Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:37 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

BillRM wrote:

The government now is controlling wealth now so there is hardly a need to restoration the problem is that the control now being used to take wealth away from the middle class with government help and move it to the upper class.

Your thought processes are as flawed as your grammar.


Well, that may be; but he certainly is correct. One has but to examine the actual distribution of wealth in this country to come to the swift conclusion that the government does indeed act as a vehicle for ensuring that larger and larger amounts of wealth flow to the upper class.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:39 pm
@georgeob1,
I do find you to be wiser when you give explanations!

Even tho you may be wrong at times but it does give us something to think about rather than getting someones emotions stirred up! People have a hard time fallowing your understanding when they feel attacked!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:45 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Are you advocating the restoration of "government control of wealth"? as in
wealth redistribution is a proper and required function of government.
Quote:
I suggest you study the history and real consequences of past attempts by governments to deal with external competition by such methods. The results weren't what was intended - disaster was the usual result.
Free market advocates always assert this, but the facts dont support this conclusion in spite of what our gullible youth are taught in their MBA classes.

I suggest you make a study of what happens to societies where the middle class is not present or is not healthy, and also what happens to societies where wealth is not regulated by government. You boys are all about growing the wealth bubble, who controls that wealth and how many times the bubble pops (and how much harm is done by such popping) never seems to rate attention.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
I agree with your thesis; without a middle class, a country is not economically healthy.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
Holy ****, I thumbed up one of your posts Shocked

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 04:56 pm
POM posted the accompanying piece to this in another thread. It's a four page read, but worth it. It has some really great info-graphics.

Mother Jones wrote:
Plutocracy Now: What Wisconsin Is Really About
How screwing unions screws the entire middle class.
By Kevin Drum


IN 2008, A LIBERAL Democrat was elected president. Landslide votes gave Democrats huge congressional majorities. Eight years of war and scandal and George W. Bush had stigmatized the Republican Party almost beyond redemption. A global financial crisis had discredited the disciples of free-market fundamentalism, and Americans were ready for serious change.

Or so it seemed. But two years later, Wall Street is back to earning record profits, and conservatives are triumphant. To understand why this happened, it's not enough to examine polls and tea parties and the makeup of Barack Obama's economic team. You have to understand how we fell so short, and what we rightfully should have expected from Obama's election. And you have to understand two crucial things about American politics.

The first is this: Income inequality has grown dramatically since the mid-'70s—far more in the US than in most advanced countries—and the gap is only partly related to college grads outperforming high-school grads. Rather, the bulk of our growing inequality has been a product of skyrocketing incomes among the richest 1 percent and—even more dramatically—among the top 0.1 percent. It has, in other words, been CEOs and Wall Street traders at the very tippy-top who are hoovering up vast sums of money from everyone, even those who by ordinary standards are pretty well off.

Second, American politicians don't care much about voters with moderate incomes. Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels studied the voting behavior of US senators in the early '90s and discovered that they respond far more to the desires of high-income groups than to anyone else. By itself, that's not a surprise. He also found that Republicans don't respond at all to the desires of voters with modest incomes. Maybe that's not a surprise, either. But this should be: Bartels found that Democratic senators don't respond to the desires of these voters, either. At all.


Full article

Here's one of the sample graphics I liked.
https://motherjones.com/files/images/lossgain_0.jpg

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 05:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I agree with your thesis; without a middle class, a country is not economically healthy
the radical part of my thesis is that local control and borders not only improves psychological health but that it also is not detrimental to economic wellbeing. We are so quick to jump onto the "bigger is better" bandwagon that the call from the corporate class to rub out economic boarders and government control of markets sounded right. I dont think that we ever thought it out, but the great recession....actually the failures that caused the Great Recession that were neither predicted by theory nor seen by the experts before they lead to tragedy.....leaves us no excuse for not going back and checking what we think we know.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 05:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I agree with your thesis; without a middle class, a country is not economically healthy.


