Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

@parados,

Quote:

Why is it a problem?
Teachers in the 60s made more than the median income.

We were not a bankrupt nation in the 60's scrounging for a way to bring our books into order. Also, if you check I think you will find that back then teachers were held in much higher esteem. Decades of failure to fix the schools, of misguided morality indoctrination in the schools which does not conform the the values of many of the people who are paying for the schools and sending their kids there, all while whining about how little they are paid has gone far to destroy the standing of teachers in this society.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

We were not a bankrupt nation in the 60's scrounging for a way to bring our books into order

We are far far from a bankrupt nation however since the 60s half the total wealth of the nation had just disappear into the hands of a percent or two of our citizens.

Move the tax rates back to even the late 1980s and the problems would be over with.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
We were not a bankrupt nation in the 60's scrounging for a way to bring our books into order

We are far far from a bankrupt nation however since the 60s half the total wealth of the nation had just disappear into the hands of a percent or two of our citizens.

A 1% rise in interest rates cost us $240 billion a year in interest payments to our bankers, which we do not have and for which we have very limited ability to raise with taxes even after the voodoo economics directors are shoved out .

Wise up old man....we are tapped out, nearing calamity.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

A 1% rise in interest rates cost us $240 billion a year in interest payments to our bankers, which we do not have and for which we have very limited ability to raise with taxes even after the voodoo economics directors are shoved out .

Wise up old man....we are tapped out, nearing calamity.

Come off it Hawkeye stop giving GOP talking points and please engage your fine mind.

A large percent of the government debt hell most of it is in long term bonds not owe by banks. As those interest rates are lock for periods ranging from five years to 30 plus years no movement of the current interest rate is going to be all that harmful.

Hell I would be sending off sky rockets as a movement of three percents would mean somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000 dollars a year of interest income for me. This income would be taxable and my added income and millions of others would increase the government tax base and add to the economic with our buyings.

After WW2 the debt was a great deal higher then it is now compare to the GNP and our top tax bracket was in the 80 percent range or so. I need to find a chart or a table but if memory service me correctly our national debt was in the order of 1.5 times repeat times out GNP.

Remember the 1950s Hawkeye the economic did not do all that bad even with the flood of service men coming back and we reconverting off a war time footing.

One of these days I am going to find a chart of the national debt compare to the GNP over the history of this nation.

We had one hell of a debt load after the revolution war more then the GNP if I remember correctly and the civil war and we survive both very nicely indeed.

To sum up our situation now is hardly uncommon in the history of this nation the only difference is that the wealth is in very few hands and instead of taxing where the wealth is the government wish to used just the resources of the middle and lower classes and at the same time grant even more damn tax breaks for the top one or two percent.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

A large percent of the government debt hell most of it is in long term bonds not owe by banks

That is an interesting assertion, because I have been listening to economists for over a decade complaining that America uses far too much sort term financing.

The 2009 GDP per capita was just under $47K, a lot of that was illusionary Wall Street Bull ****, and according to US Debt Clock.com the interest per capita is now $11.500 per year on all forms of debt.....sorry, when 25% of my income goes to debt carrying costs and when a full 40% of my yearly spending is financed with new debt, I have a big problem.

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

So does the USA.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Sorry my friend but was there a economic meltdown in 1950 that I am not aware of where the ratio of national debt to GNP was the highest in this nation history including now hell in fact it was roughly 30 percents higher then it is now.

The national economic is far far more different then an individual then they are similar.

We went into massive debt to get out of the depression and fight WW2 and as a result we set off a period of economic growth never seen before or since in this nation history.

GOP talking points are nice but they have little or no connection to the national economic.

And last if you wish to bring down the nation debt do what we did in the 1950s tax the hell out of the top earners.

It work just fine in the 1950s and would do so in the 2010's.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

One of these days I am going to find a chart of the national debt compare to the GNP over the history of this nation.

Here you go

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1792_2016&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy12&chart=H0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Thanks and please take note of the year 1950 and compare it to our current situation.

Second note once more we got out to this debt by taxing the top earners not by cutting programs or benefits to the poor and middle class.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Thanks and please take note of the year 1950 and compare it to our current situation.

Second note once more we got out to this debt by taxing the top earners not by cutting programs or benefits to the poor and middle class.

