> They also arrive on thier Gulfstream V…. not Jet Blue.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Single payer is not socialized medicine it is socialized medical insurance. Canadian doctors work for themselves, UK doctors work for the government. The UK is socialized medicine.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Right…. lets see, under medicare for all, you only get to see Medicare patients. The Governmetn Medicare program adminitrator will decide what they pay, who gets treatment. There is no other source of income to the doctor. You claim that because the doctors paycheck doesn t have an HHS emblem means it is not socialized medicine.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> - DrDirt


Sorry, but if you can affect your income by working harder it isn't socialism.


----------



## RobS888

> - DrDirt
> 
> Never said ending ACA was the solution… however to change obamacare… means putting the ACA back on the "operating table" subject to ammendments and authorization.
> 
> Because of this. it will be kept in its present form, to avoid it getting disected by republicans.
> 
> This is why I don t believe Bernie can get a Medicare for all vote.
> Not stating whether it is necessarily good nor bad. I don t support medicare for all, but I am saying because of the potential pitfalls. Democrats will guard the status quo. So Bernies plan has no chance.
> 
> Do tell me why you think there will be a new healthcare debate. I don t see it happening.
> 
> Doctors don t care about insurance companies. They like everyone else are greedy, go on junkets paid for by Pharmaceutical companies. That they hire some lackeys to handle billing is irrelevant to them, versus getting a "Canadian Paycheck"
> 
> Universities do a lot of research, but the don t make pharmaceuticals. Many are convenient labor pools where instead of paying full wages to a team of PhD and MD Researchers, they pay for a professors grad students to do the work.
> 
> When you take the money out… the grants to universities also go away. It is a double edge sword. Where does innovation come from? (not really the universities)
> 
> - DrDirt


Soon as they actually offer a better idea, I'm sure it will be listened to if it does in fact approve it. Dems aren't like republicans putting their fingers in their ears and saying "no no" in Arabic.

Your understanding of what doctors care about may be lacking data.

Governments give grant money for research. Are you under the impression surgical techniques are developed by a company? I don't know why I'm asking, you obviously don't really understand what you are talking about.


----------



## DrDirt

> Soon as they actually offer a better idea, I m sure it will be listened to if it does in fact approve it. Dems aren t like republicans putting their fingers in their ears and saying "no no" in Arabic.
> 
> Your understanding of what doctors care about may be lacking data.
> 
> Governments give grant money for research. Are you under the impression surgical techniques are developed by a company? I don t know why I m asking, you obviously don t really understand what you are talking about.
> 
> - RobS888


Sure there are NIH grants.
But take the Jarvik Heart. Jarvic was at University of Utah, and they did a couple patients… but then:
Later, Jarvik formed Symbion, Inc. to manufacture the heart, but he lost the company in a takeover. Jarvik then founded JARVIK Heart, Inc., and began work to create the Jarvik 2000, a lifetime ventricular assist device.

These things do not become available to the general public (actually enterin the market)... nor Supported and added to any "approved vs Experimental" treatment schedules under the government. Your faith in government imposed marketing and develpment are laughable rather than laudable.

You have no idea how industry and markets actually operate, versus a university research project.

Bernie (from his chair in the whitehouse) will not get congress to take up this fight any more nor better than he has gotten the Senate to initiate this. If he really believes it is right, where is his legislation as a 30 year LEGISLATOR? He will somehow use executive Fiat to pass the legislation from the oval office?

This has nothing to do with Republicans coming up with new or better ideas. You are just Pettifogging.

*Do tell, why the ACA will be brought up for modification/ammendment by the dems. in hopes to get to a Medicare for all or Single payer system*

Doctors, like everyone else are selfish, or at least "me first" folks just like yourself.. They do help people, do the whole "doctors without borders stuff" but that is because (AFTER) they are Rich, so going on tax deductible junkets is no big deal when you make half a million a year and write off trips to South America.

If the pay sucked, then no way would someone do (typically) 12 years of college (4-5 for BS, 4 for Med school and another 3-5 for residency and specialization).


----------



## RobS888

Thanks for proving my point, many companies were started to capitalize on ideas developed at a university, that is still educational research.

When you bold a strawman do you think I have to answer it? It means nothing to me.

Why did you *decide* that I'm selfish or a "me first" type folk? I'm willing to pay more to help others get healthcare. I don't complain about taxes, I think they are low. You guys are the ones gripping about anything that costs you a penny. Very immature posture.

I suspect government money is behind most research done in this country. Through grants or tax cuts the tax payer funds the research, I think that is great. Your ideas or at least what you post is pretty funny.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*David,* LBJ, borrowed or stole some funds. Reagan moved the FCIA payroll tax revenue income commingling with other tax collection to cover the deficits his tax breaks for the oligarchy caused. They all have advanced the scam until Bush the Dumbest used special appropriations for his illegal wars to hide that cost off budget. Obama was blamed for running up the deficient when he brought the special appropriation into the budget for an honest look at spending.

*Dirt,* Bernie may not fix anything, but at least he has raised awareness and started an historic revolution with unprecedented turn out at his events. He has inspired a whole new generation of voters. Lets hear an alternative to ACA. No, just saying "No" and letting them die and continuing double digit inflation is not an alternative. That is the problem.


----------



## DrDirt

> Thanks for proving my point, many companies were started to capitalize on ideas developed at a university, that is still educational research.
> 
> When you bold a strawman do you think I have to answer it? It means nothing to me.
> 
> Why did you *decide* that I m selfish or a "me first" type folk?
> 
> 
> I m willing to pay more to help others get healthcare. I don t complain about taxes, I think they are low. *
> 
> - RobS888


Yes ideas - - like Zuckerberg developed facebook while he was in college…. But what the joe consumer (you or I) experience or get as facebook is not University research.

Same with medical devices - sure people come up with ideas while they are at a university. But the commercialized and available treatments you wish to receive at teh hospital for You me your kids your parents… isn't coming from the University.

How do the ideas come to fruition in the absence of venture capital or any potential return on assets?

I don't have faith that Paul Ryan or Senator Joni Ernst and the others will ensure that medicare for all isn't stopped by a government shutdown.
You seem/are confident that the government will always take care of you. (or that they even give a rats ass) I think they are incapable.

Ever notice when there is a budget crunch… it is Medicare, and SS that is in trouble… never SNAP payments, nor EBT. Funny isn't it?
How Obamacare really works -





Your willingness to pay more is because you have "more than you need".... meaning that you are willing to share your EXCESS.

That is ME FIRST… you got your needs handled… then can be generous with excess. This is the way it is with everyone - they take care of themselves and their families before they start talking about how they need to give more to their neighbors.


----------



## DrDirt

> *Dirt,* Bernie may not fix anything, but at least he has raised awareness and started an historic revolution with unprecedented turn out at his events. He has inspired a whole new generation of voters. Lets hear an alternative to ACA. No, just saying "No" and letting them die and continuing double digit inflation is not an alternative. That is the problem.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I feel the same about Trump driving the issues of immigration, and trade imbalance… general failures of Free Trade Deals the Dems have championed as having screwed us over.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/upshot/what-donald-trump-gets-pretty-much-right-and-completely-wrong-about-china.html

It is fun how dems try to ignore the fact that Bernie for the Dems is just as 'anti establishment' as Trump is to the republicans.

the Dems just already have teh Superdelegate card to be sure that Bernie never sees the big stage..


----------



## RobS888

> Yes ideas - - like Zuckerberg developed facebook while he was in college…. But what the joe consumer (you or I) experience or get as facebook is not University research.
> 
> Your willingness to pay more is because you have "more than you need".... meaning that you are willing to share your EXCESS.
> 
> That is ME FIRST… you got your needs handled… then can be generous with excess. This is the way it is with everyone - they take care of themselves and their families before they start talking about how they need to give more to their neighbors.
> - DrDirt


2 things:

First:
Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? Universities invent far more than companies, companies commercialize.
Here is an example:

Google began in January 1996 as a research project by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were both PhD students at Stanford University in Stanford, California. You've heard of them, eh?

Second: 
Are you really claiming on a wealth distribution thread that:

"That is ME FIRST… you got your needs handled… then can be generous with excess. *This is the way it is with everyone* - they take care of themselves and their families before they start talking about how they need to give more to their neighbors."

LoL! Everyone except the rich. Do you not read these before posting?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*It is fun how dems try to ignore the fact that Bernie for the Dems is just as 'anti establishment' as Trump is to the republicans.

the Dems just already have the Superdelegate card to be sure that Bernie never sees the big stage..*

The establishment Rs represent the 1%. The establishment Ds represent about 9%. Nobody represents the rest of us, US. ;-( Possibly difficult to see that from the far right.

Judging from the comments on the super delegates Facebook pages in WA today, they can probably expect primary challenges when they are up for reelection ;-) That reality and probability may change a few minds ;-)) Go Bernie!


----------



## DrDirt

> Yes ideas - - like Zuckerberg developed facebook while he was in college…. But what the joe consumer (you or I) experience or get as facebook is not University research.
> 
> Your willingness to pay more is because you have "more than you need".... meaning that you are willing to share your EXCESS.
> 
> That is ME FIRST… you got your needs handled… then can be generous with excess. This is the way it is with everyone - they take care of themselves and their families before they start talking about how they need to give more to their neighbors.
> - DrDirt
> 
> 2 things:
> 
> First:
> Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? Universities invent far more than companies, companies commercialize.
> Here is an example:
> 
> Google began in January 1996 as a research project by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they were both PhD students at Stanford University in Stanford, California. You ve heard of them, eh?
> 
> Second:
> Are you really claiming on a wealth distribution thread that:
> 
> "That is ME FIRST… you got your needs handled… then can be generous with excess. *This is the way it is with everyone* - they take care of themselves and their families before they start talking about how they need to give more to their neighbors."
> 
> LoL! Everyone except the rich. Do you not read these before posting?
> 
> - RobS888


You need to think it through, and recognize that like facebook at Harvard, Google developed as a student project.

However what did Stanford do to Launch Google?
WHat did Harvard do or get from Facebook.

Yes research happens at universities - - but Actual Launches of PRODUCTS CONSUMERS USE… has little/nothing to do with the University.

How do ideas come to Market? That is not the university.
You seem to comprehend little about basic economics, and capatal.

