28
   

Why are the American People punishing Obama?

 
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2014 01:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So putting another $30 in someones weekly paycheck will solve the middle class problem? Very Happy Rolling Eyes
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2014 01:37 pm
@parados,
But not 1 democrat voted to keep the estate tax at 2011 levels which after sunset was placed at 1M Exemption and 60% top rate. So stop defending the hypocrites who keep saying they "are for the middle class" when clearly neither Dems or Repubs are.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2014 01:50 pm
@woiyo,
Who said it solves anything? Your imagination is only exceeded by your ignorance.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2014 03:22 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You raised a meaningful issue and the census data indicated that in the decade between 2000 and 2010 the population % over 65 rose by 1%. Using that as a baseline we can expect at most a 0.8% rise in the over 65 fraction of the population since Obama took office.

You can't use that as a baseline. The number of people turning 65 is increasing every year. In 2010, the percent was 13.04% 65 and over. By 2013 it is 14.1%. And that is as a percent of total population. Labor Force doesn't include those under 17. The total as percent of labor force is going up faster than the percent of total population.

Let's do some quick math with rough numbers.
The labor force participation has gone from 66% to 63%.
Labor force is about 75% of population.
Population 65 and over has gone from under 13% to 14.1%. (We'll call it 1.2%.)

3% of labor force is equivalent to 2.25% of total population. The % of total population over 65 and over has gone up 1.2%. 1.2 is more than half of 2.25.

The fact that it was flat prior is explained by the % of population in each age category. The bulge that is the Baby Boomers weren't at retirement the decade before that.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2014 04:18 pm
@woiyo,
There was no bill to keep the taxes at that level introduced in the House so your argument is rather silly.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2014 04:42 pm
@parados,
Surely the labor force participation rate takes into account actual people 65 and over still on the job.....right? I have a pretty low opinion of government at the moment but I cant imagine that the information coming out of government is a half assed and/or outright lies as that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2014 05:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
No bull shyt.
From BLS.
Quote:
Group
Participation rate
Percentage-point change
Annual growth rate
............................................ 1992.....2002.....2012.....2022
Total, 16 years and older.......66.4.....66.6.......63.7......61.6
16 to 24..................................66.1......63.3.......54.9......49.6
25 to 54..................................83.6.....83.3........81.4......81.0
55 and older...........................29.7.....34.5.........40.5.....41.5

65 and older............................11.5......13.2.........18.5.....23.0
65 to 74....................................16.3......20.4........26.8....31.9
75 to 79.......................................6.3......7.4..........11.4.....14.9


As show, the 65 and older group are growing, and we still have the 75 to 79 age group still working.

I reached 79 years this year, and I've been retired since 1998.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2014 09:14 am
@cicerone imposter,
Then why are the democrats arguing it is necessary if it will not "solve anything"? You democrats just want to "throw a bone" to the "poor folk" ?

Minimum wage jobs are not designed to be careers. They are designed as either entry level positions or unskilled positions for the most part. Others use minimum wage jobs as supplements.
woiyo
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2014 09:15 am
@parados,
Then you fail to recall the original bill passed under Bush called for a repeal in 2010 (which occurred) and a return to the 1M exemption in 2011.

You forgot to remember that I suppose.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2014 10:33 am
@woiyo,
I'm not a 'democrat.' I'm what is called an "Independent" in this country.

I don't favor either party with their extremisms, breaking of the laws as established by our Constitution, and advocate for equality and freedom for all.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2014 10:36 am
@woiyo,
FYI, many in our society work in minimum wage jobs for their whole lives; it's their career. That's the reason it's been shown that a college education pay off (used to) in a career with some skill. Many without college education do well in our society. Bill Gates is one.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2014 12:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I think it's a big jump from folks in minimum wage jobs to Bill Gates. He was a Harvard student when he quit school to catch the new IT wave.

I doubt that many people make a career out of mninimum wage jobs. Many certainly start there and move up their respective organizations in their careers, but that's a different thing.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2014 12:15 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Many? How many? 70% of the workforce? 10% of the workforce? Your pay should be based upon the skill level of your job and the value you bring to the organization. If someone is content on working at a minimum wage level for life, good for them. Their wages should not be established by some random Federal guideline, but by the employer within limits set forth by the State. $10/hr goes a lot farther in Alabama than in New York for example. Why should a Alabama employer have their wages scale set based upon what goes on in other part of the country?
woiyo
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2014 12:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You may register as Independent, but your are as Liberal as they come. Be proud of what you are and stop hiding behind a curtain, unless you are embarrassed by being a Liberal/Progressive .
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2014 12:29 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

You may register as Independent, but your are as Liberal as they come. Be proud of what you are and stop hiding behind a curtain, unless you are embarrassed by being a Liberal/Progressive .


I think that is an interesting insight, and may well explain Cicerone's new disgust with the electoral process.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2014 03:11 pm
@georgeob1,
No. Just because some of you don't understand my political leanings, that's your problem. Simply put, I'm an Independent.

I'm a fiscal conservative, but history shows us that the GOP administrations increased our national debt. Is there a conflict? Of coarse, because the GOP talks about cutting spending, but they end up creating more debt for our country.

I'm a liberal when it comes to the education of our children, equal rights for everyone, universal health care, upkeep of our infrastructure, much smaller defense budget (we're not the world's police), and spending more on our citizens that need assistance.

I see the GOP as racial bigots; give tax cuts to the wealthy who really don't need it; discriminate against minorities, women, and gays; and start illegal wars without paying for it. They also claim they're not scientists, and don't support protecting our environment. They don't support minimum wage increases - all while complaining that the 47% of Americans are on the take.

The so-called liberal Obama doesn't understand our Constitution, lies, approves of torture, and killing of innocent by using drones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpBwmN66As

That's what I call an "Independent."
TNCFS.
woiyo
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2014 07:31 am
@cicerone imposter,
How if the GOP practicing Racial Bigotry? Any examples?

Both parties give tax cuts to the wealthy. See the Estate Tax going to 5.4M per person (10.8M per couple) voted for by BOTH.

They really discriminate against woman and gays?

They start wars without paying for it? Yet the democrats in Congress authorized the funding for those wars.

Nice of you to throw in a few bones against the Dems to make us THINK you are independent. Yet your statements clearly indicate you are a proud member of the Liberal/ Progressive movement that I just do not fundamentally agree with. Apparently, as a result of this election, most voters disagree with you also.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2014 08:40 am
@woiyo,
Quote:
Your pay should be based upon the skill level of your job and the value you bring to the organization.

If that was the case at least 10% of CEOs should be paying their corporation to be in that position.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2014 10:21 am
@parados,
Not only that, but even 'bad' CEO's get a bonus when they are 'fired' from their jobs. Doesn't make any sense, but that's the fact of commerce of today.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2014 01:46 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
Your pay should be based upon the skill level of your job and the value you bring to the organization.

If that was the case at least 10% of CEOs should be paying their corporation to be in that position.


Well in the first place the 10% number is something you just pulled out of your ass. What percentage would you apply to senior political appointees and bureaucrats in the Federal government?

There are indeed examples of CEOs of poorly performing companies who survive for several years. However, I believe the accountability they face is far more effective and fast acting than that which attends the bureaucrats who increasingly make the rules under which the CEOs (and the rest of us) must live.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 02:10:08