The bottom line of President Reagan's Right-wing endorsed economic policy is that "if you put more money in the hands of the wealthy, it will, 1) Expand the economy, 2) Let the boat rise with the economy, and 3) Prosperity will "Trickle-down to expand the middle class.
None of those things has happened. 1) The economy underperformed the 1960 - 1975 baseline, 2) The bottom income quintile has remained flat, and 3) Prosperity 'trickled-up' from the shrinking middle class to the expanding rich class.
How can you tell? Would the poor have been twice as poor without it? Would there have been half as many jobs without the rich providing them?
I DO think, though, that accumulating wealth has become even more of a "game" than in the past, with that accumulation becoming more of a goal rather than actually doing anything with it.
The data doesn't lie. The middle class IS shrinking, the lower income quintile HAS NOT, except to a very minor degree, participated in the growth since 1980, and the economy WAS in overall much better shape between 1960 and 1975 than between 1980 and 2015.
The "rich", per se, do not provide jobs, never have and never will. Who does produce jobs are middle class (50 to 80 centile) entrepreneurs who create over half of the jobs, including single person proprietorships.
Next comes the venture capitalists, a very small segment of the rich, who fund start-ups, generally be people of much more modest means, that grow into job producers.
After that comes those institutional investors, some of whom are rich individuals, who buy stocks at IPOs or new issues of more stock in a company.
Then you have, to the degree that the rich keep their money in liquid cash-type accounts, that contribute to investment dollars.
That leaves an awfully lot of rich people who have nothing at all to do with job creation.
It's precisely right-wing policies that promote entrepreneurialship and stimulate business. Where do you think investors, venture capitalists and so on would do if US administration introduced a fat, juicy tax on them? They would flee. Point is you need policies that supports businesses as much as you can because they employ a vast majority of skilled and educated people.
Lefty policies just don't work in my opinion: they may help the neediest in the shorter term but what eventuates after some time is just a streak of debts and deficits. In my opinion, we should push the very rich to support programs voluntarily rather than issue taxes against them. Easier said than done though
You would think that right wing tax cut theories would be correct in assuming a job growth bonanza but the studies show no significant affect.
"Effects on U.S. Output and Wages
What about the effects on the U.S. economy? The discussion sometimes focuses on job creation.
Job creation is an important issue for the government to address during cyclical downturns.
Standard economic theory suggests such policies should be temporary; in contrast, advocates of
corporate rate cuts are proposing permanent cuts. In any case, temporary or permanent corporate
rate cuts are unlikely to be very effective stimulus policies."  CRS Congressional Research Service
"Lefty policies just don't work in my opinion: they may help the neediest in the shorter term but what eventuates after some time is just a streak of debts and deficits."
Tax cuts have very little to do with long term growth. Short spurts are realized but soon dissipate.
"Although various dynamic models can potentially produce larger results, the models with
responses most consistent with empirical evidence suggest a revenue feedback effect of about 1%
for the 2001-2004 Bush tax cuts. CRS
It is not a lefty rightly issue as empirical data from the Congressional Research Service documents it as having no merit.
A robust economy is the key to economic growth. Lower prices from foreign manufacturers taking away jobs has limited the consumers strength and the residual affect is the money being concentrated at the top where little stimulus is taking place
Since our factories and jobs in technology were sent to China, Mexico and India, wouldn't it make sense that if there were any trickle down, it would go to the economy and classes in those countries while our "trickle-down" classes dried up?
makes sense to me. and how is China doing?
Pretty good, it seems, since the greedy American citizenry decided that cheap junk made illegally and under hellish working conditions is what they wanted. Better to save a dollar than pay a reasonable wage to the neighbor for what he produces.
strangely, it is hard to find data showing they are doing well. mostly, that they are still struggling.
Oh I don't know. The ones with good jobs seem to be doing well - between higher incomes coupled with cheap, imported, prices they do all right.
Their neighbors, on the other hand, that do NOT have good jobs are kind of hurting. Imports are too cheap and those with money won't buy local.
Your assumption is absurd ~ 100% of the blame lies with Greed Driven Ccorportions, not with under-paid Americans ~
And yet republicans strive mightily each day to deliver execs even more of our wealth in the form of tax breaks etc. ~ Criminal ~
China's got a growing middle class and certainly a growing number of rich people. Poverty is still looming but I feel this will go down if growth is maintained.
India has also a very large base of middle class people but poverty is as high as ever.. maybe not enough money is spent on improving welfare state
There are a lot of people here promoting a socialist/communist alternative to capitalism. The main reason being that they have never actually had to live in a Communist Hell hole.
And who is actually living a Happy, Fulfilling & Productive Life in the United States of America? Aside from the wealthy of course ~ Very few my friend ~
Sorry you don't know that. Very very sorry….
I doubt that either of your extreme positions are correct. Consider that 20% of American households earn more than $100,000. 30% more earn between $51,000 and $100,000. Then consider that true poverty begins at $35,000, which certainly qualifies for Alternative's description.
Between there and $51,000 is a very gray area, some of whom fall into Alternative's area, depending on where they live. Between $51,000 and $70,000 is less gray but still some will not be doing very well, again depending on location.
Finally, 20% earn less than $21,000, clearly poverty. Since between 20% and 40% live in some form of poverty, so that doesn't qualify as "most everyone". Since between 20% and 40% live very comfortably, that doesn't qualify for "very few" either.
Given that $51,000 is only $16,000 more than the basic subsistence level then my take is they aren't living that well. That means 50% of Americans do not live comfortably, happily, and economically stress free. That is terrible for being the richest country in the world!
Its all a matter of attitude. One can be happy on thirty thou a year … trust me!
"Then consider that true poverty begins at $35,000.."
It is statements like this that show how ridiculous the term "poverty" has become - $35,000 per year is not "abject poverty" in any manner of speaking. A single person can live quite well on that amount while the "19 and counting" family would have a hard time on $100,000. Even the statement that "Finally, 20% earn less than $21,000, clearly poverty." is out of line for a one person household.
Given that a family of four should have no real problems on the $45,000 that is available to them after government charity it would seem to say that there is no poverty in the US - something we all know is false. It is simply not possible to throw random figures out and declare that people are poverty stricken because they don't earn this much, or that much.
Nobody is throwing "random numbers" about. As I stated somewhere, the $35K is for a family of three with one wage earner in a MidWest town like Omaha, NE. It comes a hub I have asking the question, "What Do You Think is the Minimum Annual Income a Working Family of Three Needs to Barely Survive With Dignity In America Today?" at http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/Pove … erica-2351
Only 49 Hubbers have responded so far (it's a long series of polls), but the values have converged quickly. The numbers are somewhat biased to the "liberal" side because only 10% self-identified Conservatives have responded while 48% self-identified Liberals; the rest are in the middle or something else. Said another way, 52% of respondents don't consider themselves Liberal.
In order to validate the results somewhat, I ask the question two different ways. One is what their overall opinion is (currently about $32,300) and then individually for 13 different expenditure categories (now standing about $37,000 when you sum them up). Bottom line, $35,000 is a very reasonable estimate.
If the family earns a little less than $35K, then they will need to start deciding which necessities to give up or reduce below a subsistence level. Therefore, that would be the threshold where people enter the "abject" poverty category. People earning a little more than that can start eating better or enjoying a little entertainment. But, they are always at dire risk of falling completely to the bottom if the unexpected happens like serious illness, accident, etc.
It's only when they reach around the $50K level before they can do things like ... save for their future. I would bet that at $45K, at best food stamps are still available and maybe Medicaid in those States that expanded their Medicaid program. or ACA subsidy.
It is fantasy to believe that " a family of four should have no real problems on the $45,000 that is available to them ..." will not have problems. (I don't what you meant by the rest of that sentence.)
You're taking the opinions of 49 people that responded to a hub on poverty and using it to make a claim about where the income line for "true poverty" is??!! What kind of "research" is that??
Let me give you another viewpoint. From http://www.city-data.com/income/income- … daho.html, there are large portions of Boise and it's nearby bedroom communities that fall under (sometimes well under) your arbitrary figure of $35,000. That should be about equivalent to Omaha, and it is not "true poverty". The area has almost no homeless population, for instance - certainly a sign of true poverty.
No, the problem lies in the personal concept of "true poverty" and what constitutes "necessities". Whereupon the figure of $35,000 fits, but at a level of luxuries I didn't have for much of my life.
As far as $45,000 - you never mentioned a family of 3, and that figure is given for what a family of 4 can expect after working + govt. charity programs.
Putting more money in their hands wasn't the policy. Taking less away, in the form of taxation, was the policy.
Not only is "Trickle Down" a Failed Republican Con Job but The "American Experiment" PERIOD has'nt worked ~
Time to eliminate the FAILED 2 party political system and replace it with the "American Democratic Party" which will champion the causes of the MAJORITY of citizens ~ The greed driven wealthiest few no longer need representation by republican puppets, they've already plundered this country to the limit ~
Great idea! Except...where will all the money come from for the free loaders that want more than they produce? We've already plundered this country (plus half the world, including China) for money to give away - where will it come from now?
Freeloader? A Republican BS term they try to use to define all Americans who are not filthy rich ~ Reality? American Workers & Senior Citizens are paid a tiny fraction of their true intrinsic worth ~ Just remember, Greed Driven Corporations collect billions in annual revenues & profits while the worker earns pennies ~ Time for that to change ~
That's fine and quite true...as long as it is you and not the free market that gets to define the "true intrinsic worth" of someone's labor. Personally, I will believe the market place rather than you or some bureaucrat sitting at a desk.