It is the same challenge for Medical research.


----------



## RobS888

> You need to think it through, and recognize that like facebook at Harvard, Google developed as a student project.
> 
> However what did Stanford do to Launch Google?
> WHat did Harvard do or get from Facebook.
> 
> Yes research happens at universities - - but Actual Launches of PRODUCTS CONSUMERS USE… has little/nothing to do with the University.
> 
> How do ideas come to Market? That is not the university.
> You seem to comprehend little about basic economics, and capatal.
> 
> It is the same challenge for Medical research.
> 
> - DrDirt


You are correct, I have little understanding of capatal, in fact I'm not sure what it is!

Admit it, universities pay for and foster exploration of ideas, something very few companies do.

You're being wrong, again, in no way supports your assertion that "For Healthcare - Single payer is expected to have the effect of tamping down new innovation and investment in drugs and devices."

The ideas come from research and the environment at universities. In many cases those same students and professors start the companies. My company was started like that and is still tightly tied to the professors that started it, even though they don't own it any more.


----------



## DrDirt

> You need to think it through, and recognize that like facebook at Harvard, Google developed as a student project.
> 
> However what did Stanford do to Launch Google?
> WHat did Harvard do or get from Facebook.
> 
> Yes research happens at universities - - but Actual Launches of PRODUCTS CONSUMERS USE… has little/nothing to do with the University.
> 
> How do ideas come to Market? That is not the university.
> You seem to comprehend little about basic economics, and capatal.
> 
> It is the same challenge for Medical research.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> You are correct, I have little understanding of capatal, in fact I m not sure what it is!
> 
> Admit it, universities pay for and foster exploration of ideas, something very few companies do.
> 
> You re being wrong, again, in no way supports your assertion that "For Healthcare - Single payer is expected to have the effect of tamping down new innovation and investment in drugs and devices."
> 
> The ideas come from research and the environment at universities. In many cases those same students and professors start the companies. My company was started like that and is still tightly tied to the professors that started it, even though they don t own it any more.
> 
> - RobS888


The breadth of your ignorance is staggering. (you caught a spelling error.. congratulations you get a smiley on your paper)
WHen your argument is brought down to "you spelled capital wrong"... you already lost.

If you knew anything you would know how companies farm out basic research in the form or research grants.

Weren't you arguing how climate skepticism research is funded by big oil?

Cant have it both ways. What products have universities *brought to market*? Yes lots of IDEAS come from universities… but little to NO commercial products ever do.
That is the problem - the government doesn't bring anything to market. Give us an example of your point of view ever happening..

(Universities pay for almost nothing… it comes from NIH, NSF, Military grants, and Industry partnerships)

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays

Almost 75% of U.S. clinical trials in medicine are paid for by private companies. ( Facts are stubborn things) so Yes your government system would suffer a tamping down of research and innovation.


----------



## RobS888

Thank you for the proof that the government pays for most research and agreeing that universities *are* invention incubators.

I don't follow though, why you argue my points for me? You contention was that: "For Healthcare - Single payer is expected to have the effect of tamping down new innovation and investment in drugs and devices."

I still see absolutely no proof or even a cogent argument to support this statement, I did see you chase your tail around and prove my points.

"*Yes, but*" is not considered a valid tactic after grade 5.

Please stay on point and out of any of your ubiquitous rabbit holes and prove your assertion, that is all. I don't have to prove anything since your link's first paragraph does it so well for me.

P.S. Clinical trials are a federal requirement to prove a product does what it is claimed to do and that it is safe. It is not basic research at all.


----------



## DrDirt

> Thank you for the proof that the government pays for most research and agreeing that universities *are* invention incubators.
> 
> I don t follow though, why you argue my points for me? You contention was that: "For Healthcare - Single payer is expected to have the effect of tamping down new innovation and investment in drugs and devices."
> 
> I still see absolutely no proof or even a cogent argument to support this statement, I did see you chase your tail around and prove my points.
> 
> "*Yes, but*" is not considered a valid tactic after grade 5.
> 
> Please stay on point and out of any of your ubiquitous rabbit holes and prove your assertion, that is all. I don t have to prove anything since your link s first paragraph does it so well for me.
> 
> P.S. Clinical trials are a federal requirement to prove a product does what it is claimed to do and that it is safe. It is not basic research at all.
> 
> - RobS888


Because my point is about health tech that will actually make it to joe consumer.

WHen you make it government run… those "incubator projects" no longer get to market. Not that ideas don't happen.

Your example for Google. What did Stanford University BRING TO MARKET?
You need investors, Capital, etc. ANd to get funding there needs to be a Payback period and Return on investment. Those things would suffer.

Insurance is expensive because healthcare is expensive not the other way around. Your premiums are high because of the bills they are paying.
SOmewhere we decided that Health Insurance (unlike say Car Insurance) must pay for EVERYTHING, and provide free birth control for nuns.
My AUto policy doens't pau for tires, brakes, new muffler, and carwashes.


----------



## RobS888

> Because my point is about health tech that will actually make it to joe consumer.
> 
> WHen you make it government run… those "incubator projects" no longer get to market. Not that ideas don t happen.
> 
> Your example for Google. What did Stanford University BRING TO MARKET?
> You need investors, Capital, etc. ANd to get funding there needs to be a Payback period and Return on investment. Those things would suffer.
> 
> Insurance is expensive because healthcare is expensive not the other way around. Your premiums are high because of the bills they are paying.
> SOmewhere we decided that Health Insurance (unlike say Car Insurance) must pay for EVERYTHING, and provide free birth control for nuns.
> My AUto policy doens t pau for tires, brakes, new muffler, and carwashes.
> 
> - DrDirt


It won't be government run it will be paid for by the government. Not at all the same thing.

How can you possibly predict that incubator projects won't go from the University to become startups?

Big deal if payback suffers, they don't have a right to the maximum anymore than we do. If they make 1% over the bank they should be happy.


----------



## DrDirt

> It won t be government run it will be paid for by the government. Not at all the same thing.


Ummm yeah, sure it isn't…. just like the Post Office is private. Reality would beg to differ.
When the government decides what gets paid for… and for how much, to whom and when. That is Government run. It doesn't require the doctors to pass the civil service exam. You choose not to see that issue.



> How can you possibly predict that incubator projects won t go from the University to become startups?


They COULD… but they then need CAPITAL… and a business case to the bankers to encourage taking that risk, and what the payback period is.
So when you have an idea that is going to operate at Socialistic Margins, or even run "in the hole" (Since you said debt for healthcare is better than wars) then I "can possibly predict" that there will be FEWER.. startups.
So like I said before - there will be the effect of tamping down innovation…. meaning products and services *coming to market* to make life better for people…. not that nobody will be able to write a Thesis on a project.



> Big deal if payback suffers, they don t have a right to the maximum anymore than we do. If they make 1% over the bank they should be happy.
> 
> - RobS888


That is the same as the second point…. No Payback = no capital investment. Sorry, but people don't invest for your glory of a 1% payback over the current 1% federal discout rate
https://www.frbdiscountwindow.org/en/Pages/Discount-Rates/Current-Discount-Rates.aspx
We expect retirement savings to be LOWER risk and be around 4-7% year over year. Investing in Startups is much riskier, and so the return is EXPECTED to be higher.
If you only want 1% return, and the risk to lose it all more than half the time…. just go to Vegas 
I suspect that even you would be screaming if your 401K only paid 1%... and you would look for 'Better Investments'.... same with startups and payback. They are not going to do this for a 1% ROI.


----------



## RobS888

> It won t be government run it will be paid for by the government. Not at all the same thing.
> 
> Ummm yeah, sure it isn t…. just like the Post Office is private. Reality would beg to differ.
> When the government decides what gets paid for… and for how much, to whom and when. That is Government run. It doesn t require the doctors to pass the civil service exam. You choose not to see that issue.
> 
> How can you possibly predict that incubator projects won t go from the University to become startups?
> 
> They COULD… but they then need CAPITAL… and a business case to the bankers to encourage taking that risk, and what the payback period is.
> So when you have an idea that is going to operate at Socialistic Margins, or even run "in the hole" (Since you said debt for healthcare is better than wars) then I "can possibly predict" that there will be FEWER.. startups.
> So like I said before - there will be the effect of tamping down innovation…. meaning products and services *coming to market* to make life better for people…. not that nobody will be able to write a Thesis on a project.
> 
> Big deal if payback suffers, they don t have a right to the maximum anymore than we do. If they make 1% over the bank they should be happy.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> That is the same as the second point…. No Payback = no capital investment. Sorry, but people don t invest for your glory of a 1% payback over the current 1% federal discout rate
> https://www.frbdiscountwindow.org/en/Pages/Discount-Rates/Current-Discount-Rates.aspx
> We expect retirement savings to be LOWER risk and be around 4-7% year over year. Investing in Startups is much riskier, and so the return is EXPECTED to be higher.
> If you only want 1% return, and the risk to lose it all more than half the time…. just go to Vegas
> I suspect that even you would be screaming if your 401K only paid 1%... and you would look for Better Investments …. same with startups and payback. They are not going to do this for a 1% ROI.
> 
> - DrDirt


You are definitely entitled to your opinion.


----------



## DrDirt

> You are definitely entitled to your opinion.
> 
> - RobS888


Yeah for now… soon enough - Obama will be censoring our posts (well maybe not yours)... the same way he censors the French President.
http://nypost.com/2016/04/02/white-house-doctors-video-to-remove-islamic-terrorism-quote

I am looking forward to seeing how many American Political powerbrokers get exposed in the latest Wikileaks scandal in Panama for money laundering.


----------



## RobS888

> You are definitely entitled to your opinion.
> 
> - RobS888
> Yeah for now… soon enough - Obama will be censoring our posts (well maybe not yours)... the same way he censors the French President.
> http://nypost.com/2016/04/02/white-house-doctors-video-to-remove-islamic-terrorism-quote
> 
> I am looking forward to seeing how many American Political powerbrokers get exposed in the latest Wikileaks scandal in Panama for money laundering.
> 
> - DrDirt


Yawn, don't be afraid puppy, they aren't coming to get you. I've noticed some sites are doing away with anonymous postings. I think this is good as the anonymity seems to remove the last vestiges of civility.