1) in 1950 we had a brand new and very functional global economic system. In 2011 we have a global economic system in critical condition and the doctors have done nothing because they either think the patient is fine or they cant figure out what to do.

2) I am all for taxing the wealthy, I am a firm believer in wealth redistribution to the extent that to those who are granted the greatest gifts are obligated the greatest responsibilities. We also need to take an axe to government though, it has become a out of control beast which is eating the rights of the citizens.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

It's mostly because they are clueless on how to "fix" anything. They usually end up doing the reverse of what they should have done.

That goes for both Greenspan and Bernanke. Greenspan's easy money policies got this world into an economic crisis, and Bernanke is just following along like his old boss. Keeping interest rates low at a time when the national debt keeps increasing, because the government can borrow with cheap money and interest.

Instead of rewarding savers, they are rewarding the very people who doesn't know how to save, and get themselves neck deep into debt. The banks are charging them double digit interest while the banks can borrow money at less than 1%.

Both are pretty stupid people.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You seem as though you may be seeing it correctly just don't have any expectations of it getting better and we may see reality for what it is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GdfCm3Tr4M&feature=channel_video_title

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

in 1950 we had a brand new and very functional global economic system. In 2011 we have a global economic system in critical condition and the doctors have done nothing because they either think the patient is fine or they cant figure out what to do.

Come off it Hawkeye we had the cold war and the not so cold Koren war/police action just to name two things that were a great deal more of a drain on the country in 1950s then our military actions now happen to be.

The countries in Europe was still basket cases that we was pouring money into rebuilding and was hardly a part of any very functional global economic system.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Let me sum up Hawkeye our economic situation and debt is hardly as bad as what we was facing in 1950 and yet we did not used those conditions as an excused to attack the middle class.

Hell we placed resources into greatly expanding the middle class such as the GI bill.

The attack on the middle class and such programs as SS and Medicare and unions for that matter is not driven by any need to save the poor economic far from it.

It is instead part of a drive to have a small oligarchy of wealth take over both the wealth and rule of this country.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

There was a study done that shows that the average teacher in WI makes more than over 60% of the people paying their salaries, even before benies and deferred income are factored, which is a problem.

I wouldn't trust that survey. I suspect that all wages paid and not all wage earners were included. Many people in MA have two jobs. Most are paid less than $10/hour at their second job. If you count all wages paid, then you include the people making under $10,000/annum at a second job.

Teachers are not highly paid. My daughter earns $40,000. Consider first year lawyers earn $80,000 to $125,000 at the larger firms.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

teachers are by no stretch of the imagination underpaid.

Why don't I put some of the papers I am correcting in the mail to you so that you can see how long it takes to correct just one.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Everyone made less in the 60s. I just charted what the pay scale was for several professions. Consider the ratios for 1969. A bank teller earned $5,000 while a teacher earned $8,000 and a starting attorney earned $10,000 - 12,000.

WHile an attorney potentially earned 25 - 50% more than teacher then, someone who has just passed the bar will earn 100% of what a new teacher earns today.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Everyone made less in the 60s. I just charted what the pay scale was for several professions. Consider the ratios for 1969. A bank teller earned $5,000 while a teacher earned $8,000 and a starting attorney earned $10,000 - 12,000.

WHile an attorney potentially earned 25 - 50% more than teacher then, someone who has just passed the bar will earn 100% of what a new teacher earns today.

I am sure that you dont want to compare what the average teacher makes now with what the average bank teller makes.....after you factor in deferred income and benefits that bank tellers do not get I am thinking teachers make at least three times as much.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

please take note of the year 1950 and compare it to our current situation.

I hate to say it but in 1950, women were not in the workforce in droves. The baby boom not only marked the greatest homecoming in history since Odysseus, it represented more people than ever before in history chasing goods and services. This was followed by many of them going to college, expecting better jobs with either better pay or more flexible hours or both than their parents had.

The feminist movement and the birth control pill put women in the job force. What happens when more people chase the same thing, in this case, not goods or services but a position?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Bank tellers then were not college graduates. They earned $5,000. I applied for a teller's position. The salary would have been just under $12/hour. Multiply that by 35 hours per week and then by 50 weeks per year and a teller earns $21,000.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

A teacher now makes $35,000 to $40,000 to start in this state or just about twice what a teller makes, although a teller may have better bennies.

0 Replies

Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know