But I trust that you understand that greed is not one-sided - that the greed of the worker producing minimum wage value, but demanding more, should be ignored and they should remain paid what they are actually worth, without simply declaring it to be more than what they get without regard to actual value?
More fox republican nonsensical BS ~ Yeah, the "Free Market Place" is fine when the "Market" freely flows in a greedy corporate execs favor ~ When it dosen't, just place an arbitrary price tag on the product ~
It's clearly apparent you've been a tad blind when it comes to the oil & gas "Markets" lately ~ Talk about a massive con job, not to mention what most would consider illegal & unethical business activities ~
I've been calling for congressional hearings regarding ALL oil cos. ~ Let the execs explain while under oath why there was, and still is a massive divergence in commodity prices ~
Not really, I agree with Wilderness. When the uneducated hamburger slinger makes $15.00 per hour, it devalues the salaries of the rest of us who worked hard to pay for our degrees with time and money. I have a masters but I don't make a six figure salary after 27 years at my job. It's just the bureaucrats, engineers, and doctors who do. My field doesn't pay six figures. Anybody can make a hamburger or a shake. I did that when I was a freshman in college.
This is absurd, $15.00 per hour will leave a person very close to if not in poverty ~
Firstly, it does not de-value anything, the regressive republicans are hostile toward a reasonable hourly wage increase because it would give the minions below them more power and control over theirlives which to them would be unacceptable ~
Secondly, god save us if a repubican were president, ALL student loan programs would be terminated period ~ Students understand this completely ~ They would need to go to the "Mutt Romney" program ~ "Just go borrow the money from your parents if you would like an extended education" ~ Insane ~
Thirdly if you are only making a mere $15.00 per hour or in this vicinity after an extended education, there's probably something wrong with your individual marketability ~
AP, the key is depending on where you live $15.00/hr is a lot of money. It is not so much in Huntington Beach or Lower Manhattan but by the standards of the average national individual wage, that's over $30,000 a year for flipping burgers. I hear that is what GM and the auto manufacturers start their workers out with...and the fast food industry can't claim to the same wages as a factory worker. We need to raise the minimum to at least 10.00 nationwide, but I think that $15.00 is a bit much.
You are confusing minimum wage with livable wage. The two have similarities but are from opposite ends of the spectrum. By law the minimum wage is not federally mandated to match anything. It is a sum decided by congress based on their own criteria. A livable wage is based mostly on local governments agreements with industry and civil service and such.
To calculate how inflation and data affects the wages check out the link below.
I respectfully disagree Credence 2, ~
$15.00 per hour regardless of job dutuies or living venue should be a starting point from which to launch further wage increases in the near future ~ Los Angelesi is on cutting edge and a nationwide effort should commence ~
rhamson ~ I'm well aware of the differences between "Minimum" & "Livable" wage ~ The latter just an excuse for gredy repubicans to try to Cap Americans at an income in which they feel is appropriate, and everyone understands that level is well below poverty ~
Republicans almost organized a mass "Jump" from a 10 story building after the minimum wage was increased to just above $7.00 ~ This is at poverty levels regardless of where you live ~
This Hubpages Forum APP is atrocious ~ Extremely Slow ~ I'm a little better speller than it appears here ~
Look I am with you but for a totally different reason. The standard of living we have demands a higher wage. But more than that a $15.00 per hour wage will renew spending which will re invigorate the economy. More money means more to spend. Even greedy Walmart understands that and is trying to head it off at the pass with a lower $10.00 wage for some. The jobs have left in an effort by the corporations to improve their own wealth. Plain and simple capitalism. Nothing wrong with that. But how they did it through buying legislation and selling lies such as NAFTA and the soon to be fast tracked TPP is immoral and based totally in greed. Why would they wish to lose ground they have already gained and paid for by letting the government raise the minimum wage?
Spending a 50 cent piece that is labeled a dollar doesn't help anyone much...
I hear you, AP, I just doubt that that concept has any serious chance of being adopted nationwide in the current political climate. Only the most progressive municipalities even approach mandating that level of compensation for workers in their respective areas.
Unfortunately, for so many working individuals who have families to support, you're probably right Credence2 ~
You will probably see the Progressive States adopt this increase while the conservative regions continue to do all they can to supress hard working Americans ~
And will you also advance all wages proportionally? If you double the minimum wage will you also mandate a doubling of $20 per hour?
If you don't (or keep increasing minimum) the differential disappears, with the result that skilled people now earn minimum wage. Why obtain or maintain a skill then?
And if you do, it's called inflation in the extreme, and accomplishes nothing but devaluing the dollar. No benefit is seen by anyone, including the minimum wage worker.
"And will you also advance all wages proportionally? If you double the minimum wage will you also mandate a doubling of $20 per hour?"
You don't have to as the economy will take off. With increased spending comes increased wages naturally.
"If you don't (or keep increasing minimum) the differential disappears, with the result that skilled people now earn minimum wage. Why obtain or maintain a skill then?"
Because these people will gain increases in their wages as the economy increases.
"And if you do, it's called inflation in the extreme, and accomplishes nothing but devaluing the dollar. No benefit is seen by anyone, including the minimum wage worker."
Where has this happened before? Is it an opinion or a theory?
"With increased spending comes increased wages naturally."
Not true or we'd have higher wages. But what does come with higher demand is higher prices...followed (of course) for demands for higher wages followed - but you get the idea. It's called "inflation" and does no one any good.
"Because these people will gain increases in their wages as the economy increases."
See above. Once again, it's called "inflation" and does no one any good.
Look back to the days on very strong unions - say, around the late 70's. The time when a yearly raise, and a good sized one, was the norm. Unless I'm mistaken, you lived through that period - did that big yearly raise ever do you any real good, or did it all go to buy the same things you had already been buying?
Your reference to the recession at the end of the 70's is a poor one as the oil crisis is what drove inflation up. The oil went from approximately $3.00 a barrel to $12.00 a barrel which effectively threw the economy into a tailspin prompting the Fed to raise interest rates to quell it. Unfortunately it resulted in home loans to go up to 20% which shutdown the biggest economy driver of homebuilding. Unemployment went as high as 10%. I know as I was a carpenter out of work at the time. It was not the high wages that caused the inflation as the union workers were unemployed as well. Have you a better example?
In practice, it has never happened the way your theoretical model suggests. Higher skilled wages have always increased after an increase in MW. Your looking at the wrong half of the glass. Current MW is less than what it was in the 1960s, in terms of real dollars, so it needs to increase to $12/hr just to GET BACK to parity. Also, the lowest paid workers HAVE NOT participated in the economic growth of the this country and therefore are paid at disproportionately low wages; meaning when the skilled workers pay was doubled, low wage employees barely saw any increase at all.
And there you've said it. Increase the MW and all other wages will also increase proportionally. And with them, prices also increase, putting the MW purchasing power right back where it was (along with all the other wage increases). Whereupon the call goes out to do it all over again as it didn't work.
But increased demand results in lower prices and more jobs which in turn increases demand.
Thank you for seeing this. The inflation theorists, with regards to raising wages will create unbridled inflation, have nothing to base this on. It is the same as the trickle down theory where it all trickled up waiting for it to work.
Of course. Employers faced with rising costs never raise their prices to maintain a profit margin.
So you don't see that rising demand equals rising profits!
By that reasoning the baked bean factory producing one can of beans a week should be much more profitable than one producing 10,000 cans a day!
May I quote your statement? "But increased demand results in lower prices...". I don't see anything in there about profits, do you? Just that increasing demand lowers prices, an obvious fallacy.
Well it's not an obvious fallacy to those of s who do not suck up to the capitalists.
Just look around you at all the things that have gone down in price as demand has risen.
I just bought a new phone, it's about 10 times as powerful as my first desk top PC and cost me about one sixth of the price.
Oh, and why shouldn't an increase in demand cause an increase in profits?
Or did they go down in price with more competition and a greatly increased production rate (lower costs as a result)? You're putting the cart before the horse, and using a timeline of years rather than weeks. If you want to determine a causal relationship it must be without external factors such as increased competition.
Why should an increase in demand require a time line in years?
It doesn't, and that's what causes the price increase. When the demand increase happens over years, we'll nearly always see an increase in production from competitors, resulting in a (relatively) stable price. When it happens quickly, before increased production from competition coming on line, the price was nearly always go up.
This really is simple economics, John, at least in the free world (it won't happen in a communistic or even socialistic atmosphere to nearly the same degree). Demand goes up (or supply goes down) and the price rises. Demand goes down (or supply goes up) and the price goes down. What's so hard to understand about that?
John, your phone example, and things like it, fails mostly due to technology improvements. The downward pressure of both competition (even though it is an oligarchical industry -Samsung, Apple, Google, Microsoft- the competition is fierce) and technological improvements who's cost per unit keeps decreasing far outweigh the upward pressure of increased demand.
Pick on airline prices. Even though their costs just took a deep decline from lower oil costs, their prices remained level or increased because the demand keeps growing.
Airline prices are a classic example of raising prices to control demand.
There is a finite number of planes available at any one time and a finite number of flights.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with labour costs.
And do you really think that any of that would have happened without the demand being there?
Absolutely some do. But the volume producers quickly move in and compete. After all isn't that capitalism?
Sure...as long as "quickly" means years. In the short term price goes up much faster that addition production facilities can be brought on line. Yes, if unused production is available it will be used, almost certainly in conjunction with a price increase.
That that's capitalism - charge what the market and competition will support, which is why prices rise with demand. Also why, given a much longer time frame, prices will (hopefully) drop with additional competition and volume savings.
Why should under utilised production facilitates being brought in to use result in a higher price?
Because the owner of that production facility can squeeze more out of his customers. Isn't that the perpetual complaint of the liberal mind - that corporations are heartless and will get what they can out of their business?