My wife told me this morning there is remarkably little on US companies and citizens, but that may be because we have much better ways of hiding money.


----------



## DrDirt

WOW…. give credit where Credit is due!.... Obama actually got tax fraud right!! Where was this version of the president for the last 7 years?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/04/06/pfizer-and-allergan-call-off-their-merger-after-u-s-move-to-block-inversions/


----------



## DrDirt

Those that feel taxes are too low….

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/americans-spend-more-on-taxes-than-food-clothing-housing-combined/article/2587799

*The report's key findings include:*

- *Collectively, Americans will spend more on taxes in 2016 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.*

- Americans will pay $3.3 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of almost $5.0 trillion, or 31 percent of the nation's income.


----------



## RobS888

> Those that feel taxes are too low….
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/americans-spend-more-on-taxes-than-food-clothing-housing-combined/article/2587799
> 
> *The report s key findings include:*
> 
> - *Collectively, Americans will spend more on taxes in 2016 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.*
> 
> - Americans will pay $3.3 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of almost $5.0 trillion, or 31 percent of the nation s income.
> 
> - DrDirt


Washington examiner is a crap "newspaper" I used to have pictures of their "newspaper" clogging the sewer grates because no one wanted their free crap. I had a really hard time convincing them to stop tossing it in my driveway.

You want a big military you gots to pay the price.

I just paid my taxes and they are not more than food, clothing, and housing. That is a ridiculous quote from a ridiculous "newspaper".


----------



## DrDirt

> Washington examiner is a crap "newspaper" I used to have pictures of their "newspaper" clogging the sewer grates because no one wanted their free crap. I had a really hard time convincing them to stop tossing it in my driveway.
> 
> You want a big military you gots to pay the price.
> 
> I just paid my taxes and they are not more than food, clothing, and housing. That is a ridiculous quote from a ridiculous "newspaper".
> 
> - RobS888


Typical 'shoot the messenger' lib.

The Examiner didn't do the study… they just reported/ 'rebroadcast' the outcome.
this organization did the study… every year, when they tell you 'how many days into the year, you work before you are out from under the taxes

This year it is April 24
http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax-freedom-day-2016-april-24

Sheesh… you probably wouldn't believe Michael Phelps got a gold medal in swimming, if you saw the race on the "wrong channel".... even while you watch him get the medal on live TV and stand there singing along to the National Anthem…. you would check the logo in the corner of the screen.

Release your hate, come back from the dark side!


----------



## RobS888

Please, I told you about tax freedom day earlier in this thread when you claimed we paid higher taxes than Canadians. Just sad puppy.

I know people that spend thousands every month on their mortgage, but I doubt they pay $24,000 in taxes.

Anyway, as you have been shown many times, we are nowhere near the highest taxed, so quite whining.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Sheesh… you probably wouldn t believe Michael Phelps got a gold medal in swimming, if you saw the race on the "wrong channel".... even while you watch him get the medal on live TV and stand there singing along to the National Anthem…. you would check the logo in the corner of the screen.
> 
> - DrDirt


If it was on Faux News Network I would certainly be skeptical. People who watch Fox regularly are less informed about world events than those who watch no news.


----------



## RobS888

> Sheesh… you probably wouldn t believe Michael Phelps got a gold medal in swimming, if you saw the race on the "wrong channel".... even while you watch him get the medal on live TV and stand there singing along to the National Anthem…. you would check the logo in the corner of the screen.
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> If it was on Faux News Network I would certainly be skeptical. People who watch Fox regularly are less informed about world events than those who watch no news.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Even the daily show viewers beat fox viewers. 
Hmmm, if lower intelligence people are drawn to conservatism and they only watch fox it would definitely explain why fox viewers are clueless.

I saw where fox was POed that the president wants retirement financial planners to think of the client above all and disclose if they get a commission or some other benefit for selling the stock or fund.

How is full disclosure bad? Oh yeah, the scumbag can't double dip without you knowing.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Wall Street and the Banksters have been fighting retirement financial planners placing their clients interests above their own greedy agenda for at least a year under Obamma's proposal. It is little wonder Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein says Bernie Sanders is trouble for Wall Street and anyone else that is a little out of line.

The Street people, Wall that is, started fraud as a regular and normal business model back under Clinton, maybe even before that. One of the issues causing me to leave the R party was their plank in the party platform saying that fraud was a market risk, not a crime. The Feds bringing a 98 year old federal judge out of retirement to dismiss all the class actions against Merrill Lynch for their criminal activities exposed by Eliot Spitzer, NY Atty General under Bush the Dumbest was a factor too. Of course, Bush the Dumbest's justice department allowing Enron to use the federal courts to enforce contracts negotiated while they illegally manipulated the energy markets should have been a scandal that dwarfed the previous epitome of presidential scandals, the Tea Pot Dome. If Bush the Dumbest hadn't told his biographer in 1998 he was going to invade Iraq, then had secret meetings in the White House to divide up their oil fields among 4 oil exs, and then lied to invade, the Enron scandal would have been news. Lying to start the illegal wars dwarfed that story. All this can be found on Goggle or NPR and Thom Hartmann recites the crimes of Bush the Dumbest regularly. Thom doesn't print or say anything he cannot verify.


----------



## RobS888

It just blows my mind that they acknowledge what is happening, but want to let it continue, like we are just cattle to be fed upon.


----------



## DrDirt

> Please, I told you about tax freedom day earlier in this thread when you claimed we paid higher taxes than Canadians. Just sad puppy.
> 
> - RobS888


Ahhh the lying returns…. go back and reread cupcake… you tried to sell that lie before

I always pointed out the cost of socialized medicine and the high taxes in canada.

The Corportate tax rate is higher here, which is why The Burger King / Hortons Merger was more attractive to move to Canada for an "inversion"

We are talking about PERSONAL income taxes. Tax freedom includes ALL taxes paid. Not just what the Federal rates are.
Bet if you look at your Gross vs net Pay… and consider the Sales taxes you then pay on goods you buy with what you have left… and Property Tax on your home and cars

The idea that we spend ~1/3 of our income on Taxes… is believable.

But without discussing what your 'doubts are' regarding taxes and costs…do show where their numbers are wrong.

(P.S. Canada's Tax Freedom Day is June 6)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day


----------



## DrDirt

> Lying to start the illegal wars dwarfed that story. All this can be found on Goggle or NPR and Thom Hartmann recites the crimes of Bush the Dumbest regularly. Thom doesn t print or say anything he cannot verify.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Now we have Google + Facebook toppling governments - - like Egypt
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mohamed-a-elerian/revolution-20-how-one-goo_b_3333340.html


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Lying to start the illegal wars dwarfed that story. All this can be found on Goggle or NPR and Thom Hartmann recites the crimes of Bush the Dumbest regularly. Thom doesn t print or say anything he cannot verify.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor
> 
> Now we have Google + Facebook toppling governments - - like Egypt
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mohamed-a-elerian/revolution-20-how-one-goo_b_3333340.html
> 
> - DrDirt


Bernie is working on that now.

Bush the Dumbest said his reason for toppling Sadam and destroying Iraq was to become a popular wartime president with lots of political capital. He was going to use that to privatize Social Security. Fortunately, for us, US, he was not able to accomplish the later. His pals on Wall Street must be greatly disappointed they are unable to get their grimy little paws on America's last big cash cow.

Unfortunately for the Iraqi people and the entire region, Bush the Dumbest was not able to comprehend the consequences of his actions bringing the highest level of violence to the Middle East in world history. Reconvening court in the Hauge would certainly be in order, but is unlikely to happen ;-( America is on track to possibly electing a dumber president than Bush the Dumbest ;-(


----------



## RobS888

> Please, I told you about tax freedom day earlier in this thread when you claimed we paid higher taxes than Canadians. Just sad puppy.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> Ahhh the lying returns…. go back and reread cupcake… you tried to sell that lie before
> 
> I always pointed out the cost of socialized medicine and the high taxes in canada.
> 
> The Corportate tax rate is higher here, which is why The Burger King / Hortons Merger was more attractive to move to Canada for an "inversion"
> 
> We are talking about PERSONAL income taxes. Tax freedom includes ALL taxes paid. Not just what the Federal rates are.
> Bet if you look at your Gross vs net Pay… and consider the Sales taxes you then pay on goods you buy with what you have left… and Property Tax on your home and cars
> 
> The idea that we spend ~1/3 of our income on Taxes… is believable.
> 
> But without discussing what your doubts are regarding taxes and costs…do show where their numbers are wrong.
> 
> (P.S. Canada s Tax Freedom Day is June 6)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day
> 
> - DrDirt


I'm gonna start calling you Ted now because of the lyin'. 
The proof is in the thread puppy, you claimed we paid some of the highest in the world and I said not only don't we have that high of taxes, but we aren't even the highest in North America. You tried to show we paid more than Canadians. Is the lyin genetic with you?

I don't doubt the 1/3, just don't believe taxes are more than food, clothing, and housing as* I posted*!

Enjoy your rabbit hole, puppy.


----------



## DrDirt

> The proof is in the thread puppy, you claimed we paid some of the highest in the world and I said not only don t we have that high of taxes, but we aren t even the highest in North America. You tried to show we paid more than Canadians. Is the lyin genetic with you?
> 
> I don t doubt the 1/3, just don t believe taxes are more than food, clothing, and housing as* I posted*!
> 
> Enjoy your rabbit hole, puppy.
> 
> - RobS888


All you have to do is Prove it Scooter. Show me… for PERSONAL/individuals taxes.. not Corporate rates…otherwise "speak into the Mic"


----------



## RobS888

> The proof is in the thread puppy, you claimed we paid some of the highest in the world and I said not only don t we have that high of taxes, but we aren t even the highest in North America. You tried to show we paid more than Canadians. Is the lyin genetic with you?
> 
> I don t doubt the 1/3, just don t believe taxes are more than food, clothing, and housing as* I posted*!
> 
> Enjoy your rabbit hole, puppy.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> All you have to do is Prove it Scooter. Show me… for PERSONAL/individuals taxes.. not Corporate rates…otherwise "speak into the Mic"
> 
> - DrDirt


Prove what exactly Ted? That Canadian's personal taxes are more than ours? Didn't you just prove that for me with the tax freedom days? Last I checked June is later than April.

