Obama '08?

@plainoldme,

I would NEVER seek to do that.

I'm merely commenting on your environmental "diligence" (if one can call it that), and your seeming endless ability and willingness to tell others how to live.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme" wrote:

I guess you would seek to deprive me of my lousy $22,000 a year for which I work two jobs, always six, sometimes seven, days a week.

Yes I would like to deprive you of your lousy jobs for $22,000 a year ! I'd prefer to see you lawfully earn at least triple that for one job, 5 days and 40 hours a week.

Prerequisite step 1: give up your leftist fantasies, and think rationally.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

What an unrealistic person you are.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

You have no understanding of liberals. The people stealing the wealth, literally redistributing it are those people in the top earnings' quintile. Wages for the "four bottom quintiles" have been flat since 1979. The top quintile is robbing and raping the rest of us, which, most likely includes you. It is the top 1% that you should despise and fear.

Those at the top are destroying society.

You are implicitly assuming there is a fixed quantity of wealth and that its distribution is a zero sum game. Both our understanding of economics and a basic observation of history, including prominently our own, remind us that this is most certainly not the case. Wealth is created by the free economic activity of people of all types. The incentives of a free market have repeatedly demonstrated their overwhelming superiority to centrally planned or regulated economies in creating wealth. Such systems inexorably involve winners and losers, but they do provide economic mobility for all. Attemts to centrally manage the distribution of wealth almost always end up producing only uniform poverty ... and the loss of freedom.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob, The history of the past two decades speak for themselves; the rich are getting richer, and the middle class and poor are losing ground. Some of this shift in wealth may well be capitalism, but we are all aware of the lopsided shift of income to the top five or so percent of of population - some through greed, but mostly through the imbalance in income between the heads of companies and the rest of the workers. When I see CEOs and officers of companies earning millions through their stock trades on a regular basis, while the average earnings for the middle class and the poor remain stagnant, getting laid off from their jobs, there is a huge problem in wealth distribution.
In all this imbalance in income, those making those millions do so at the expense of our countries ability to remain a strong economy. It also hurts the balance of trade, our deficit, and the future economy of our country.

Getting back to those CEOs making millions in stock trades is obsene to me; many of them haven't earned it through good management.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

While there obviously is merit in what you write, the fact is inescapable, that since the Reagan-ish point of view came into power in the 1980s, the rich have profited tremendously as compared to every other group in America. Tremendously.

A question: do you foresee any problems in a society in which the rich grow far, far richer while the middle classes remain stagnant? Or is this the desired outcome of your free market ideology?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Good questions. Perhaps the central issue here is what has caused the stagnation of the middle classes to which you referred? Was it a direct consequence of of the riches of the top 1% ? Or were there other factors involved?

The loss of relatively high paying manufacturing jobs in the industries of the Midwest and even in southern California, and the textile industry in the South was not the action of the wealthy. Rather it was the result of high taxes and Labor Union actions to reduce productivity that rendered them uncompetitive in the world market. Wipeing out the salaries of all their executives wouldn't have saved them.

High taxes, excessive government regulation and rigid, inflexible labor markets are the proven formula for stranguling economic innovation.

I'm not defending the compensation of some Wall Street types. However, I do recognize that there is lots of turnover among folks in that world and many are out of work now.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob, During the past 15-years or so, the productivity of Americans workers continued to increase, and became the highest productive workers on this planet. Even during this period, most middle-class and the poor barely kept up with inflation. That's the same period in which the US economy gained in our GDP, but that was mostly at the cost of increased debt.

At the beginning of this GDP growth, company bosses made not more than 50 to 75% of the average workers pay at their company. Today, they make thousand plus percent more; many make in one month many people make during the whole working lives.

That's capitalism gone haywire; it's called greed. There's nothing fair or equitable about their pay structure.

1 Reply

I have just heard that many are pulling out of China and moving to Thailand as labour is cheaper there. Nothing to do with Chinese productivity, its all to do with greed.

1 Reply

@xris,

Its always due to greed, right? So if you go to a store to buy something cheaper than you could have purchased it at another store, that is due to your greed. And if you went to a different dealer to buy a car at a lower price, that is greed. And if you moved from one apartment to rent an equally good apartment for less price, that is greed on your part. And if you have ever sold a home and moved to an equally decent home that served your needs in order to reap the profits from the home you sold, that is another example of greed. And if you wait to buy clothing on sale, rather than pay the normal price, again an example of your greed. Using coupons when you buy anything is also greed, as you are essentially avoiding paying the normal price for the product. You, like all human beings, are one greedy self centered and pathetic shred of human debris.