I'm glad that you accept that companies charge what they can and not what production costs dictate.
Production and general costs set the lower limit to prices. Competition -where it exists- sets the upper limit. Where oligopolies (lots of those around) and monopolies are a factor, then the sky's the limit, only limited by the elasticity of the particular product or service.
Wilderness, name three things that have increased in price in line with an increase in demand.
That excludes items that have been increased in price to reduce demand.
I think you need to re-take economics 101. Increased demand does NOT reduce prices; it raises them.
You know what they say? Ask five economists a question and get six answers.
Whether or not an increase in demand raises or reduces prices is dependent on the market situation at the time.
At times of full production an increase in demand might drive an increase in prices to control the demand, but when not in a period of full production an increase in demand allows more efficient and profitable use of existing labour and resources which allows for an increase in profit with no increase in prices.
There is absolutely no logic in saying that increasing wages for one sector of the workforce will adversely affect profits in another sector of industry.
Very true, but you didn't say anything about increasing costs along with demand. And of course that's what wage increases are - an increase in costs.
But if Fred increases the wages he pays why does that affect Charley in the next town producing something different?
Why do costs increase with an increase in demand? They can just as easily fall on a unit.
As a general rule, John, everything else being equal, increased demand tends to increase prices. Prices will generally continue to increase until demand begins to fall. Then, they stay-the-course until demand picks up again. Only in a deflationary recession will prices fall across-the-board.
And that is where supply side economics moves in. This is not a static dynamic. You see it all the time when gas prices spike. If enough stations raise their price someone steps in and reduces his price and gets much more business. The first one to jump ship with the rest rakes in the profits. They usually do that after they have run out of the gas that they paid the lower price for and kept the higher price on to profit from the difference. Price gouging it all the way. Mind the retail gas business is a rat race. My son worked for a chain of market/gas stations and he said they really only make pennies on the gallon. Taxes and the wholesalers make the lions share.
All true, but you did neglect to mention the availability of that supply. If it is limited, prices rise, and if it is not prices will drop until competition equalizes. Never will it simply continue to drop to zero as there are always costs to be covered (such as labor) and a profit to be made.
In a monopolized market such as oil, agriculture and such which also get subsidies the supply can be controlled to drive up prices as we have found. The banks are beginning to get and exercise that kind of control as well. Just look what they do when there is a hint of interest going up a tenth of a point. They crash the market!
Competition doesn't only come one way with suppliers charging what they want. It is also the supply of money that is a large part of how much can be produced and thereby deflating the market. The old no new taxes and the rich being the job creator rhetoric is getting old and never played out. It was a great theory but it was just that.
Wilderness, please quote where I said "And there you've said it. Increase the MW and all other wages will also increase proportionally..."
I actually said, they will increase, I didn't say "proportionately".
As to your statement, that is empirically wrong.
And this is your critically flawed reasoning why filthy rich Millionaires & Billionaires should continue to stockpile our wealth in the sggregate while the rest of Americans flounder endlessly in poverty, or one incident away from it? ~
Wilderness ~ And sometimes DECREASED DEMAND also results in a manufactured price INCREASE ~
Apparently, you're talking about Economics 101 in THEORY ~ Unfortunately, in reality it works completely different ~
Corporations will always Plunder, Rape, and engage in Fraudulent Activity to impress shareholders ~
What is certain is that employers will use any excuse, however spurious, to push wages down and profits up.
Much like employees using any reason (including force, sometimes) to increase their wages, eh? I particularly like the one that "My personal expenses have gone up so you must pay me more for the same value of work" - it makes SO much sense!
You say that as if no employer has ever used force to keep wages down!
If somebody is living on the minimum wage an increase in living costs is a real and pressing wage cut.
Sorry, but if you are the employer cutting checks, and have not reduced the amount of that check, that an employee has incurred big medical costs does not mean you are paying less. Not even inflation means the check is less - that the purchasing power of that check has decreased does not mean that the amount has.
That has very often been used as an excuse to get a raise though, and resulted in the double digit inflation the US saw in the 70's.
That makes no sense, Wilderness. Let's say your check is $10/wk and the gruel you buy (because it is the only thing you can afford) costs $10/wk for the 10 lbs you need to live. Then inflation pushes the price of gruel up 10%.
Now, since your wages didn't increase 10%, you can only afford around 9 lbs of gruel and you begin to starve. Tell me again how inflation is not, in effect, a wage cut.
No one said anything about an effect. The comment was a wage cut, not what it could buy.
But I don't see anything in your reply about how the check was still $10 - just that the wage had been cut while remaining the same. Nor was there anything about a wage cut to the business owner - how is it that we ignore that laborer in favor of another? When inflation hits the screaming begins about increasing wages (while somehow not increasing them) without a mention of how that means a real, actual wage cut to the employer PLUS the loss of buying power from each dollar. But I guess that's far as business owners are always evil and deserve nothing for their labor or investment.
"That has very often been used as an excuse to get a raise though, and resulted in the double digit inflation the US saw in the 70's."
You keep running this line as if you keep saying it some truth will emerge.
"In October of 1973, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries declared an oil embargo upon the supporters of Israel–western nations. The 73-75 recession begins in November of 1973, immediately after. During normal recessions, inflation does not rise–it shrinks, as people spend less and prices fall. So why does inflation rise from 73-75? Because this recession is not a normal recession–it is sparked by an oil shortage. The price of oil more than doubles in the space of a mere few months from 73-74. Oil is involved in the manufacturing of plastics, in gasoline, in sneakers, it’s everywhere. When the price of oil goes up, the price of most things go up. The spike in the oil price is so large that drives up the costs of consumer goods throughout the rest of the economy so fast that wages fail to keep up with it. As a result, you get both inflation and a recession at once." 
 http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2012/12/3 … n-the-70s/
There is also, Wilderness, the fact that mean or median income for the bottom 40% barely rose during that same period. So, even though the employees may have agitated for a raise, it doesn't look like they got it.
Sorry, Esoteric, but the average wage in the US doubled between 1975 (8,630.92) and 1985 (16,822.51). While averages are affected by giant raises in the top tier, that would seem to indicate that 4% is not a realistic figure for the bottom half of the population.
I think you're right - the oil cartel sparked it all. And business and employees followed along with a vengeance as once the cycle had started it became self sustaining and a hefty raise became expected as the normal and required thing to do. It didn't take wages long to rise to the point that the oil increase was taken care of, but wages did not stop - they kept right on rising with the inevitable result of double digit inflation years and years after the oil price increases.
Here in the UK we suffered massive inflation in the early 70s as well.
This is widely attributed to the rises in oil prices along with the rise in price in everything associated with oil. Although the price settled, it never settled back to pre embargo levels.
Inflation was also driven by the rise in the use of credit cards and the widespread rise in consumer credit.
At the same time the banks were allowed to sell mortgages for the first time with a subsequent rise in the price of houses.
Wages rises did contribute to inflation as well, but in a growing market and a rising standard of living the impact paled into insignificance alongside that caused by other factors.
To blame the record inflation solely, or even largely, on wages is at best uninformed and missing the main driver of capitalism which is inflation, controlled inflation, yes, but inflation never the less.
We went through the inflation in the early 70's with oil price increases, but the BIG one didn't happen until nearly a decade later, and with a period of very low inflation between them.
But I DO think you are making a good point with the use of credit cards and bank mortgages. Both provide for an immediate and quick rise in demand - which in turn resulted in a quick rise in price. But both will die out in just a few years without accompanying continual inflationary rises in wages. Credit limits will be reached and people will have purchased the only house they need, yet the inflation continued.
Bigger houses, bigger (and more) cars, new furniture. Bigger and better holidays, banks that extended credit limits beyond what the borrower could afford,get the picture?
Oh, and the price of oil didn't come back down as far as it had gone up.
Oh, I get the picture, all right. People taking credit far beyond anything reasonable, buying houses they know they can't afford. And yes, I get oil prices too - it's why I drive a plug in hybrid.
None of which shows that continual wage increases don't produce inflation. You can ignore the continual increase in costs for everything made, you can pretend it doesn't matter, but that doesn't change anything for it DOES matter.
I've already agreed that wage increases can cause inflation but that some inflation is essential in the capitalist system.
The increase in the cost of oil being a factor in everything that is produced has a far more significant effect on inflation than a gradual creeping up of wages.
A "gradual creeping" is not what I'd call 10% per year, yet the average wage in the US doubled in just 10 years. And did it without massive oil price increases to boot.
Wage increases do not drive inflation unless there is not a corresponding increase in productivity.
For the most part I would agree with that, given that productivity due to machine construction/purchase does not indicate a rise in worker productivity. A $5 ditch digger should get a raise if he learns to operate a backhoe, but not because he now digs a mile of ditch per day instead of 100'. That increase belongs to the backhoe, not the ditch digger.
Now, if the ditch digger owns the backhoe, having paid for it, the fuel to operate it and the maintenance/depreciation, that's another story!
So your system does not reward skills! The back hoe operator would be very unlikely to have the skill to dig even 100 ft of ditch in a day and the digger would not even jnow how to operate the back hoe without training.
I've done it again! You agree that the ditch digger should get a rise if he learns to operate a machine, What exactly is your argument?
"A $5 ditch digger should get a raise if he learns to operate a backhoe"
How does that say that skills should not be rewarded?
The point was that although productivity increased by a factor of 10, most of the productivity was due to the purchase and use of a machine. The new skills of the laborer are worth more, but not 10X more - most of the increase goes to the owner of the backhoe, who has more expenses to cover as well. Give the laborer double his old salary, but the owner gets the rest.
Are you arguing with yourself, because you aren't arguing with me!