Seriously, what is the point? We all know you struggle with the truth Ted.


----------



## DrDirt

> The proof is in the thread puppy, you claimed we paid some of the highest in the world and I said not only don t we have that high of taxes, but we aren t even the highest in North America. You tried to show we paid more than Canadians. Is the lyin genetic with you?
> 
> I don t doubt the 1/3, just don t believe taxes are more than food, clothing, and housing as* I posted*!
> 
> Enjoy your rabbit hole, puppy.
> 
> - RobS888
> 
> All you have to do is Prove it Scooter. Show me… for PERSONAL/individuals taxes.. not Corporate rates…otherwise "speak into the Mic"
> 
> - DrDirt
> 
> Prove what exactly Ted? That Canadian s personal taxes are more than ours? Didn t you just prove that for me with the tax freedom days? Last I checked June is later than April.
> 
> Seriously, what is the point? We all know you struggle with the truth Ted.
> 
> - RobS888


No Flounder… that I claim Canada pays lower taxes than the USA. You had that discussion months ago with Gerald. Maybe you need to start taking Aricept.

Canada's total tax bill is higher. In a breakdown, some individual items are lower there, but overall they pay more.
Your lies to claim I said otherwise are as innacurate as ever. But I guess you just start lying, when you are losing on facts.

So still - - prove it, or speak into the mic.


----------



## RobS888

Sure Ted,

We ALL know you have no attachment to the truth. I have proven it so many times it isn't worth my time any more.

I did enjoy proving how you lied by changing a wiki post to match your theory. I can't think of an underhanded approach to a discussion you haven't taken. Your stalking claim to change the topic was pretty funny as well.


----------



## DrDirt

> Sure Ted,
> 
> We ALL know you have no attachment to the truth. I have proven it so many times it isn t worth my time any more.
> 
> I did enjoy proving how you lied by changing a wiki post to match your theory. I can t think of an underhanded approach to a discussion you haven t taken. Your stalking claim to change the topic was pretty funny as well.
> 
> - RobS888


Deflect deflect.. you sound like a former soviet.

Too small a man to admit your accusations are based on nothing… which is why you cannot support it.

So you try to talk about other issues …. Come on show the proof.. you can do it!!... oh wait,,, NO you cant!
Like Harry Reid saying Romney never paid taxes for 10 years. (but since he was on the senate floor, he can lie at will…. no legal repercussions)

So come on Dingy Harry. Do your digging


----------



## Woodcut1

The red dot on post 16 probably represents the non working people the government supports through welfare and a mass of other give away programs. If your looking at the problem of wealth distribution and use charts like are shown here you need to know the data represents across the board. If you give someone a little for free because they refuse to work well that is all they will have is a little thus the red dot. If your complaining about wealth distribution then I would need to know how much you have and also how much you are willing to give up to others before I will listen to you. I am getting so tired of the give me people, the complainers, the don't call me no names people, the politically correct people, the Epa controllers, the Ira mess on and on. I want to know, we're you in the military if you were qualified, did you work all your life seeing your hard yearned tax dollars going to cheaters and scammers on welfare, did you pay year after year into SS only to hear that it is an intitlment. These are the things we should be chasing. Not our jealous rage because Gates makes more than most of us. Lastly do you send you garbage data over to China who is producing a record number of billionaire while the rest of the people go hungry. Do you buy their products and support them while you put down your own country. Foolish people get so much attention these days and this post string proves that.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## DanYo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Gilbert_(businessman)

dude is buying yahoo
5 17 16


----------



## DanYo

Tax hikes on the wealthy: Good or bad for growth?

Comment 461 Shares Tweet Stumble Email

Conservatives have argued for decades that tax cuts are the key to economic prosperity. And the tax plan presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump is pushing would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners by an average of approximately $1.3 million per year, embracing that conservative point of view.

On the other hand, Democrats such as front-runner Hillary Clinton take another approach. Clinton says she'll reform the U.S. tax code so that the wealthiest pay their fair share. The response from Republicans has been predictable: They argue that such a tax plan will lower growth and harm the economy.

Do the conservative arguments against tax increases have any merit? Or are they, as Democrats claim, a way to serve an ideological goal of smaller government and reward wealthy Republican donors? Let's take a closer look.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy will harm economic growth: This argument is made frequently, along with the claim that increasing growth will lift all boats, but the evidence doesn't support either claim. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and John Bates Clark medalist Emmanuel Saez have noted, since the 1970s no clear correlation exists between economic growth and top tax-rate cuts across Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.

As for the trickle-down argument, this claim falls apart when you examine what happened to the distribution of income after tax cuts for the wealthy enacted during the Bush administration. Income of those at the top went up substantially, with no corresponding gain for those lower in the income distribution.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy won't solve the income inequality problem: Higher taxes for the highest earners may not solve the problem, but it would help. Again, consider the tax cuts on the wealthy enacted during the Bush years. In addition to not generating a positive trickle-down economic growth effect, those cuts contributed to the stunning increase in income inequality in recent decades. Raising taxes would have the opposite effect.

Tax increases will blunt the incentive to invest in new businesses: Decreasing taxes did not increase economic growth, so why would increasing taxes to levels they've been at in the past be harmful? In addition, it's hard to believe that a reduction in expected aftertax income of, say, 10 percent from $10 million to $9 million, or even from $300,000 to $270,000, would cause someone to pass on the investment opportunity.

The wealthy will move to other countries to avoid the tax increase: A recent study examined the propensity of the rich to move between U.S. states in response to state tax increases. The lead author of the study, Cristobal Young of Stanford University, summarized the results by saying, "The most striking finding in our study is how little elites seem willing to move to exploit tax advantages across state lines."

If the wealthy aren't willing to move between states in response to tax differences, it seems even more unlikely that would undertake the far more difficult task of moving to another country.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy won't increase tax revenue: The Laffer curve argument that increasing taxes will cause the wealthy to pursue tax-avoidance strategies or forego profitable opportunities to the extent that tax revenues actually fall has been examined again and again, and the message is clear. Tax avoidance may increase somewhat, but nowhere near enough to cause tax revenues to fall.

Diamond and Saez have looked at this closely, and they found that the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50 percent to 70 percent (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes).

Less will be donated to private charities: Would tax increases cause the wealthy to reduce their charitable giving? Research on this question suggests it's the other way around. Back in the 1970s, when the top rate of federal income tax was 70 percent, wealthier Americans (those with incomes of over $500,000 in 2007 dollars) gave around twice as much of their money to charity than they did in 2007, when the top rate had fallen to 35 percent.

Why does this happen? When taxes are higher, the benefit of the tax deduction for charitable giving is also higher, so people tend to increase the amount they give. In addition, the wealthy give their biggest donations almost exclusively to universities and colleges, hospitals and medical centers, and arts institutions. They rarely make large gifts to social-service groups, grass-roots organizations or nonprofit groups that focus on the poor or minorities.

So to the extent that the increased tax revenue is used to support these groups, social welfare could benefit.

The wealthy deserve what they earn: This argument assumes that they're paid according to their contribution to society. But in a world of monopoly power, regulatory capture and asymmetric power relationships in bargaining over the wage and profit shares of business earnings, the presumption that those at the top of the income distribution earned their income flies out the window.

If we assume that fairness is defined as keeping what you contribute to the social good (what economists would call the value of their marginal product), and no more than that, such fairness would compel us to take the income the wealthy earn in excess of their contribution to the social good.

Where should that income go? Substantial evidence shows that wage earners have earned less than their marginal products in recent decades. So under the principle that people should have an income equal to what they contribute, fairness would suggest that we redistribute to underpaid wage earners some of the income the wealthy earn in excess of their contribution, either through direct payments, tax adjustments or spending on social programs that benefit lower-income households.

It's a tax on small businesses: The number of small-business owners that would be affected by a tax increase on incomes over $250,000 is fairly small. For example, an analysis of President Obama's proposal in 2009 to increase the rates for those in the top two tax brackets would affect only 1.9 percent of small businesses.

Many of those who would be affected are investors in the businesses who play no role at all in day-to-day management. And they could always escape the tax completely by filing as corporations. You also have to wonder how many people would choose to give up their businesses if their incomes were only, say, $350,000 due to a tax increase.

Arguments about the size of government and the taxes needed to support the many things that government does are certainly fair game for politicians. But the argument that tax increases on the wealthy will cause substantial harm to the economy does not withstand a close look at the evidence.


----------



## dbray45

I think that every person and company should pay 10% of income right off the top. Then everybody will pay their fair share. Companies can take it out the wages - no filing. For most people, they will pay less. Some companies like GE will get a surprise as will Buffet. Then everyone will be in the same boat as everyone else.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## TexasTodd

Arguments about the size of government and the taxes needed to support the many things that government does are certainly fair game for politicians. But the argument that tax increases on the wealthy will cause any benefit to the economy does not withstand a close look at the evidence.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Take a look at the 20th century up to 1980 when the US was the world's creditor and the world's exporter of finished consumer goods. We got tax cuts. The US is now the world's debtor and importer to cheap junk ;-((


----------



## TexasTodd

If we assume that fairness is defined as keeping what you contribute to the social good (what economists would call the value of their marginal product), and no more than that, such fairness would compel us to take the income the wealthy earn in excess of their contribution to the social good.
Just ask a Venezuelan how that story turns out.


----------



## jwmalone

I agree with those guys. People are responsible for them selves, I know ppl who complain and wine they don't have the money like the rich folks boo hoo. Well if you hadn't of dropped out of high school or had three kids by 20 and mostly just living beyond their means cant sacrifice now work you're way through college or learn a good trade. No got to have it all right now, I deserve that 50 thousand dollar truck I cant be seen in cheap ass clothes. Most ppl are just guilty of making poor choices at some point in time LIVE WITH IT it was your choice, I'm all for helping the disabled the elderly the hard working guy that got hit by a drunk and cant work for six months. But ppl who just showed no damn practical sense and put no thought into their own future get what they got coming. I know that sounds mean as hell but hey its the way I feel PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILTY THATS WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Lot of those milking the system jw. ;-(

Comparing Venezuela, their problems and outcomes, to the world's largest economy in terms of tax and public policy or much of anything else is comparing apples to rabbit poop ;-)) 50% of their GDP is petroleum based as well as 95% of their exports.