It go far beyond not being economic healthy into being very politically unstable as examples on the news of late are showing.

The US have no special immunity to what happen to the Roman Republic for example when the middle class in that society was destroy.

Less and less small land owners existing to the point that the Republic needed to drop the requirement that only land owners could be members of the legions ended up destroying the Republic.

You do need a large stakeholders class to keep a stable society and that is being reduce year after year in the US.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 05:14 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:

Lots of confusion on these points. The Wisconsin law under such scrutiny would indeed limit the bargaining power of public employee unions in negotiating work rules only - but would leave the rest intact

It seems you are the one that is confused george.

The proposed change eliminates unions completely for some employees and restricts others so they can only bargain for wages up to the cost of living. They can no longer bargain for work rules, vacations, or retirement benefits.

I guess we would have to rate your claims about the bill as "pants on fire."
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 05:21 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
You do need a large stakeholders class to keep a stable society and that is being reduce year after year in the US.
We did not care about stability, our eye was on growth and too rationalize this decision we told ourselves sweet nothings about risks that we were taking. You'd think we care about risk now after the Great Recession and after the Middle East blew up endangering our addiction to crude which we have never cared about dealing with, but here we are watching Gov Walker play chicken with both the unions and the citizens.

He might win and he might not, either way our kids lose..
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 05:23 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

Lots of confusion on these points. The Wisconsin law under such scrutiny would indeed limit the bargaining power of public employee unions in negotiating work rules only - but would leave the rest intact

It seems you are the one that is confused george.

The proposed change eliminates unions completely for some employees and restricts others so they can only bargain for wages up to the cost of living. They can no longer bargain for work rules, vacations, or retirement benefits.

I guess we would have to rate your claims about the bill as "pants on fire."


He won't respond, because he's not really interested in the facts of this matter at all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 05:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
It's not only our kids who lose, it's also "us." The higher cost of oil will effect the cost of almost everything else in our lives. That's called inflation. Whether it hits us now or later, the national debt and higher cost of "everything else" will impact all of us. Even the recent increase in gas prices resulted in less use of vehicles by Americans. If and when gas hits $5/gallon, it's going to have an impact we are not prepared for.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 05:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's not only our kids who lose, it's also "us." The higher cost of oil will effect the cost of almost everything else in our lives. That's called inflation. Whether it hits us now or later, the national debt and higher cost of "everything else" will impact all of us. Even the recent increase in gas prices resulted in less use of vehicles by Americans. If and when gas hits $5/gallon, it's going to have an impact we are not prepared for.


Actually, the price of oil has a lot less to do with inflation than it does speculation.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 05:48 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Tell that to the people who's still filling their gas tanks. $4/gallon gas was predicted several months ago. It's here; at least in California. I do use premium gas in my car.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 05:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Tell that to the people who's still filling their gas tanks. $4/gallon gas was predicted several months ago. It's here; at least in California. I do use premium gas in my car.


Lol, I WILL tell that to them, because it's the truth. Just because people are pissed at the price of oil and gas going up doesn't mean that inflation is the culprit.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 05:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
From seekingalpha.com:
Note: This thesis also agrees with what I've been reading in different media.

Quote:
Warren Buffett recently said that the US is already in a recession and I totally agree with him.

Buffett added that it is “perhaps not in the sense that economists would define it” with two consecutive quarters of negative growth, “but the people are already feeling the effects,” said Buffett. ”It will be deeper and last longer than many think.”

There are 3 main reasons behind this recession:

* Demand pull inflation due to rising oil and food prices
(the main thrust behind the recession)

When people spend more money on food and oil, they will have to spend less on other consumerable goods.

Take a look at the consumer confidence survey:

* Cost push inflation affecting the transport, courier and airline industry due to rising oil prices

Many stocks in these industries are already trading near their 52 week lows while they continue to absorb the high costs of oil.