Nobody, but nobody is arguing that the back hoe operator should get 10x the amount that the manual ditch digger gets.
But if you don't give the worker all the profit from increased company productivity that means the corporation gets. A fate worse than death to most liberals - corporations are not allowed to earn more than a minute profit, and certainly increasing productivity is not their doing.
As has been the case for much of the last century, Increases in wages have been driven by increased productivity, that's how capitalism works.
Yes, and look how well that has worked ... the worst income inequality since 1929.
Yes, it can happen that decreased demand results in increased prices. When, after time, demand falls so low as to eliminated volume production and the savings associated with it a higher price will be the result. Usually seen in products that are on their way out.
But your point? That corporations are 100% evil, staffed and owned (I own some shares, too) by evil persons? Sorry, but that doesn't follow.
I like that - "critically flawed" - without ever showing a flaw. Just a desire for everyone to be rich, presumably at someone else's expense. The thoughts of a true liberal.
The critical flaw in your reasoning is the belief that an increase in demand will always result in an increase in price.
You are now paying an arbitrary price for your fuel at the pump, not even close to market price because the market turned dramatcally aganst corporate profits several months ago ~
You are now paying an "Artificially" Manufactured price for gas ~ Criminal
And yes of course, Wall Street is a major component and mal-intended instigator of the failed "Free Market Capitolistic Society" in which everyone tries to survive ~
If it's not "market price", then what is it? A gasoline price mandated by government law? I agree that the oil cartel has a lot to do with gas prices, but there is a lot more to it than that, particularly as the US is a net exporter now.
Have you never wondered why, taxation apart, there is so little difference in gas prices what ever the source?
Yes. And I have concluded that there is very often a decided lack of competition in smaller towns and there is a decided lack of competition of suppliers in larger cities. I expect prices to cover a range, but the range very often seems too small.
Does either one indicate government (or other) price fixing between competitors? Or just a lack of competition?
Trickle down economics works and so does as capitalism. What doesn't work is allowing bailouts, backroom deals and bonuses from Washington to Wall street.
What doesn't work in a democratic republic is not following the Golden Rule and The Constitution.
I can agree with your last sentence, Kathryn, but not the first. The reason is, it is a mathematical impossibility. The dynamics of that kind of economic system mixed with human nature can have only two results, if there is no intervention by government. One is the virtual elimination of the middle class and return to the two-tiered system prevalent from the 1700s to 1929, The other is a destruction of capitalism as an economic model and a return to the oligarc economy of old in America and current in Russia.
Trickle down economics never worked. Reagan who coined the term increased taxes 11 times and tripled the national debt trying to jumpstart the process. In his case the government had to create a need which was mostly defense spending.
why did it not work in your opinion and observation and what is the solution to the problem and what is the problem?
Since the early eighties the transfer of wealth has continously gone to the top. Look it up. The American worker is producing more than ever with their wages are stagnating as those above get even wealthier. Is the economy robust even though the stock market is in record breaking territory everyday? This is a paper economy fueled by the Fed selling paper as money. The trickle down theory has been a bust from the beginning.
please prove this. "The American worker is producing more than ever with their wages are stagnating as those above get even wealthier."
I am on my cell phone and cannot paste links in this format. I will gladly provide you with links tomorrow. Thanks for your patience.
Read this. It is precisely what I am talking about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunda … gnate.html
But it is true enough - the American laborer, using tools provided by capital investment, is able to produce more than ever before. Of course, if those tools (and the capital to build and purchase them) were not available we'd have pretty dismal production rates...
People became needy and substandard because certain politicians and a certain political party taught them to be dependent on the gov't. Thats why trickle down didn't work.
It works and the prosperity we have had is proof.
How did people become needy? Did they just wake up one day and poof their job was gone? Did their income just shrink? No, through legislation bought by big business the jobs were evacuated to much cheaper sources and nothing was given in its place. No jobs mean no money. That is how you become needy.
"If trickle-down economics worked, then lower tax rates during the Reagan Revolution should have increased the lowest income levels. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred. Income inequality has worsened. Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6% for the bottom fifth of income earners. That sounds great, until you see what happened for the top fifth -- an 80% increase in income. The top 1% saw their income triple. Instead trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up!" 
For some odd reason you think it makes an overall difference of which political party is in charge. Just listen to the latest rhetoric coming out of their mouths in this presidential race. They are both calling for income equality, immigration reform, voting reform. All meant to confuse and make you vote within their system. God forbid an independent gaining any ground.
"When I was a lobbyist, frankly, I was against [term limits] because once you purchase an office you don't want to have to repurchase that same office down the line." Jack Abramoff
Notice he made no distinction about which party he was buying an office from.  If you wish to believe our country is still in capable hands then you have buried your head in the sand. The only capability they have is to get the almighty dollar as they greedily help themselves.
Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is the only answer to our problem. How long will we let them take from us?
 http://useconomy.about.com/od/Politics/ … t-Work.htm
 http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin … -lobbying-
I'm sorry, Rhamson, but business does not need special laws to import toys from overseas. OR set up factories there.
No, laws weren't needed; just the greed of the American consumer wanting ever more for less. There is neither need or reason to blame corporations for supplying what people want.
"I'm sorry, Rhamson, but business does not need special laws to import toys from overseas. OR set up factories there."
I am not sure what this is in reference to but I find it funny that you should bring up toys being imported as an example. Foreign toy manufacturers have in the past painted their toys with lead based paints. This was not caught until some children were showing signs of lead poisoning. Dog food was poisoned with melamine causing the deaths of pets here in the US. Chinese drywall was used in some southern states that caused sickness and is still being fought as to whether or not they will pay to have it replaced. If these things happened in the US with US companies they would be sued and in most cases bankrupted. In China they just start up under a new name and continue business as usual with new names. You say there are no laws needed but what is that based on?
All true, yet we keep on buying Chinese crap. Why? Because we demand cheap prices?
Oh, there are laws needed, but not to produce with foreign labor. Just to make sure those products conform to our requirements. You indicated we need special legislation to allow US companies to build factories overseas, but we obviously don't.
So what's the answer? What I'm getting from you is:
1. Prohibit US companies from using foreign labor to produce items sold in the US (and probably items sold anywhere, though you haven't said). As this will make US companies uncompetitive and allow other, foreign, companies to produce the items we buy, the next step is:
2. Prohibit any imports from any country that does not comply with US laws. The US thus becomes the moral guide of the world, enforcing it through protectionism and economics. It also neatly removes the US as customers for some raw materials, produced only in specific countries that do not follow our laws. The inevitable result of such protectionism will also be a decided lack of US exports to such countries; the largest market in the world. Once more, US companies will be prohibited from competing.
As a reason for digging a hole, crawling in it and covering ourselves up (ruining our economy forever as we do so) you comment that "We have to because other countries are evil", all while pretending that the policies you're proposing will not harm our economy, our corporations or our citizens. All three are patently false, but you continue to promote the same thing, presumably under the assumption that the Wild Economic Fairy will protect us from ourselves.
It won't work - your proposals lead ONLY to total fiscal and economic meltdown in the long term. Yes, certain individuals will become very rich as imports are stopped, but the vast majority of Americans, corporate or citizens, will suffer greatly.
So find another answer. One that puts the US at the top, not the bottom, of world economy. And try to keep at least our current standard of living as you do so. We can do it - we built the greatest and biggest economy the world has ever seen - but we can't do it by hiding our head in the sand and pretending we don't need the rest of the world. That we're not part of the world economy, or that we can make it on our own with neither imports nor exports.
All of your reasoning is one of protectionism. I say if we are to have capitalism then lets have at it. Raise the minimum wage to put a whole lot of consumers in the market and allow people to afford building and buying homes. If we want the low cost products then let's get the foreign "evil" labor pools to produce it for us. Since the result of running the jobs out of the country have created a lopsided effect of where the wealth is going why not even it out? You see you cannot rob people of their means and expect them to keep up with those that are doing it to them. The raising of the wage will make the rich even richer as the money will get back to them with products sold and not robbing someone to get it.
I rarely like legislation that prevents somebody from doing something. Instead, I think the legislation should be to incentivize one to do what is good for the country such as keeping as many jobs here as possible.
But, rhamson, one of the major obstacles to keeping jobs here is that the US is so far down the path of national development that the cost of labor must be higher than that in less developed countries; it just goes with the territory of growth and progress. The same dynamics are at play with the loss of manufacturing as the primary source of income for businesses. That boat has sailed and the proper course is for the Right to understand that and begin applying their philosophy to what is coming next, and not to what we have left behind.
If they did that, and in spite of the vast differences between the Left way of doing things and the Right way (yes, I know what I wrote, lol), then we would see much more growth than currently is happening.
Likewise, I don't like minimum wage for there are other alternatives to providing a living wage that doesn't have the economic downsides that laws like minimum wage and rent control have.
I do not, as a general matter of course, agree with your concept of "incentivizing", finding that such loopholes are a major cause of the failure of our tax system but also feeling that if something is worth doing it will be done. There are exceptions (the reverse discrimination of affirmative action comes to mind) but in general that is my feeling.
Other than that, though, I agree with what you are saying. We DO have to change our thinking and break out of the mold that gave birth to the highest productivity and living standards in the world. The world is not what it was and that boat has indeed left dock long ago. For our purposes it is foundering in the storms of the modern world and must be replaced with something else.
Manufacturing will always be with us, but as a sideline or in specific, very difficult to manufacture, items. The heavy industry of the past will sustain us no longer.
While in theory I actually agree with you Wildnerness, in practice what both of you say is both true and false.