----------



## TexasTodd

Increasing taxes on the wealthy won't solve the income inequality problem: Higher taxes for the highest earners may not solve the problem, but it would help. Again, consider the tax cuts on the wealthy enacted during the Bush years. In addition to not generating a positive trickle-down economic growth effect, those cuts contributed to the stunning increase in income inequality in recent decades. Raising taxes would have the opposite effect.
Do you want to make the rich get poorer or the poor get richer? We fix income inequality by taking more money from rich people, do I understand the premise correctly? How exactly does this help anyone?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It stabilizes the economy by removing excess capital accumulation which fuels speculation in the financial markets and a 10 year banking crisis cycle. Notice the stability and real growth of middle class from 40s-70s. Banking crises restarted with the Reagan Revolution. He didn't even get out of office before the S&L disaster of 1987. The latest was in 2008.


----------



## DrDirt

> It stabilizes the economy by removing excess capital accumulation which fuels speculation in the financial markets and a 10 year banking crisis cycle. Notice the stability and real growth of middle class from 40s-70s. Banking crises restarted with the Reagan Revolution. He didn t even get out of office before the S&L disaster of 1987. The latest was in 2008.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


But we really did not have a 'global' economy in those years.
The rise of the Japanese automakers in the 60's and 70's, or or Sony and JVC, and the market share they took from RCA, Magnavox, and the big three motor companies, is not a result of income tax rates on the wealthy, and all started before Reagan.

Banking - yes.
But middle class manufacturing job loss and globalization/offshoring are not a result of Bush Tax cuts.

Automation also drives this. When is the last time you needed to actually go INSIDE a bank and talk to a human?
Everything is E-bill pay, and Direct deposit of checks.
Self Checkout for Groceries, and even at Home Depot.

How does increasing taxes on the wealthy change our changing demographic.
Women in the workforce…. did this happen because living costs went up… or did the extra paycheck drive inflation. I remember 18% interest on home loans under Carter.
Of course before 1965 we had no Medicare, and allowed segregation… Everything about the 'good old days' isn't so good.

Hinging Everything wrong in the 21'st century to lowering the tax rate of the rich, just doesn't work.


----------



## DrDirt

I see the shift from Corporate tax revenue - - being shifted to personal income taxes. And of course who pays them. This is a little dated from NBC
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29861648/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/how-tax-burden-has-changed/


----------



## TexasTodd

> It stabilizes the economy by removing excess capital accumulation which fuels speculation in the financial markets and a 10 year banking crisis cycle. Notice the stability and real growth of middle class from 40s-70s. Banking crises restarted with the Reagan Revolution. He didn t even get out of office before the S&L disaster of 1987. The latest was in 2008.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


I am not familiar with the term "excess capital accumulation" and speculation in the financial markets is what we call a free market and is typically how we achieve economic growth. Banking crises are a completely unrelated kettle of fish. 
The 2008 housing collapse had numerous causes, rampant financial speculation not among them. The regulation imposed in 2009 is literally crippling any significant and sustainable return to a healthy housing market. In this case (and almost every case) the cure is worse than the disease.
Sorry, I don't agree….
Best Regards,
Todd


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

.


----------



## jwmalone

Hate to say but historically speaking all democracy's and republics revert to socialism after 200-400 years. As soon as people learn how to vote themselves money from the state coffers its all over. My gradad called those people grass hoppers just come in and take what other people have worked for. As far as the rich go I have no real respect for the super wealthy they got that way because they learned how to use uneducated underprivileged ppl to there advantage, but on the same side of the coin those people should have known better. Dumbass wants 15 bucks to flip burgers yea its a hard job but it set up so a monkey could do it. McDonald didn't want to pay real chiefs any more so he came up with a system that would allow unskilled ppl to do the same thing got super rich. If youre stuck in a dead end burger job its your own damn fault. Socialism is the under lying theme in politics today ppl sad but true my advice keep your powder dry. GOD BLESS AMERICA


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Sorry guys, but Those Old Dead Guys figured out how to fix it after the Great Depression. The result was the world's most dynamic economy and the 3rd affluent middle class in history of the world. The US started to unwind and headed down a path to the 2nd Great Depression in the 1980s. ;-(( We are nearly there. Nothing holding the economy up but easy credit.


----------



## DrDirt

> Sorry guys, but Those Old Dead Guys figured out how to fix it after the Great Depression. The result was the world s most dynamic economy and the 3rd affluent middle class in history of the world. The US started to unwind and headed down a path to the 2nd Great Depression in the 1980s. ;-(( We are nearly there. Nothing holding the economy up but easy credit.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


That fix was WW2, and then being the sole supplier for post war European and Japanese reconstruction. Once everyone was up and running, and started to directly compete with the USA, even in the US market, we started the downturn, which JFK partially arrested with tax code modifications.. (then Vietnam military industrial complex, and a space program). The downward path to where we are starts around 1972 when Nixon went to China.
Not sure that is the remedy we really want.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

DrDirt, Forget the right wing propaganda. Review the policies laid out in the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and the policies of Alex Hamilton. They served us well for 204 years. After WWII, under the Marshall Plan, the US did more to support the rebuilding of Europe and Japan that to profit from it. In the 50s, US exports were never more than 4 to 5% of our GDP; hardly enough income to build one of only three affluent middle classes in world history. Too bad historical facts do not support the propaganda.

True WWII brought an abrupt end to the Depression. But it was public policy spreading the wealth that the right wing absolutely hates. It is like a religious conviction that they are ordained by God to rule the peons by virtue of their wealth. It is quite ironic and fitting that Ayn Rand died in the poverty she wished for everyone else.

Ravi Batra, economics professor at SMU, has written several books about Greenspan's Folly, free trade myth, and histories of various failed economic systems. He refers to the American economic problem as the agrification phenomena. That is basically when means and efficiency of production destroy the pricing structure that supports profitability. I first noticed him when he was a analyst at Lehman Brothers. He was the only analyst I saw exposing the garbage Wall Street was taking public in the late 90s and early 21st Century. Obviously nobody listened, Lehman Brothers is long gone ;-( not that he could have saved them single handedly.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

*"Over-accumulation of labor and capital is concept found in Marxian economic theory. The markets adjust to the reality of low returns or under utilization -they must- by redirecting excess capital towards new products and/or emerging markets so as to optimize returns. Socialist thinkers see 'excess capital' as an opportunity to claim what is not theirs and re-direct it."*

Public tax policy causing excess capital to be reinvested rather than being used for speculation has nothing do do with socialism or redistribution. The purpose is to stabilize the economy and commodity prices providing predictable atmosphere leading innovation and competition. This benefits and grows the whole rather than providing entertainment for a few high stakes gamblers. 2008 was the result of flawed public policy and high stakes gambling by the largest financial institutions the world has ever seen. The real losers were us, US ;-( not the gamblers we bailed out ;-(


----------



## DrDirt

Bob - I am not supporting the free trade agreements - and GDP versus size of government was very different in the 50's. You numbers for exports are right, but that is also because we didn't import our own goods for consumption from China then. Our wealth was in domestic consumption and our prosperity was due to being a manufacturing powerhouse. While the rebuilding of Europe and Japan was not all about profit… *all of those goods and services and steel represented Middle class Jobs.*

I didn't argue against Japanese cars… because that was truly competition - they came with a different business model and customer experience around Quality… that they sold as their own brands like Honda.. Toyota, Sony JVC etc. And not just to make cheap cars and stamp FORD on them. (that came later)

That is very different than outsourcing to the chinese lowest bidder, and just having them stamp your company name on it.

The loss of that sector, and all the supporting jobs, is not something that is affected by personal income tax rates.

Yes there has been speculation, manipulation of currency, and corruption. ANd those have done damage to the economy in potentially unsurvivable ways. However saying that, the above problems arent going to be solved by moving the top marginal rate from 39 to 45 %. That robin hood policy is just rearranging the chairs on the titanic - and does nothing to provide middle class jobs.

The folks that lost their jobs at Carrier AC to mexico…. is that somehow fixed by tax rates on the wealthy?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

No, 45% is not going to do it. The rate has to be at least 50 or 60%.

Out sourcing to China is not a globalization and competition with $1/hour peasants issue, it is a failed US trade policy issue bought and paid for by the oligarchy that supports monopolies, not free markets or even capitalism as we have known it in the past.


----------



## DrDirt

> No, 45% is not going to do it. The rate has to be at least 50 or 60%.
> 
> Out sourcing to China is not a globalization and competition with $1/hour peasants issue, it is a failed US trade policy issue bought and paid for by the oligarchy that supports monopolies, not free markets or even capitalism as we have known it in the past.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


We only ever had BRACKETS - like that in the past.
NOBODY every actually paid 60% (JFK) of their gross income in FEDERAL taxes. and that was before manufacturing was gutted and outsourced.

The top 20% of the population pay 70% of the taxes
while there is inflation - our governement went from 92 billion in 1960 (back when we were starting a space race and Kruschev was in power in USSR) to 2.32 billion in 2005 so government got 25 times as expensive.

We could collect more taxes…. 
I would argue we would just spend more money on stupid crap, and still be exactly where we are today.

Increased taxation is not a solution to people not having good paying jobs.

you are in Washington where there isn't a state tax - but that is not the case in the Majority of the USA, where you pay that 60% federal + 4-13% to the State + county + property + sales tax (totalling 10% in Ca).
There is a point at which the numbers don't work anymore


----------



## DrDirt

> No, 45% is not going to do it. The rate has to be at least 50 or 60%.
> 
> Out sourcing to China is not a globalization and competition with $1/hour peasants issue, it is a failed US trade policy issue bought and paid for by the oligarchy that supports monopolies, not free markets or even capitalism as we have known it in the past.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


We only ever had BRACKETS - like that in the past - and there were WAY WAY more deductions allowed.

NOBODY every actually paid 60% (JFK) of their gross income in FEDERAL taxes. and that was before manufacturing was gutted and outsourced.

The top 20% of the population pay 70% of the taxes
while there is inflation - our governement went from 92 billion in 1960 (back when we were starting a space race and Kruschev was in power in USSR) to 2.32 billion in 2005 so goverment got 25 times as expensive.