1 Reply

LEFT-RIGHT SCALE

LEFTISM~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.[/white]RIGHTISM
communism nazism fascism socialism statism democratism conservatism libertarianism anarchism
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<=====more mass murdersless mass murders=====>
~~~~~~~~~<===== more wealth transferred by governmentless wealth transferred by government =====>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <=====more corruption of governmentless corruption of government=====>

0 Replies

The governments of the USA have been moving LEFT since Wilson.

Bush continued moving the government of the USA LEFT.

Obama has accelerated moving the government of the USA LEFT.

The more LEFT our economy goes, the less real wealth there will be for ALL of us, and the bigger will be the gap between the most and least wealthy..

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Too bad history disagrees with you; it is since Reagan took office in 1980, and our government moved to the RIGHT on economic issues, that the gap between the rich and poor has skyrocketed.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

No moving home is not about greed its necessity and when I buy clothes I expect my government to control exploitation. If I barter its about controlling the dealers greed, I'm not exploiting the market or damaging the work force . I place my morals and politics above the individual greed. I accept human weakness and thats why I vote for a socialist responsible government, a government that legislates against exploitation and uncontrollable greed. get it ?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

How has the government moved to the right on economic issues? I don't want a general statement of demagoguery, such as tax breaks for the rich, but I want actual evidence in terms of tax rates, or proof that the poor is paying more percentage of the tax revenues now than they were before Reagan, which I doubt you have one iota of evidence to support.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

No moving home is not about greed its necessity and when I buy clothes I expect my government to control exploitation. If I barter its about controlling the dealers greed, I'm not exploiting the market or damaging the work force . I place my morals and politics above the individual greed. I accept human weakness and thats why I vote for a socialist responsible government, a government that legislates against exploitation and uncontrollable greed. get it ?

Socialism is exploitation of the producers in order to give to the non-producers or lower producers. That is akin to giving everyone in the class an "A" when some of them are flunking the class and don't even try to pass, because they know they will get an "A" anyway. After all, why work if it doesn't make any difference? That is greed by the flunkees for what the "A" students have worked to earn. It is not only immoral, it is unAmerican.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

How has the government moved to the right on economic issues? I don't want a general statement of demagoguery, such as tax breaks for the rich, but I want actual evidence in terms of tax rates, or proof that the poor is paying more percentage of the tax revenues now than they were before Reagan, which I doubt you have one iota of evidence to support.

Tax breaks for the rich are exactly the issue. Reagan chopped the highest brackets down to half what they used to be, and we got nothing - nothing - in return. There has been no giant leap in American wealth due to these tax breaks, no huge rises in investment in industry or manufacturing.

You're wrong about no proof, though - there exists a gigantic amount of evidence that the right-wing economic policies that have been in place since Reagan have lead to a massive gap between the rich and the poor. And I would advise you to research this and then drop the point, before I start posting the mountains of evidence that will thoroughly embarrass you.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/rich-got-rich-and-poor-got-poorer-ain

Quote:

The gap between the wealthiest Americans and middle- and working-class Americans has more than tripled in the past three decades, according to a June 25 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

New data show that the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest parts of the population in 2007 was the highest it’s been in 80 years, while the share of income going to the middle one-fifth of Americans shrank to its lowest level ever.

The CBPP report attributes the widening of this gap partly to Bush Administration tax cuts, which primarily benefited the wealthy. Of the $1.7 trillion in tax cuts taxpayers received through 2008, high-income households received by far the largest—not only in amount but also as a percentage of income—which shifted the concentration of after-tax income toward the top of the spectrum.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

You are being silly again . No one admires or supports the idol only the idol rich. Socialism is not about rewarding inability its about safe guards and a social responsibility.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclops, you use cookie cutter liberal cut and paste. If all of that were true, it would translate to what we experience, don't you think? I can tell you that most of our friends all started out in very humble beginnings, with not much money. However, all of these people are prime examples of being responsible, whether they went to college and got a degree or not, they all have worked hard, and all live comfortably with decent lifestyle, savings, and a retirement waiting in the wings. And none of them worry about other people having more money, as you apparently do. And count me as one of the group that had little money growing up. I earned every dime that it took to go to college, then got a decent job as a professional, then later became self employed and a business owner, successful by the way, which is more than can be said for our president that has done nothing of note before getting into politics.

To summarize, I think post Reagan has been a great time in our nation's history when the poor can get ahead, if they applied themselves. The contrary is true if they expected the government to take care of them and did not work very hard to better themselves and be responsible in the process. So I do not see any evidence of your statistics being realistic in real life, at least not in my experience and the hundreds of people that I know and have known.

By the way, I would guess that the upper 1% or 5% of the income people pay a higher percentage of the tax revenues now than they did prior to Reagan. Can you refute that? Also, has it ever occurred to you that rich vs poor might be a function of cultural problems, more than it is individual tax rate structures? Or perhaps it is a function of Democrat policies, such as over regulation, corporate tax rates, and union bullying, driving manufacturing offshore?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Cyclops, you use cookie cutter liberal cut and paste. If all of that were true, it would translate to what we experience, don't you think?

It absolutely does transalate to what we experience. Americans have had to live on credit and lower their savings rate to cover the lack of increases in pay over the last 3o years. Reaganite policies are directly responsible for the financial mess that both our citizens and our country as a whole find ourselves in.

Quote:

By the way, I would guess that the upper 1% or 5% of the income people pay a higher percentage of the tax revenues now than they did prior to Reagan. Can you refute that?

Are you serious? They do so because they own a higher percentage of all wealth. A much higher percentage. They have gotten RICHER and you try to use that as evidence that they in fact have it bad! Orwellian in it's craziness, that comment of yours.

Quote:

Also, has it ever occurred to you that rich vs poor might be a function of cultural problems, more than it is individual tax rate structures?

There is no evidence to support this proposition. We are talking about changes in levels of wealth over time - what are the 'cultural changes' which you say are responsible for this?

I can point right to the tax structure changes, in favor of the wealthy, which have made them more wealthy. Can you do the same?

Quote:

Or perhaps it is a function of Democrat policies, such as over regulation, corporate tax rates, and union bullying, driving manufacturing offshore?

The last 3o years have seen less regulation of 'big business' such as the oil and banking industry and lower tax rates on corporations. So, yeah - you are completely wrong, again.

To repeat: you have no evidence whatsoever to support your positions, whereas I most certainly do to support mine. The numbers do not lie.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know