There is no doubt in my mind of the truth of W's statement that "http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/Drug-Testing-Welfare-Recipients-Fair-or-Not", and if this is what the consumer wants, business is happy to supply. Here there is no role for gon't other than safety.
But, laws were passed to make it less expensive to outsource and effectively encourage businesses to outsource. In our national interest, those laws need to be reversed (but lobbying has been effective in stopping it so far) so that outsourcing becomes more expensive.
Having said that, there is a fine balance here, for if the laws are made too coercive, either business leaves America entirely or their costs go up so much that they become non-competitive and Americans buy from cheaper foreign sources.
At the very least, however, I think the tax benefits for outsourcing should be eliminated.
Can you give some examples of laws that make it cheaper to outsource OR that actively encourages businesses to outsource? Keep in mind that ALL tariffs do the opposite...as well as that protectionism is a losing strategy in the long run as it simply promotes the same in the countries we try to trade with.
While I disagree with rhamson on the cause and term limits, his points are well taken.
You both will need to look for a different reason for people being needy for the question neither of your assertions can answer is "If either your positions is true, how does it explain the enormous poverty problem that existed prior to 1929?" Prior to then there was 1) no outsourcing or 2) gov't support.for the poor.
Kathryn ~ That is the most Absurdly Ridiculous statement I've read in quite some time ~
Sorry Kathryn but you're wrong ~ "Trickle Down" & "Capitolism" are both utter Failures ~ A drastically new direction is on the horizon ~
Why do you say they are utter failures and why do you say so?
Very simple ~ The mass of American & Global Wealth is densely concentrated in the pockets and bank accounts (Many Offshore) of a tiny fraction of greedy individuals and or entities such as the Mitt Romneys, Jed Bush', et al ~
This by any measure is the very definition of not only FAILURE, but an unconscionable atrocity and even criminal intent ~
who is "and all?"
Capitalism is not the cause. The cause of some who illegally acquire wealth is due to illegal bailouts, back room deals and bonuses from Washington to Wall Street. The so called problem of "dense concentration" is not a problem of capitalism, a system of free market enterprise which benefits all in a free society. Illegal dense concentration is a problem of breaking boundaries which The Constitution provides, but some have ignored. I am sure Mitt Romney acquired his wealth illegally.
Kathryn, your desperate attempts to try to justify "Wealth Concentration" in America are futile ~
It's impossible to defend "Capitolism" & "Free Markets" as successful when there is such anasset imbalance ~
Just remember, Republicans strive mightily to makle the filthy rich even richer at the expense of the vast majority of Americans ~ That's a fact ~
Correction ~ "an asset imbalance"
I'm going to take Kathyrn's side on this, although she may not want me to. I agree, capitalism, per se, isn't the problem; as an economic system its the best thing since sliced bread. What IS the problem is that for capitalism to work most effectively, it must be regulated by the federal government in order to block those kinds of people you describe, Alternative, from destroying the system; as they are doing now. It worked in the 60s, it can work again.
BTW, the tax structure which is a major player in both income and wealth inequality, but especially in wealth inequality. America is getting pretty close to being an inheritance based society, the way it was before the Great Depression of 1929.
"Capitolism" & "Free Markets" never worked in the past and will never work in the future ~
It was a 250 year old experiment that failed miserably, there are no solutions ~ The entire concept must be scrapped ASAP and replaced with more stringent and balanced wealth distribution mechanisms ~
And where do you live? Cuba? North Korea?
Once you do this, incentive will be minimized. Should a doctor earn what a burger flipper earns? I think not.
Who suggested that they should?
But shouldn't a burger flipper be able to live without the need for support from taxpayers?
Live, yes, and they can. Have the luxuries and toys of the doctor, no.
in the USA you don't have tax credits and other benefits paid to enhance employers profits?
No. Instead we have a plethora of tax credits to reduce people's tax burden and to "socially engineer". Only a handful are to increase corporate profits and those typically only at startup of a new facility in a stupid attempt to convince employers to come to a particular location. That one is so common now that every time a new factory is built it requires local tax credits.
And no, there are very few "benefits" paid to corporations by government. It's all done by the slight of hand of tax credits to buy votes.
Any supplementation of workers wages to bring them up to a level at which they can subsist is an indirect payment to the employer and a contribution to profits.
Our government does not subsidize workers wages. Instead they reduce the tax rate and give charity. Neither is a payment to a corporation - not even an "indirect" payment to increase profits. Claiming that it is an indirect payment is a nice bit of spin, but without basis in fact; were it not done the wages and profits would remain the same. Unless, of course, some idiot bureaucrat decides to legislate laws that require a company to pay an artificially high wage based on perceived need (and the purchase of votes) rather than value.
Your example is a little extreme, but why not? ~ Both are Americans of equal stature & rights, if indeed they hold the valid papers, so why not?
Doctors enter the medical field for humanitarioan reasons right?
Health-Care for profit, which is what America has now ~ Insanity ~ Just another industry which needs special attention ~
And the burger flipper has all the rights of the doctor. And stature, for that matter.
No, doctors did not enter the field for humanitarian reasons, although that might have been a part of it.
And if the burger flipper has great health care, who should pick up the cost? Who should be doing the work to pay for that care, whether in dollars or time, if not the flipper?
Well, one of us is. "Rights" are what are guaranteed by our constitution while "privileges" are typically what people think they are due, and usually due without having to do anything to earn them.
Nope, however, that's where most republicans belong ~
Just think, they could probably own as many firearms as they wish without permit, license, nor special training, they could go out each morning and hunt squirrel or muskrat or pigeon for their meals, and furthermore, no evil governmental regulations on ANYTHING ~ A republican paradise ~
Just what I thought. People living in a capitalist society fantasizing of a communist utopia safely ensconced behind the walls of academia, and never willing to experience it first hand. If you wish to be a commie go live with commies. Don't drag the rest of us into your hellish nightmare.
Yep, you are worse off than those who lived in 1787 because capitalism failed. BTW, what is your alternative, Alternative.
Absolutely Correct ~ Living in 1787 was ridiculously stressful, however, most Americans were not slaves to an underpaying job at that time like they are today ~
Despite desperate efforts, you can never justify the enormous imbalance of wealth distribution here in the United States of America ~ It's just not possile ~ Capitolism has failed miserably and that's a fact ~
Why was living in 1787 ridiculously stressful and how do you know?
Kathryn, I abhor those bailouts, too, but without those bailouts the recession of 2008-09 would have been child's play to what really would have happened. Our whole economic system was in danger of collapsing.
- we ARE gonna have to face the music.
perhaps then would have been a better time….
I mean what is ON THE HORIZON?
Unfortunately, you are probably right. But I'd just as soon enjoy it as long as I can. For some it may have been a better time, but at least I can have my poverty in a paid-for house, which wouldn't have happened six years ago. However, what is "on the horizon" is still scary.
Much worse is in store for us because of no correction allowed in the last recession. The banks have become even bigger based on a phony dollar value pumped up by the Fed.
At one time the "majority" of American citizens had no problem with slavery, is that what you want? After slavery, the "majority" of Americans want separation of the races; is that what you have in mind?
If you are filthy rich and do not have a conscience, you have no business voting democratic, you should run with great haste to hold hands with the republican "Trickle Down" crowd ~
Everyone else, and I'm speaking to the Real Americans, should simply ignore the Fox BS Rhetoric and inspect the republican voting records in congress ~ I'm confident a swift democratic vote would be the common sense outcome ~
GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS
mom and pop
GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS
You, John Holden, and just about everyone else here are doing a pretty good job of accentuating the massive Failures of Capitolism all on your own, without my help ~
Just another "Free Market" Failure ~ The primary reason why the vast majority of individuals enter the medical field is because he/she/it thinks he/she/it can make a literal killing on the income end, they don't necessarily enter for humanitarian reasons ~ That's a Fact ~
Therefore, if a docter was guaranteed a "Burger Flippers" hourly wage and not the potential to snag a dozen BMWs annually , I guess that would be one way to seperate the humanitarians from the greedy money grabbers right? ~
It is critical that the Medical Profession be Nationalized & Federally Subsidized ASAP ~
Forget insane republican "Trickle Down" schemes and re-direct those funds toward a program that truly matters ~
Why? Because you won't earn enough to pay your medical bills? That doesn't seem much of a reason to require that I pay them for you...
Do you insure your home? If you do why do you expect others to pay for any damage?
My Lord ~ You do realize that I and "OTHERS" do pay for YOUR insurance claims right? ~
But I'm happy you brought insurance companies into the mix ~ They might be more corrupt than oil cos ~
Simply paying for something is not insurance. Do you expect someone else to buy your clothes for you? Your computer? Repair your car when the engine gives up?
Insurance, on the other hand, is a voluntary pooling of resources to share the costs when something goes wrong. Key word being "voluntary".
Wilderness~ First of all, John mentioned "Insurance" & "Damage" in the very same sentence which indicates a claim would be filed for the "Damages" if indeed he would like to be re-imbursed, and of course we all pay for his claims directly from a general pool funds ~
Secondly, if your home is mortgaged or has a deed of trust attached, a financial situation which accounts for the majority of homes in America, the homeowners insurance is "Required" or "Involuntary" not "Voluntary" ~ The lender requires the lendee to own a policy ~
There are many other "Required" or "Mandatory" insurances as well, many of which are necessary societal protections and precautions ~
Universal medical insurance (The NHS) seems to work pretty well in the UK despite what all the folk not making profits out of it tell you.
Insane ~ it's usually called the "United States of America" for good reason ~ Your comment does not deserve a response ~ But here I go ~
If you don't living in a union, do what no-brains Rick Perry's Texas & Alaska are trying to do, simply leave ~ As a matter of fact, I'm researching ways to get at least those two states Thrown Out of the Uunion ~
Not sure what "If you don't living in a union," means, but if you want a communistic state you might consider moving yourself. The rest of us like it the way it is - responsible for ourselves - rather than paying for someone else.