We could collect more taxes…. 
I would argue we would just spend more money on stupid crap, and still be exactly where we are today.

Increased taxation is not a solution to people not having good paying jobs.

- DrDirt


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Sorry, you are missing the point of the public policies. What the gov't spends the money on is irrelevant. The highest rate in the 50s was 90%. The purpose is to stabilize the economy, smooth out the business cycles and prevent the banking crises that plagued the country every decade for the first 150 years. Those policies worked very well for about 40 years. You can't deny the dynamic economic power that was generated. Laffer and Reagan turned it on its head. Bush 41, Clinton, Bush the Dumbest and Obummer have all continued the destructive policies supported by the new world order, the corporate movement, as invented by Mousilini. Forget the irrelevant details and petty partisan political agendas and look at the larger, total economic system.


----------



## Mahdeew

It is obvious to me. Too many people and not enough qualified "educated". The robots will fill the gap and soon instead of 30 hours meaning full-time, it will be 20 or 15 hours. Minimum wage will be $40/hours.


----------



## DrDirt

But Bob - - other than 'lottery ticket holders' who ever actually Paid 90% of their income?

We always hear that we will have a 'Simpler' tax that will lower the rate and eliminate deductions and loopholes. That is why many argue reagans 1986 tax cuts were actually an increase for many in the middle class, based on the deductions eliminated.

Regardless of that - -

What in the 'Personal tax code'...fixes the employment problem?
If your manufacturing job goes to China, and you now work at the drive thru at Carl's Jr.

you are officially "employed" but…

What does the taxes on the 1% matter… or more importantly fix?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> But Bob - - other than lottery ticket holders who ever actually Paid 90% of their income?


Most successful business people on the top end of their incremental scale, but not on the gross. One of the best guys I ever worked for used to see his accountant about the first of December every year. 90 cents out of every dollar profit at the top end of his income pile was going to the government if he did not reinvest it or pay it out in wages or other business expense. He gave the employees bonuses rather that give it to Uncle Sam. Some years I got $1,000 bonus. That was a lot of money in the early 70s!

One of my uncles knew Joe Albertson when he didn't have 2 cents to rub together in Emmett, Idaho. He didn't really intend to be a grocery chain, but as he made money, he reinvested rather than give it to Uncle Sam.

That is what grew the post WWII economy along with the stable banking without everyone loosing most of their money every few years the way they did in the first 150 years of us, US.



> What in the Personal tax code …fixes the employment problem?
> If your manufacturing job goes to China, and you now work at the drive thru at Carl s Jr.


It creates a stable economy and financial market without extreme swings and failures. Look what happened post Reaganomics, The S&L crisis in 1987, stock market bubbles and crashes in 2000 and 2008, the housing bubble and commodities all fueled by excess capital speculating.

Your job going to China is a failed trade policy. It has nothing to do with peasants will to work for 25 cents an hour or day. There have been desperate peasants since the beginning of time.



> What does the taxes on the 1% matter… or more importantly fix?
> 
> - DrDirt


See above, Too bad you seem unable to understand these simple concepts that formed the public policies that created the post WWII economic engine. You need to consider the big picture, forget the petty issues of individual tax bills and what they will spend the money on. It doesn't matter, It will not be redistributed as gifts to the 99% ;-)) Nobody is going to get something for nothing that you won't get or can't have. We all win except for the corrupt sociopaths running the show today and the corrupt politicians making it possible.


----------



## DrDirt

Interesting you make this statement:
*You need to consider the big picture, forget the petty issues of individual tax bills and what they will spend the money on. It doesn't matter, It will not be redistributed as gifts to the 99% ;-)) Nobody is going to get something for nothing that you won't get or can't have*

Right after describing how your boss gave bonuses to avoid taxes - - sounds 'trickle down' 

Post WWII. We were a powerhouse as the only intact manufacturing base. The US would be prosperous in the 50s regardless of tax rate. Kennedy starting dropping the rate to extend the god times and pay for NASA and Vietnam as that post war boom started to dry up.

To attribute our success post war as a tax policy success is not looking at the whole/bigger picture. back then very few finished goods came from China. We made clothing and shoes as well. Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were the airplane makers. Airbus didn't exist.

Those macroeconomics and trade are the real issue. That there are fewer and fewer actual middle class jobs is why the middle class is shrinking…not because of what the top tax bracket is.

The S&L Crisis were not about marginal Tax rates. - - surprised you believe and regurgitate that tripe.

The stabilization effect of taxes you describe is more believable on the corporate side as it drives decisions in the communities about moving around like GE moving their headquarters from Connecticut to Mass (Boston).

not what the division managers personal tax bracket was.

Tax rate discussions are just meant to divide us. They are just the "Bread and Circus" side of establishment politics, while they sign the TPP.

Little old - but for 2011 - - top 1% actually paid a 23% rate.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

DrDirt, You can deny the policies that created The post WWII middle class, but the fact is only 60% of the work force in participation. https://smartergovernmentwa.org/stats-labor-participation-u6-unemployment-pose-tough-questions/?roi=echo3-35869309184-36469508-e04155d97b0f30814828085ec5da8fd2&utm_source=weeklyrecap&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=07-16-2016
The author is a former R WA atty general and candidate for governor.

How do you propose to put it back together again?


----------



## DrDirt

I Read it - and it proves everything I said….the problem is no (decent) JOBS.

Nothing in that link claims it is a marginal tax rate problem… I agree with the conclusions of your link.

The only thing the link doesn't go far enough…. the participation rate is one aspect that is alarming. But people who lost GOOD jobs in 07/08 have moved from good jobs - to crappy ones to avoid complete devastation…. and is part of the supposed 'recovery' just because they are not 'unemployed'.

Employed is not the same as having a decent job. 
And 1960 tax rates will not solve anything.
Like I said before:


> But Bob - - other than lottery ticket holders who ever actually Paid 90% of their income?
> 
> We always hear that we will have a Simpler tax that will lower the rate and eliminate deductions and loopholes. That is why many argue reagans 1986 tax cuts were actually an increase for many in the middle class, based on the deductions eliminated.
> 
> Regardless of that - -
> 
> What in the Personal tax code …fixes the employment problem?
> If your manufacturing job goes to China, and you now work at the drive thru at Carl s Jr.
> 
> you are officially "employed" but…
> 
> What does the taxes on the 1% matter… or more importantly fix?
> 
> - DrDirt


----------



## DrDirt




----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

You say returning to the post Depression public policies will not work again. The US needs good living wage jobs for everyone who wants to work. What will put us, US, back and fix it?


----------



## dbray45

Have you noticed that when the government says that they want to raise the minimum wage that the cost of EVERYTHING goes up to that level?

When I was in the Navy, I worked very hard to make Petty Officer. Had to because what I was making did not cover the bills and being newly married, it was my job to pay the bills. Even then, we found a way and made it happen. I got out in Sept., in October I would have gotten a 12% increase to bring my income level to the poverty level and not be eligible for food stamps (had I known that, my life would have been much better while I was in).

I have worked very hard to increase my incomes only to have had a new minimum wage be increased to just below my income - we are talking $.20 an hour difference, setting me back (in some cases 2 years) right to the poverty level. There is nothing more demoralizing, demeaning, and irritating. Even at my current income, I see the cost increases anticipating the new minimum wage and they are stepped on the next few years - but the new costs went full bore to the highest step.


----------



## dbray45

The govt. does not include the cost of food and medications into the inflation #s. They do include the cost of houses - I have never met anyone the buys a new house to live in every few months.

While the govt claims that inflation is 1-5% (I don't know the actual #s they state) per year, my food bill (I have a special diet) has gone up 20 - 30% each year over the last 10 years.

Did you know that the pharmaceutical companies are not regulated on the prices that they can charge for their medications to you (govt prices and hospitals are negotiated down to something like 10% of what you are billed while they bill you the full price if you don't have insurance) while milk is?

Did you know that doctors actively look for something that they can prescribe a long term drug for - even if you don't need it. They know that once you are on something (anything really), there are so many side affects that they can give you drugs for, that they will have you on 10 drugs before you can get the prescription filled - and yes, they get paid by the pharmaceutical companies. I went to a clinic to get a couple of stitches and when asked what meds I was taking and I answered "none", he asked me my age, then asked me again what drugs I was on (same answer) and he said that I was the first and asked how I did that - he was serious.

Everything is upside down and crazy - and it is getting worse!


----------



## jwmalone

Keep your powder dry fellows.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

David,

Inflation drives minimum wages. There would be no support to pass the laws without abject poverty.

According to Morningstar, I read this 15 or more years ago, the official CPI has been so adulterated it is meaningless.

The issues you raise are the result of unregulated predatory capitalism. The game of Monopoly was invented to teach and demonstrate these economic principles practiced up to the early 20th century leading up to the Great Depression. Your pal Ronnie tabled the solutions and here we are today, right back where we started 100 years ago ;-(


----------



## dbray45

You make good points but -
We have more regulations than ever - to the point where it costs far more to manufacture here than go elsewhere
We have regulated that we give off shore companies preferential treatment over us - where they don't have these regulations.
When our gross domestic product lists housing starts as a primary industry, we have a problem.

So, the only thing left to regulate is the price - we should give everything away now - this doesn't work, never has.

Do I think there should be regulations - absolutely but I also see where we are going. When companies see a requirement to put a sign on a lavatory door which states, "Open with caution!" individual common sense is gone.

You will find that the companies that are unregulated are the ones that own the politicians, this is not new. In France, it was found that the Minister of (can't remember what it was called) or something was given 1 million shares of an oil company stock to get special treatment. During the 1800s and into the 1900s, more Senators and Congressmen owned railroad stock so the railroads could do anything they wanted with immunity.

The difference from then and now are that the companies and our money are no longer here - that means that the money is spent somewhere else. This is a lose, lose, lose situation.

Just look at the gun controls as regulation control. The two cities in the US that have the most gun regulations are Washington DC and Chicago - just happens that they have the most shootings (DC is only 10 sq miles) is not an accident.