American Airlines (AMR) is at $6.32. Its 52 week low is $6.00 while its 52 week high is $29.32.

Delta Air Lines (DAL) is at $5.50. Its 52 week low is $5.37 while its 52 week high is $21.80.

Federal Express (FDX) is at $86.83. Its 52 week low is $80.00 while its 52 week high is $119.10.

* Aftermath of the sub-prime crisis and the ensuing credit crunch


Although many analysts believe that the credit crunch is easing, they are still taking write downs and I believe that it will continue for some time

It seems that an economic slowdown during the 2nd half of 2008 seems increasing likely.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 06:00 pm
Here is what the bill says..
This can be found at
http://nxt.legis.wisconsin.gov/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=WI:Default&d=billhist&jd=top
SB11JR1 Under 2011 introduce proposals.

Quote:
This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all
employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of
base wages.
In addition, unless a referendum authorizes a greater increase, any
general employee who is part of a collective bargaining unit is limited to bargaining
over a percentage of total base wages increase that is no greater than the percentage
change in the consumer price index.



And a little further down
Quote:
Under current law, University of Wisconsin (UW) System employees,
employees of the UW Hospitals and Clinics Authority, and certain home care and
child care providers have the right to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and
conditions of employment. This bill eliminates the rights of these employees to
collectively bargain.


So, the bill restricts bargaining for some unions to only wages and they can't bargain for any increase in wages larger than the cost of living. The bill also eliminates the ability to bargain for anything to unions that exist in the University system.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 06:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Dude, that's from the first half of 2008. Hardly relevant to today's situation.

The truth is that inflation over the last two years has been very, very low.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 06:05 pm
@Gargamel,
I just put that up on my Facebook status....
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 06:11 pm
@BillRM,
I wrote:
Quote:
Barack,"I owe these guys", Obama and his leftist buddies ignored the American people and they got "shellacked" in the 2010 elections if they continue their ways they will lose even more in 2012.


BillRM responded:
Quote:
Sorry the reason that Obama got shellacked was that he was not able to fixed the mess that Bush let the country economic in during his 8 years in less then two years.

With a secondary reason being that the mouth breathing tea parties types do tend to vote more in off years elections then the more sane population.


Well, your first sentence proves my point. Leaving aside that this crisis was a result of government intervention into housing markets going, at least, back to Carter area legislation like the CRA and the Clinton admin doubling down on ACORN like community 'activism', while seeing Frank/Dodd legislation being passed that forced the two FMs ( Fannie, Freddie) to significantly increase their exposure to subprimes, we must ask why did citizens elect Obama if not to clean up the 'Bush/GOP Mess'?

Like President Obama, Herman Cain (presently a conservative GOP presidential candidate) was chosen to perform a similar job to bring Godfather Pizza back to life and was successful. But it wasn't just the fact that Obama didn't clean up the 'Bush/GOP mess'. While the public languished with higher and higher un and underemployment and were looking for Obama policies that would address joblessness they saw him concentrating on, well, Health Care. When the admin finally 'pivoted' the people saw 'Financial Reform". After that, Obama's FCC was pushing 'Net Neutrality', then came a rogue EPA passing regulations (against congressional wishes) that made each and every American, that exhales, a polluter. The only serious effort perceived by the public was an Obama fiscal juggernaut, where both federal spending and national debt levels seemed to be competing for negative adjective hyperbole.

When GOP candidates ran against Obama's Policies, in 2010, the results were historical. True to form in the President's SOTUS, where Americans were looking for his guidance regarding our federal financial debt, he 'pivoted' to...High Speed Rail!

Is it any wonder "that the mouth breathing tea parties types" came out and influenced the 2010 elections so historically? I am guessing, but I think it is a good bet that those "mouth breath[ers]" will be joined by independent voters in 2012 that now see what Obama's "Hope and Change" entails.

JM
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2021 at 11:03:46