Why should I move? It’s the insane republican party that’s out of touch ~ I already understand the fact that Taxes, Federal & State Governments, comprehensive Regulations, Oversight, IRS, Strict Firearm Laws, and Helping our Fellow Citizen are all integral components of a functional United States of America ~
I understand this, support this, and will do all I can to promote these necessities while stripping Greed Driven Corporations of their Massive Wealth & Power Grab ~
From what you've posted you have an intense desire to control/be controlled. That's contrary to the spirit of US culture, but integral to communism/socialism. You'd probably be much happier in that type of culture rather than one founded on freedom of the individual.
You would rather condemn tens of thousands of people to death than give them medical care? Just because you don't want to pay for them?
I wonder how Wilderness would feel if all those people unable to buy medical attention received medical attention from Cuban doctors.
That would be great! Let the countries (Cuba, much of Europe, Russia, etc.) that choose a culture of control and demand give it up. Can we send all our sick people to the UK for treatment?
You mean come and steal off the British tax payers!
But...but...isn't that what socialism is all about? Taking from one to give to another so that all are equal? The poor Americans don't have health care (or at least have to pay for it to get any) - surely you wouldn't want them to die would you?
At least that's what janesix is saying - if you won't provide it that means you want people to die.
If an American came to the UK and contracted a serious illness they would be treated as a British citizen would.
If they came purposefully to steal healthcare they would be knocked back.
That is not comparable with refusing to assist your neighbour.
And what would you call taking from the working class and giving to the filthy rich? Good Business?
Billions of taxpayer dollars are delivered to oil companies each and every year ~ It's Criminal ~
Not to mention the "trickle-up" economics inherent in increasing income inequality.
Outside of oil/gas purchases by government to heat their buildings, run their cars and planes, etc., just what "billions" are delivered to oil companies, by what department and for what purpose? How is it done - by armored car, by check or money order, what?
How about ending corporate welfare that is to the tune of about 100 billion a year? HOw about that for a wealth transfer? Who is transfering what to who, now?
Other examples: The oil, gas, and coal industries get billions in their own special tax breaks. Big Agribusiness gets farm subsides. Big Pharma gets their own subsidy in the form of a ban on government using its bargaining power under Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices. And hedge-fund and private-equity managers get a special tax loophole that treats their income as capital gains, at a lower tax rate than ordinary income.
How much of that money can we return to the treasury, in the form of tax cuts, or improved services?
Just for starters, when you get what you want and I get what I wanr we may just get somewhere.
I'm all for ending corporate welfare. Things like checks for not growing crops must end.
But tax breaks are not "corporate welfare"; they are politicians doing social engineering where it is not so easily apparent (that and outright payback for campaign funds). And that, too, should stop. Things like tax breaks for hiring disabled people or building a facility in a poor area.
Don't think we'll get anywhere, Credence - we're too far apart on what the role of government should be. I want it gone as much as possible; you want as much control as possible and those two just don't mix. Although I WILL say that you and I both are willing to compromise, so maybe it's possible to some degree after all!
Wilderness, I guess your response is what I should have expected, especially from an individual who does not understand the fact that many insurance policies issued in the United States are Mandatory, and should be ~
Let's just say, when you pay your taxes, if of course you do, oil companies get a percentage of your federal offering, even though they pocket billions in revenues and don't need it ~ Republicans will go virtually insane to protect this money stream for the filthy rich ~
Yes, it is what you should expect, just as the decided lack of answer is what I expected.
So once more I will ask just what billions are given to the oil companies and how it is delivered (cash, check or money order). While at the same time mentioning that the ACA has exactly zero to do with billions in charity to the oil companies - it is a wild herring, perhaps introduced to divert attention to the question.
What I would be willing to pay has nothing to do with stealing from millions to pay for those that won't do it themselves. This is something that the liberals will never understand, but seems quite obvious to those that put a high value on freedom. Forced, unlimited charity is an anathema to those that love being free and we long ago crossed any reasonable line in that department in this country.
OK - yes, I would prefer that a handful (not the tens of thousands you claim) die rather than give up the freedom Americans enjoy. Americans have paid, with their lives, through the history of this country to maintain that concept, and I find it a valid price.
How much will you give up to provide unlimited health care for those that can't or won't do it themselves? Your way of life, or just a couple of dollars? Because a couple of dollars won't do the job - it will require your entire culture.
Far more than that die from a lack of health care. After all, if all of us had the care given to the president we could all expect much longer lives.
Not sure where we'd get one doctor, and unlimited hospital use, for every person though.
Or, looking at it from a more reasonable standpoint, far fewer than that die from a lack of reasonable care.
But you didn't say what YOU would give up? How much will you pay for unlimited care for everyone?
We pay about half of what you pay for more complete healthcare!
Did you include the doctor's training? The cost of developing the drugs you buy from American companies? Aren't your hospitals govt. owned - is the cost of building, staffing and operating them included? How about the cost of electricity in that hospital? Is the cost of gas for the ambulance included?
And more complete than what? The likes of me, that has completely worthless "insurance" from the government and can't afford a doctor's visit, or what is offered the President?
Yes, doctors training is included in that-even the doctors who use their training to take employment in private practice.
American drug companies make healthy profits off drugs sold to the UK, some American drug companies manufacture in the UK.
More complete than having insurance but having to pay for a doctors visit
What could I give up? I'm one of the ones that your paying health care for.
Start with your computer. Follow it by your car, then your supper. Before everyone has unlimited care you will have to give up the clothes on your back as well - can't afford the cost of the truck to get them to you.
We cannot afford what the public demands.
Why would it require my "entire culture"? I don't even know what that means. All we would have to do is reduce military spending, which is a bloated monster.
Because our society cannot afford unlimited health care for everyone. We do not have the resources.
Yes, we could reduce military spending - always a wonderful scapegoat because no one likes killing. Reduce it until we're invaded, whereupon we'll wish we hadn't.
Strange! we have much closer to unlimited healthcare than you do and we are not worth nearly as much as the mighty US of A!
How do you have more healthcare? Anyone in this country that needs care need only walk into an emergency room in any city to get immediate care.
(Immediate meaning within a few hours, not days or months like the UK)
When I had stroke a few years ago I didn't even have to wait for hours. I wasn't given only basic care-care is ongoing.
It hasn't bankrupted me and (believe it or not)I'm not a vegetable!
Mine was a heart attack rather than stroke, with the same results. After we told the admittance guy the problem it took about 1 minute to be on the table surrounded by doctors and nurses. On going care (not that I need much) and drugs.
And I'm not bankrupt and neither is the country. The UK, though, seems tottering (along with the rest of Europe) on the verge of bankruptcy - is it because it gives away what should be purchased?
No, we're teetering on the edge of bankruptcy because we've adopted capitalism wholesale.
We don't give anything away, and as far as my memory goes, never have done.
And we're teetering on the edge of bankruptcy because of the socialist leanings of our politicians. And citizens that want something for nothing.
But of course you give things away. Like health care.
(Almost) unlimited healthcare costs about half as much in the UK as the second rate US system costs (as a percentage of GDP).
Baloney. I see too many stories of long waiting times in the UK - it is NOT unlimited, not by a long shot. Nor is it half the cost per person as in the US (percentage of GDP means nothing) - not when all the costs are figured in.
Who pays for a doctor's training in the UK? Here, the patient does, along with the interest on the loans, and it is considered health care costs and added into the total. Just one example - I'm sure you can come up with more.
I missed this one.
We see many stories of people being refused treatment in the US and being left to die on the streets.
If I agree to take all such stories with a pinch of salt will you do too?
Which costs do you think are not figured in to the cost of UK healthcare? Training certainly is, though with the increase in capitalism in the UK doctors are expected to pay for a lot of their own training now.
The statisticians add in the cost of college for a doctor into the patients bill that they then pay with tax dollars?
Come, on now - tell it to someone that will believe you.
Well of course they wouldn't believe that we pay with tax dollars!
These days the cost of college for doctors is borne by the doctors themselves or more likely their parents.
And of course the only patients who get bills are foreigners from countries which we have no reciprocal healthcare agreements with.
Apologies - it was Australia I was thinking of that has free college. The UK hasn't lost it's total mind. Yet - I think they're working on it.
I think we have totally lost our minds already. The size of somebodies brain is not related to the size of their wallet, especially when starting out in life.
As people can graduate from university with debts of 30-40 thousand pounds and little prospect of anything but a minimum wage job I'd say that was pretty stupid wouldn't you?
Yep! And it happens every day in the US. No real reason for that kind of debt (although to become a doctor requires a lot more than a simple 4 year degree), but kids do it all the time.
My son got his 4 year degree with only about $1,000 in debt, followed by a masters with no debt. His wife collected around $20,000 in debt for her 4 year degree, but also had 2 kids to support and care for while she did it, and even that is small compared to what many rack up in bills.
It can be done - it just can't be done without a lot (a lot) of hard work in those 4 years and few kids today are willing to put that kind of effort out.
Unfortunately kids in the UK are expected to make that commitment even if they have no desire to follow an academic career.
I don't know how those without parental back up are supposed to get through without racking up debt or as it seems, buying into the system and feeding the bankers.
Yes, they are pretty much expected to here, too. Which is sad because college is not the answer for everyone.
But how to do it is called "work". My kid worked 40 hour weeks while going to school full time and taking care of a family of 4. And then again while getting his masters, although he didn't go to school full time for that one.