When I had a company, I kept it small (which is why it went away) because the regulations for everything was ridiculous. The large companies and 8a companies (my main customer was the federal govt) didn't have the regulations or didn't abide by them - but the small businesses do. Then, if you don't grow, you cannot get money and cannot compete, so I shut down before I went bankrupt.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

Price controls never work. The lose, lose, lose is easily fixed. The problem is trade policy and All corruption being legalized by the beneficiaries.

I stayed small because of the lying [email protected][email protected] that dominated th ranks of the general contractors ;-(


----------



## Mahdeew

One solution to help the unemployed is to raise rates. As David said, raising minimum wage is the worse thing that can happen because price of goods will adjust against it and further destroy the middle class because if minimum wage doubles, the middle class salary may go up 5 or 6%. By raising rates, the folks that have some saving- lets say 500.000 can retire if they can put that money in treasuries and get lets say 5%. Most of the hiring in the past several years has been people that are 55+. To a business person the rates make absolutely no difference because if I know I can make 12% a year, I could care less if rates were 5%. Central bankers are either too stupid to grasp this or this depression they have created is engineered.


----------



## dbray45

Middle class???? Two or three people do not make up a middle class. From taking away all manufacturing processes and eliminating 60 - 70% of the jobs that make up these incomes and put those people into McDonalds and Wendys, type of positions, the middle class is gone - but the employment is still there.

If you take away the block of voters that think for themselves and are holding their own and put them into a situation where there is no hope - they are vulnerable to the election promises that are never and can never be fulfilled. At this point, you have a two class environment - which is where we are now.

If you think, even for a minute, that there wasn't a plan to do this, you are mistaken.

A number of years ago - 30 or so (can't remember) I heard one of our Presidents state that the USA should not be the manufacturing center of the world, we should be the executives and managers of the world economies. It was shortly after that we started the trade giveaway and moving everything out of the country. This is when Black and Decker moved one of their plants out of Hampstead, MD (almost got a job there as a machinist) to Mexico. They moved all of their Supervisors and Managers to Mexico so they could train the new staff. After they trained the new work force, they let all of them go - it seems that Mexico has laws to prevent companies from importing a work force (especially managerial) from other countries. These people were sent back to the USA without jobs (or anything else). There was a fundamental flaw with this thinking - there are a few billion people in this country that need to work and they are not all managers - or was it a flaw? I used to think so but am not so sure now.

They do not teach woodworking or machine shop in our public schools (because it is no longer a viable career path) - but, believe it or not, the South American communities are calling out and telling our educators that they don't want college but good labor - bring these back.

Did you know that the after they moved trades to other countries, the federal government stopped funding colleges and universities down to less than 20%? Prior to that, the govt. funded about 80% of the university's monetary requirements either directly or through projects and grants - but you had to either know somebody or be really smart with a high GPA. Now the individual has to pay almost the whole bill. Why? Because it furthers the commitment of a two tiered society. If you are a part of the ruling class, you get your tuition paid through scholarships and grants. If you are not among that class, you will have a $125,000 education bill that you will never get paid because if you can get a job, it will be for half (or less) of what you need to pay it down.

I truly believe that none of this is an accident, it has fallen into place far too neatly - and both Democrat and Republican hierarchy are pushing this agenda.

Again - WHY? because it maintains their power and if you are not "in", you are "out" - just ask Bernie. 
Now there is Trump. He has broken ALL of the rules and will set this movement back 20 years if he is elected. He wants to bring back manufacturing, he wants to renegotiate the trade deals to benefit the USA, he really wants to bring the USA back on top. Even if he gets elected, I seriously doubt if he will be able to get past all of the road blocks that the Congress and Senate have in store for him (regardless of who is in power).


----------



## DrDirt

Your job is safe - it will just be done by somebody else in another country…

I believe Terry McAuliffe stating that for the campaign, Hillary will be against the TPP - - but will support it as president.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/26/clinton-friend-mcauliffe-suggests-she-could-flip-back-to-supporting-tpp-clinton-friend-podesta-says-hes-wrong/
Business as usual - - just say whatever to appear to have adopted Bernies ideas into the platform - -then move on.

Outsoucing - CANNOT be legislated…. and is 'inevitable'
Hillary in India - - "That is very good news for us" (says the indian Moderator)


----------



## jwmalone

I don't see how manufacturing can come back to the usa. who the hell could afford American made products. A few American's. You damn sure couldn't sell to the common man in Mexico or any other place for that matter. Not if were talking tools, televisions and things like that. Good paying trade jobs are pretty much gone. Technologies, Medical, geriatrics, are you best chances for a decent paying job. America has changed and we will have to adapt or die. Sad to me but that's the way it is. Also I hate to say it but historically speaking democracy's republics all ways end up reverting to socialism every body in this country is already screaming for it they just don't know it.. Another thing the attitude and basic character of our leaders is a direct reflection of the population. This country as our fathers and grandfathers knew it is ********************ed, and I blame bleeding heart liberal bull ********************. If you want to protect and preserve what you have you cant be the nice guy and help every damn body.


----------



## DrDirt

> I don t see how manufacturing can come back to the usa. who the hell could afford American made products. A few American s. You damn sure couldn t sell to the common man in Mexico or any other place for that matter. .
> 
> - jwmalone


I work at a factory that produces a "High Volume - commodity product" and we have several sites to supply the global market - One in USA, one in India, one in China, and one in Poland - and I know the costs to produce at each site to 3 decimal places - so we aren;t GUESSING about competition… we have side by side production making the same product under the same brand in wholly owned factories.

A product that has a production cost around 50 cents. has a retail price at Home Depot, of ~1.75 dollars.

One of the other factories is 2 cents cheaper.
To the CONSUMER - 2 cents on their 2 dollar purchase is 'NOT a decider for purchase'
However we were making close to 200 million pieces per year.

So to the consumer - 2 cents is nothing.
to the management - 2 cents X 200,000,000 is 4 million dollars Year over Year.

so a 5% Duty on that product - would erase that 4 million dollar 'savings from outsourcing'.... the customer would see NOTHING - - *because the price is already the USA price.*

*Grizzly and Powermatic have similar COST OF PRODUCTION and Iron and Steel…. and all are shipped from Asia…. but the selling price is very different*

The USA price would not go DOWN… the corporations would be happy with the Increased profit margin.

Factories are highly automated - don't believe the DNC lies about Punitive protectionism destroying the country.
In the global economy - decisions are made without reference to the losses (which are written off to buy out pensions and such in the CORPORATE tax laws). the COST gaps are razor thin. All that 5 dollars for a tomato stuff is total BS. 75% of the cost of goods is profits along the chain from makers, to wholesalers, to retailers.
So the corps make more money, and offset the losses of closing the US factories on their taxes - - Win WIN.


----------



## jwmalone

what do you make, whats the average pay for an employ, other than mannagment.


----------



## dbray45

In reality, the salaries and benefits are not the issue if the salaries are reasonable. When you have people that are making $75 an hour and have breaks that equate to 4 hours of the day and they only work during overtime events - talk to the unions about this.

Many of the price differences are in the regulations. Manufacturing in the US is regulated beyond belief, then it is taxed if it stays in the US. If it is exported, the other countries put tariffs on our goods.

If people are given an option to put in a fair day's work in their chosen skill sets versus working in McDonalds, I know where I would work. The problem is that many of these people spent 2-3 years out of the work force and technology has moved forward. They need to be brought up to speed, this is something that the govt could easily do at the college level through grants.

One of the biggest problems were the clean air and water aspects because manufacturing can be messy. Converting old plants to be clean is not cost effective, creating new ones that are designed to be clean may be expensive but better, this is something that the govt can also assist with - tax credits, special interest rates, and loans could be great to get things started. This is better than taxing the crap out of everyone to get people working - if the fed can give GM billions and put dealerships that paid GM to be dealers (that just happened to be owned by people that were registered Republicans), the fed can sure as hell throw them a better bone than 3-4 years unemployment and then cut them off.

There are so many things that we can do - but not if your govt is actually subsidizing the competition.


----------



## DrDirt

> what do you make, whats the average pay for an employ, other than mannagment.
> 
> - jwmalone


Lighting. In a 24/7 production platform
Line workers arounr 20/hr + overtime as we run 4-12 hour shifts on a 4 day on 3 day off. The 3 on 4 off rotation
Production is highly automated and verticall integrated. With rail cars of sand and soda ash in one end of 900000 ft factory to boxed product All products 100 percent inspaction an a human hand never touches the product. Over 400 employees

But if it can be 2 cents cheaper in asia. Kiss the job good bye

This is not about 50 dollars an hour torquing lug nuts
Same happens in industries like wire cable or just wire drawing. We close factories for pennies That is part of why unions are so ineffective. Management says add 4 million dollars per year to top line sales dollars and we write off the closure benefits on taxes.

National Geographic was here a few years ago and shot a 'How it's made' segment here.
you can see the process in ~10 minute segment





These problems are easily fixed without crashing the system. And one where currency manipulation plays a role
the white phosphor powder has a 6.5% duty (we pay, GE pays Sylvania pays etc.)... but many "finished goods" are duty free.

I see a really simple solution….


----------



## dbray45

Dr - 
I was from Cleveland where we had Fisher body plant and had a large mechanical and machining presence. I had family in Youngstown, Ohio where the steel industry did its thing - all but gone.

The unions were required at one time but their greed and ambitions did more to take down the industries than people see. I see what my Union (required to be a member) does and doesn't do. They do not negotiate anything, they are the management puppet and tool. They say that they collaborate, the only thing I see being collaborated is the Union Pres salary, as for the people paying the union dues - it is a total capitulation with the administration.

The union role now, not at one time, is the management HR tool, absolving management from their responsibility to actually manage. If there is a problem, it is the union's fault, you need to speak with them. If you go to the union, it is not a negotiation point. It is a crock of meadow muffins of the male variety (never saw where a bull was any messier or cleaner than a cow, if you are bare foot, it squeezes through your toes the same). It is jaw dropping when you see it at work. You quickly realize that you are no better (even as an industry professional) than the dirt swept off the floor. In the union and the management view (in more than a few cases), the dirt is probably worth more - it is less trouble.

The system could be fixed but it will be difficult. If the republicans try to bring industry back, the unions will be right there to make it fail - because their beloved democrats want that. Has nothing to do with what is good for the country or themselves.