And the US has another option with the GI bill - serve your country for 4 years and get it all free, plus living expenses while you do it. Again, it's called "work".
I'm curious, what percent of the American institutionalized population over 16 that " won't do it themselves" do you think there is?
Do you know what percent of each public assistance dollars go to:
5. Short-term unemployed?
6. Long-term (through no fault of their own) unemployed?
7. Long-term (purposefully) unemployed?
5. Healthy adults who won't work.?
The reports are that 47% of the population gets public assistance. I don't think that counts kids, just adults. As far as I know, no checks are sent to kids. Or food stamps, section 8 payments, etc. Free school lunches maybe, although the parents' lack of income is actually responsible. That and the politicians wanting to look good.
Elderly get SS, not public assistance per se.
Anyone unemployed long term is that way because they won't take work.
I'd guess that a quarter of the "disabled" are actually disabled enough that they cannot work. Of the dozen or so I know that get disability payments, ALL can perform productive work.
Most vets seem to get disability of some kind (all that I know, anyway) and then have full time jobs as well. That certainly doesn't mean that none are actually disabled, just that a very small percentage are actually disabled beyond earning a living.
But I'm curious, too - of the 47% of the adult population getting government charity, how many do YOU think cannot support themselves?
FYI. In the UK more benefits are paid to people in work than out of work.
That as to be very wrong-a sad indictment of capitalism.
The question is why? Because they will be hungry if they don't get charity? Because they will sleep in the snow?
Or because they want their beer and nuts at hand, sitting in front of the big screen with the satellite turned on and a smart phone in their hand? Or because they refuse to learn a trade that will provide some real value to the employer?
As far as a sad indictment of capitalism, while I can't speak for the UK, in the US it is a sad indictment of the mentality and greed of the consumer. Demanding ever cheaper products, they will not pay for the labor to make what they want, with the result that most of our products are imported from nations with extremely cheap labor.
Capitalism, on the other hand, was successful. It provides the products people want at prices they will pay and do so while making a (usually) reasonable profit.
Why? Why! When rents are so high that the old maxim of one third of your income for housing no longer stands and even if you get a full forty hours on your zero hour minimum wage contract your rent still takes up over two thirds of your income.
All this squit about improving your worth is just that, squit. What do you do when everybody now doing the menial jobs is qualified for much higher paying jobs?
It is so easy to blame the victims isn't it?
What's a "zero hour minimum wage"? "Minimum wage" (in the US) I understand; it is the mandated minimum amount an employer can pay for (most) labor. Percentage wise, not very many people in the US earn only that for full time work. Even burger flippers and broom pushers generally do better.
But what is the "zero hour" part?
(If you don't want to pay 1/3 of your income for housing, either get a better paying job or a roommate. Either one will solve the problem).
Ah! Zero hour contract is where you get a job with no promise of any work. You have to keep yourself available for work though-often on the employers premises.Unless they want you to work though, you don't get paid.
The range of people on the minimum wage in the UK is much wider than in your country.
I think most people would be happy to only pay one third of their income on housing costs. I doubt if there are many working or middle class people paying so little.
Interesting. While "on call" jobs are not all that uncommon here, I think you could fight (and win) having to be on the employers premises without being paid for it.
Yes, I gather that housing is more expensive in the UK than here - probably a function of much higher population density - 255people/km^2 as opposed to 33. I would guess that the building itself is cheaper there (considerably smaller at 33 M^2/person compared to 77), but the land to put it on would be a different story. Still, on the lower end of the wage chart, it would not be unusual to put 1/2 the wage into rent, without a roommate. Utilities would add to that.
The idea of an employee taking an employer to court and winning in the UK is laughable.
Whilst the factors you mention do have some affect on house prices in the UK, they pale into insignificance alongside developers sitting on land to increase the value of that land.
Of course there is housing benefit as well. The primary purpose of that seems to be to keep rents high and pump money into the pockets of landlords.
At the lower end of the wage chart it is not unusual to put considerably more than half the wage on rent.
Do you really think it is fair to expect somebody living in a single bed sitter to have to share?
Don't get me started on the cost of utilities!
Typical ignorant republican ~ Wilderness, if you don't understand basic policy how can you possibly participate with any conviction?
You remind me of that Tea Party Genius a while back ~ While she was in the middle of some anti-government anarchistic rant, she blurted out, and I paraphrase ~ "And tell the federal government to keep their hands off my social security checks" ~ Not realizing that the United States Treasury issues her check ~
Wilderness, oil companies receive federal government "Subsidies" to the tune of billions ~ I would suggest you do a little research if you need more info on the subject ~
Believe me, if more republicans actually conducted a little research instead of blindly following the O'riellys & Hannitys they wouldn't be republicans for long ~
thank you! I appreciate being called an "ignorant republican". With 8 years of college training, the claim is rather doubtful, and I am not registered as a republican, either.
Sounds like the liberals, not realizing that the money they spend is from the citizens they are supposed to govern, that every dime they demand is hurting somebody. Of course, like our wondrous president stated, he knows better than the owner that worked for that money what to do with it.
You made the claim of billions to oil companies - I assume you have done the research to verify such a claim before you made it. So, how are those billions delivered (cash, check or money order) and to whom? IF you have done the research, surely you can provide some links?
Ignorant republicans huh ? Wow !
Lesson one from ignorant republican , Social security IS yours , the company pays half into the IRS . and the worker pays half! So in essence ,yes it is "hers".
As to Hannity's and O'reilly's being followed , someone has to balance out the very , very liberal mainstream media !
Oil company subsidies ? Wanna see subsidies , take a look at college's , universities , media companies , farmers , pharmaceutical companies , everyone and anyone gets them , Sounds like one of those liberal rants for Income Re-distribution to me ! " He's got more than me , I want his "
Careful about that name calling !
Balance out? For every 1 listener to the few liberal stations out there, 10 listen to the multitude of conservative talking heads. Hell, MSNBC has such a low audience, they are about to go bankrupt. Your puffed up complaint of liberals beating up on conservatives is so much hyperbole.
I would also say that for every ignorant conservative, they have a match in ignorance on the far left side.
Well then if that were the case , that's just how it should be ! Liberals might then take a listen and a lesson ! I don't believe our mainstream media is right slanted , not by any means , and being independent I find as much fault with Orielly as I do with Oprah . A whole lot of people are just waiting around for some integrity in this media , right or left ! That alone would be a breath of fresh air .The mainstream leftist media hasn't gotten over the euphoria of electing and re- electing an un-vetted , unproven , inept social worker of a president yet - they are still marveling in their election "victory ".
"that every dime they demand is hurting somebody. ..." should have been finished with "and every dime they spend helps somebody in some fashion, eg. Defense, FAA, SNAP just to name a few.
Citizens have duty to pay for the things they want as expressed through the Representatives they vote into State and Federal offices. People who benefit most from living in this country and are able to take unfair political and social advantage from the wealth they have accumulated should pay the most for the privilege.
There is no way you can defend someone like Mitt Romney, whose wealth is amplified because most of his income is taxed at only the capital gains rate because of a quirk in the tax law, having a better chance at influencing his congressman than I do. Every person should have equal access to personal meetings with their representatives. If someone has better access by virtue of their station in life, then they need to pay for that extra benefit.
More fox BS rhetoric ~
Wilderness ~, Adequate Healthcare is a Constitutional & Birth Right ~ Immediate Coverage should begin on day 1 of delivery ~
We are talking about an individuals Fundamental right to Live ~
And once again, we live in the "United" States of America, not Somalia which is where most republicans should relocate ~ To my knowledge, there are very few if any gun laws there ~
Wow ~ My spelling is atrocious today ~ Must be my great anticipation for the UEFA Championship Game today ~
I wonder if I am going to be taxed to death, myself.
If you didn't live in luxury, compared to most of the rest of the world, and most of the entire history of civilization, I might feel a little sorry for you.
...ah the life of a fish.
underwater, near the octopus's garden…
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you … 3ABB63CE8B
You'd be the first person in history to suffer death by taxes.
I dunno, John - more than once I've felt like an incipient heart attack was coming on when doing my taxes...
Then you really should consider moving to another country Wilderness ~ I mean really, how do you expect a unified, cohesive nation to function without Tax Collection? ~
I guess it's nice "Election Time" rhetoric republicans like to spout when running for office but in reality, it's a necessary collection ~ Mosr republican presidents have campaigned with this BS but then end up actually raising taxes once in office ~
"Trickle Down"? Is that your solution? Give all our money to the Jed Bushes of the world? I'm sure he'll make sure the rest of us get our share sometime in the future right?
Kathryn ~ Although taxes for the wealthy and greed driven corporations should be much higher, you'll never be "Taxes to Death" unless you fall into this category ~
However, if congressional hearings do not commence soon, there is a very high probability that you might be "Oiled & Gased" to deaht by Jed Bushes buddies in the industry ~ You are getting gouged profusely at the pump right now, and have been for decades ~ It's criminal ~
We need to NOT VOTE FOR anyone connected to the Globalists.
BTW Does that sound too conspiratorial
or is it a justified stance?
It would probably be easier to answer if you would define what a "globalist" is. Someone that thinks we live on a globe, with hundreds of other countries that we interact with?
We will need to find some flat-Earth creationists to vote for.
Anyone really interested in the American Economy should read twice Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman's new book, "That Used To Be Us". He writes that we were doing pretty well until Reaganomics threw us a curve. Bush I and Clinton did a pretty good job of getting us back to 500 ball.. Then Bush II struck out.
Unfortunately his suggestion for how we can get back to who we were is a possibility that is never going to happen in today's political environment. But it's a good read that explains a lot.
How can one be happy with less?
*Take a job you like and try to keep the weekends free.