If we have gotten to a point where the people wake up and actually want to work, we will see. The next election will tell what the people really want.


----------



## DrDirt

David -
you are correct - and the first companies to go were the union shops, as they were unable to compete with the foreign labor.
Part of that was that the Union opposed automation, as that impacted their number of dues paying members. So while they were instrumental in new safety requiremnts - the were against other advancements that would have allowed the factory to be competitive.
Think about all the talk for Ford moving to mexico. it is not a huge cost gap between US and Mexico in terms of labor - as it will still be robots that stamp, weld, paint on the assembly line.
The cost of "Direct Labor" is not a huge difference in the total price of the car.
regulation is a bigger driver than labor towards offshoring.

For us - our major global competitor is now owned by the Chinese Government

Only Bernie and Trump see the problem… or rather the others see it, but have already sold us down the river to pad their own accounts.


----------



## bigblockyeti

I worked a union job for a while, not just as a social/political experiment, but because it was required and I can parallel everything that David said as being very true. The union was a parasite there to reduce efficiency and competitiveness in every aspect. I also agree that Sanders & Trump see the problem and while I wouldn't have voted for Bernie, his principals were very solid right up until he sold out to Clinton, this country just isn't ready for full blown socialism. It will be though after a fraction of one term with another Clinton at the helm!


----------



## jwmalone

keep your powder dry fellows.


----------



## dbray45

Actually - a lot of people see the problem. This is why Trump is where he is!


----------



## oldnovice

If Trump gets in office you might end up getting shot!


----------



## dbray45

You know, if the press went off on Obama and Hillary half as much as they have on Trump - for the things that they have said and done, Hillary would be in jail and Obama would have been impeached.

Just sayin, on some things, I disagree with all of them on what they have said. As of last Sunday, key members of the press have now openly stated that they will do EVERYTHING in their power to prevent Trump from being elected. Even if it requires making stuff up or distorting things so far out of context.

Yes, I have heard many snippets that the news and press have put out there and have heard what was actually said and the context that it was said. Obama and Hillary have said far worse and have done far worse and it is ignored.

The fundamental job of the press is to report facts and only the facts. Once they go down the road that they have acknowledged that they are, our country and form of government is all but done. We have more than evolved from a representative government to a quasi dictatorship/socialist form of government.

If Hillary wins - if for nothing other than letting the press do the democrats' bidding, we are no longer anything near a democracy or representative form of government - we are a single party everything.


----------



## Redoak49

Note…this is not political…

Whatever happened to honest reporting? It seems like all of the so called reporters or talking heads have an agenda. We need honest discussion and reporting. Our news has turned political.

End Rant


----------



## bigblockyeti

There is honest reporting and quality fact based news, unfortunately very little of it is still in this country.


----------



## oldnovice

You conservatives, a.k.a. Republicans, must have to admit that the GOP, the Grand Old Party, has been hijacked!


----------



## DrDirt

> You conservatives, a.k.a. Republicans, must have to admit that the GOP, the Grand Old Party, has been hijacked!
> 
> - oldnovice


You have to admit that the Democrat system of coronation is rigged and has been taken over by Wall Street, and there is a massive pay to play happening via the Clinton "charity"

Bernie should be the Democrats Nominee - but the Debbie the chair of the DNC (and now hired on teh CLinton campaign the same day she was fired from the DNC) rigged the primary


----------



## Redoak49

I see it now… the Woodworkers Party with a pile of lumber for everyone.


----------



## bigblockyeti

Did anyone else notice Sander's lack of enthusiasm and very obvious lack of desire to be at the DNC the last day during clinton's speech? Apparently when his contract was paid by the clintons they forgot to require him to appear to care.


----------



## DrDirt

> Did anyone else notice Sander s lack of enthusiasm and very obvious lack of desire to be at the DNC the last day during clinton s speech? Apparently when his contract was paid by the clintons they forgot to require him to appear to care.
> 
> - bigblockyeti


Yes - - I think he was told to be there… endorse and then 'go away' and not make any more noise.

Now he has a 600K beach house up in vermont… a third home.


----------



## DanYo




----------



## Mahdeew

http://www.zerohedge.com/


> There is honest reporting and quality fact based news, unfortunately very little of it is still in this country.
> 
> - bigblockyeti


----------



## bigblockyeti

> If Trump gets in office you might end up getting shot!
> 
> - oldnovice


And now we're all being told we have to be shot!


----------



## oldnovice

Based on a law from the 1800's as precedent, the federal law *can* enforce mask and vaccination rules.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one," expressed in Human history by the philosopher *John Stuart Mill* as "the greatest good for the greatest number". which was the basis for the Supreme Court decision back then.


----------



## bandit571

Hmmm…did I miss anything?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> Based on a law from the 1800 s as precedent, the federal law *can* enforce mask and vaccination rules.
> 
> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one," expressed in Human history by the philosopher *John Stuart Mill* as "the greatest good for the greatest number". which was the basis for the Supreme Court decision back then.
> 
> - oldnovice


Do you have a reference for that decision? The world seems to be in reverse.


----------



## bandit571

And…this thread is HOW old?


----------



## bigblockyeti

Not too old to be irrelevat.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

It is actually becoming more relevant. 50% of us, US, cannot come up with $400 in an emergency. 70% of us, US, cannot come up with $1,000 in an emergency. The 1% made significant gains in the last year and a half during the Covid crisis ;-(


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

> 50% of [the US] cannot come up with $400 in an emergency.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


Not quite accurate.










From the Minnesota Fed.


----------



## oldnovice

*Bob*, here is the case I mentioned, I was wrong on the actual date as was actually 1905 (close enough to 1800's)!

The 1905 Supreme Court mask mandate decision!

And, the actual ruling (caution legal jargon) reference


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I do not recall the source of that quote. It is a couple of years old I believe. It looks like the Fed has discrepancies in its data. Why Half of Americans Can't Come Up With $400 in an Emergency "As recently as 2016, the Federal Reserve surveyed more than 5,000 Americans about their financial situation. Among the findings was one startling statistic: Approximately 46 percent of Americans stated they do not have enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense."

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/01/why-half-of-americans-cant-come-up-with-400-in-an.aspx


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> *Bob*, here is the case I mentioned, I was wrong on the actual date as was actually 1905 (close enough to 1800 s)!
> 
> The 1905 Supreme Court mask mandate decision!
> 
> And, the actual ruling (caution legal jargon) reference
> 
> - oldnovice


Thank you for the links. I have seen news articles about the Texas health board is now ruling vaccinated have preference over unvaccinated when triaging patients in overloaded facilities. Yesterday the Seattle Times published one about Northern Idaho creating a "death panel" to make those decisions. Of course, the strain leaves cancer, accidents, and other critical patients short of care.

Last Sunday CBS 60 Minutes we are a few years away from total control of viruses including the common cold. I doubt it will happen. The chances of eliminating that threat the way Smallpox was eliminated in 1980 are probably not possible today. Mom said the worst thing she saw when she finished nurses training in 1947 were iron lungs full of young women with Polio. Looks like we are headed back to the same situation with covid. The chance of common sense prevailing is probably very low. Let Free-Dumb ring.


----------



## bigblockyeti

> Last Sunday CBS 60 Minutes we are a few years away from total control of viruses including the common cold. I doubt it will happen. The chances of eliminating that threat the way Smallpox was eliminated in 1980 are probably not possible today.
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


That could have been last Sunday or last Sunday 40 years ago, we're always just a few years away from virus control just like we will be in another 40 years. Reminds me of the "Free Beer Tomorrow" sign in some bars . Big pharma has too much too loose if we don't need them, heck we must have impinged on that few years out benchmark and come too close already. Our tax dollars shipped over to Wuhan sure fixed that quick and over the past couple years has minted quite a few new billionaires in the process with the vast majority not living in the USA.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

I imagine Big Pharma will benefit either way or they would have shut down the research ;-(( Anyways, they were interviewing US Army researchers.

When Nixon went to open the Chinese market for Pepsi I said they have no money and an endless supply of cheap labor.

Jimmy Carter first granted Most Favored Nation Status to China in 1979.

In 1992 when Ross Perot ran for president in opposition to the North American Trade Agreement, both parties supported corporate greed.

That finalized the 3 strikes you are out for Americans middle class.

My dad's favorite presidential candidate quote was George McGovern after his political career ended or was interrupted. He had to find a real job. He said if he had known what it was like out here he would have voted differently on lots of issues.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

> I do not recall the source of that quote. It is a couple of years old I believe. It looks like the Fed has discrepancies in its data. Why Half of Americans Can t Come Up With $400 in an Emergency "As recently as 2016, the Federal Reserve surveyed more than 5,000 Americans about their financial situation. Among the findings was one startling statistic: Approximately 46 percent of Americans stated they do not have enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense."
> 
> https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/01/why-half-of-americans-cant-come-up-with-400-in-an.aspx
> 
> - TopamaxSurvivor


The fed has no discrepancy. But as the Mn. Fed article indicated, the studies are regularly mis-represented.

Actual 2016 report is here.


----------



## bandit571

A quote from another source:

"And I ain't asking nobody for nothing, that I can't get it on my own. If you don't like the way I'm living..
then just leave this long-haired Country Boy alone"

See IF I can remember another one…

"Preacher came on the TV, talking down my Rock-n-roll, wants me to send a donation, cause he is worried about my soul. He says Jesus walked on the water…and I know that is true. But sometimes I think, that old Preacher man wants to do a little walking too.."

Words to live by?

"A Poor Girl wants to get Married, a Rich Girl wants to flirt" 
A Rich man goes to college, a Poor man goes to work…...

From somebody named Charlie Daniels….


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor

> The fed has no discrepancy. But as the Mn. Fed article indicated, the studies are regularly mis-represented.
> 
> Actual 2016 report is here.
> 
> - Smitty_Cabinetshop


I did not read all the mumbo-jumbo but looking at this summary graph on page 23, the Overall averages even higher than 50% can't come up with $400 cash; 59%. I suspect the under $40K and 40 to 100K should have greater influence than the over 100K. That could raise the % even higher. Amazing that 19% of those with over $100K income can't come up with $400 cash!


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop

Real, meaningful, authentic data from the source. Thanks Topo.


----------