*Have a healthy diet and don't buy a lot … any... junk food. Keep your grocery bills low and buy whole foods such as vegetables and more vegetables and fruits.
*Focus on the abundance within: love, kids, family, nature, good books, friends, etc. These things are not expensive.
*Mortgage payments will be low if your house is not oversized. My house was easy to clean and repair, so our family had more time for fun and recreational activities. My kids flew the coop at an appropriate age because it was small.
*Stay out of debt by NOT borrowing.
*Don't pay for private school.
*Pay cash for as much as you can.
*Realize you live in a great country where people are generally hard working, conscientious and friendly.
-and remember, every day is a day to gaze up at the mountains
and not stare down at the gutters.
Kathryn, my husband and I did all that. Married 30 years and he has been on disability all but five years of our marriage because he can't work. I'm a state employee and when my agency merged with a larger one and I got a sizeable increase in salary, we stayed in the same house and only bought a new auto when the old one barely limped into the dealership. We have something to show for our frugality, but we are having to help support a son with a potentially fatal disease. Congratulations to you for flying high. Too many of us are trapped in having to support our elderly parents or disabled children.
If you can't afford to buy a house, thats okay! I would not buy a house in today's market in So Cal!
Houses around me just jumped up to 700 thousand! They were recently only 400 to 500 thousand. That is a problem. I do feel sorry for gen Xers and younger who would like to buy a home to raise their families. Many are raising kids in apartments now.
They can still make the best of it. I know parents/kids are getting together and having barbecues in their apt. complexes, going on outings with friends, birthday parties galore…
In short, they are enjoying life today despite, (or maybe even because of) apt. living.
So-Cal has everything a person could possibly dream of ~ Hence, the reason for a premium tag to live here ~
Everything a person could dream of? How about some snow? Or open spaces without a gadzillion people tromping everywhere? What about clean air? Or roads that actually be traveled at more than a stop-and-go pace?
About all So. Cal. has to offer is tons of people and a nice climate. And celebrities to ogle if you're into that kind of thing.
And....Beautiful Beaches.... Beauitful Girls.....Every Job & Bussiness Opportunity U could Imagine.....The List goes and on ~
Once again Widerness, your research is seriousy flawed ~ I can get snow just about any time i'd like....A beautiful mountain range is just 45 minutes right up the freeway....The entire state is flanked to the east by the Sierra Nevadas....So I control when I enjoy the snow.....Air quality has been trending to the possitive for decades...
There are very good resons why California is indeed the most populous state within the "Union" ~ Approximately 40 million Americans call this golden state home my friend ~
all good points, Alternative Prime… what is your alternative, by the way?
I mean so far you have been very critical... what are you critical of, what is the problem as you see it and what is the solution?
Oh, I understand that a great many people like Cali, even the left wing politics (they even move to Idaho trying to get away from the nonsense there and then try to turn MY state into the same liberal haven they're leaving).
What it has to offer, to me, just isn't worth the cost. At least in the popular areas - now northern California, around Eureka, is wonderful. I'm not much for the tremendous press of people the rest of the coastal area has (although the pretty girls are a big draw! )
yeah… like three. (celebrities)
and did we mention high taxes?
Wrong & Wrong Again ~ Nice try though
Want nose bleed taxes, move to Texas, then you'll understand what truly HIGH taxes are ~
2-4% property taxes alone ~ Insanity ~ In many counties it's double the So-Cal rate ~
what do you not agree with?
Hollywood is like a ghost town and we do have really high taxes… are you sure you live here?
but here you go:
http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-ve … 013-4?op=1
I guess you win.
We have Prop 13 & 58 which Caps Property Taxes for senior citizens, sales tax is a reasonable 7% ~ These are two primary sources of income for both the county and state ~
Not sure what state you're domiciled in Kathryn, but all things considered, we pay a very reasonable overall tax here in So-Cal ~
If you pay 4% property tax on a 250,000 house in Texas, that's roughly $10,000 annually just in TAXES ~ Approx $900 per month, more than the actual mortgage ~ Insane
Hollywood is just fine with a robust motion picture industry which is thriving ~ I was just in town ~
I lived in the "inland Empire' in the late seventies, and had a bang up time during the heart of the Disco Era. Now I crave a little quiet, it is all a little overcrowded and expensive for my tastes. That song by Randy Newman "I love LA" had me written all over it. Today, I prefer a little more space between me and my neighbor.
“Inland Empire”, I’m assuming you’re referring to the San Bernardino & Riverside Regions ~
It has enjoyed a nice little growth spurt in the last couple decades, almost as robust as the Orange County area, and sure, if you need a little space I can understand your interest in a change in venue ~ You always get what you pay for though ~
I’m a concrete kinda guy myself and could never even conceive of living in a remote or secluded venue, I need everything in front of my face within shoutin’ distance ~ Restaurants, Pharmacies, Convenience Stores, Movie Theatres, Grocery Stores, Hospitals, Doctors, Attorneys, Entertainment, Professional Sports Stadiums, Timely Information, Reliable Media Connections, I just need it all at my touch and that’s exactly what I have right here in So-Cal ~
Yes, AP, I lived in Riverside for 3 years and was stationed at what was once March AFB, nearby. I fell in love with city of Santa Monica, where all the beautiful people live. In the seventies, there was one hell of a smog problem, but since that time the air has cleared a great deal. I moved to the Beaumont/Banning area, on the way to Palm Springs.
I had lived in the shadow of the seocnd largest metro in America and lived in the middle of Montana, 100 miles west of Billings. I have found my preference somewhere in between to two extremes.
I like to consider myself a concrete kinda guy, but I don't need it in my face, but i want it within arms length. If you have a minute, I defined that philosophy here:
http://credence2.hubpages.com/hub/Looki … sweet-spot
LA wins hands down over NY, Chicago and Houston, in many ways I still miss it.
Yes, Hollywood is trying. I just wish they'd put some money into the city of Hollywood and spruce it up.
C'mon Kathryn, you would be very sexy if U weren't so dizzy ~
Just like every other major city, there are a few questionably outdated areas dowtown , but it's doing just fine, North Hollywood is up-scale heaven ~
Hollywood was and is a major success story, always adapting to the evolving entertainment market ~ It will continue to do so going forward even with the advent of Netflix and others ~
And just like the Mob will always claim a stake in Vegas, Film Sudios will always get a piece of the "Big" & "Little" Screens ~
What does it get you?
attachment, someone taking over your LIFE!
Well, I'm already attached, for 15 years. There are much better reasons for being attached. That's only a small bonus.
are you preaching?
you forgot to add
The Way I See It
or some such indication.
Why bother? Everything I write is my opinion for the most part. You should have figured that out by now.
Then why can I not get away with preaching, which I love to do? If I do not add...
According To Me ATM
As Far As I Believe AFAIB
As I See It AISI
As Far As I Know AFAIK
...I can almost not say a word!
So, good for you.
Are you kidding?
To avoid the wrath of atheists and lefties mostly.
(I am a smoothly swimming fish.. no flip-flopping around)
That's silly. I love bringing on the wrath of atheists. It's part of the enjoyment of life.
They know you are easily swayed.
I do not like confrontation: Just read what I keyboard and be quiet.
HMMM thats even better
Yes, I can be swayed by a good argument. I always go back to my strange beliefs, however.
You will always have a tainted reputation with me because of the thread you started about the forked tongued Yogis who…
What do you mean? Do you mean that post I made about yoga being from the devil? I was crazy then, so I have a good excuse.
You were crazy THEN?
JK, not really
But, did you apologize for that thread? You actually said they practice Yoga by sticking their forked tongues into their nostrils.
Well, they really do that. It's called kechari mudra. It's pretty gross. Only real fanatics would do that I guess.
You're definately from a Red state, not Cali ~ ~!
I thought everybody understood what a Globalist is!
Its those rich guys who influence the world based on their great financial powers! They used to be called the New World Order.
Okay. thats another name for them.
So don't vote for any rich guy or gal.
Pretty much leaves out anyone in the running doesn't it? Shall we elect Homer Simpson instead?
Maybe Edward O'Neill (Al Bundy/Jay Pritchett)
Birth Place: Youngstown, Ohio, United States
Birthday: April 12, 1946, Aries
Maybe he's not rich enough. Let's write him in. There is a revolution for you. He'll be fine as long as there is a camera on him.
Can we just get a decent choice. To many times we have to choose the lesser of two evils.
Nice, I dig the area ~ A little warmer than here but a nice arid, therapeutic climate ~ Soothes the body, it’s a very sexy place ~
That’s exactly where U wanna be if an arms length from everything is a desire ~ I can definitely see the attraction, been through the region many times, I’m actually looking for a property in the San Jacinto, Yucaipa area ~ I like spending time hugging the desert perimeters ~
I agree, Los Angeles is definately the Real Deal, good, legitimate reasons why California is the most populous state in the union ~ Almost 40 million at last consensus ~
I'm just happy Arnold Shwartzwhatever is long gone as governor ~ What a disterous tenure ~ Jerry Brown did in a few years what he FAILED to accomplish in 8 ~ We are now a model state again thanks to Gov. Brown ~
We live in Florida now, in the central east coast area of the state, I get what I got in California and Hawaii, no frost in January! But it is damp and muggy with mosquitos everwhere which I am not use to. The cost of living is very reasonable, with no state taxes. Granted, it is a bit ham handed compared with the sophisticos of the Los Angeles area, ubiquitous BBQ stands and Nascar and such, but there are always going to be trade offs. What would you bear in exchange for something of greater value?
Good to see Jerry Brown back at the helm. The Governator was the celebrity for all of us outside of California for quite a while.
What a persuasively indirect and healthy debate.. my father used to tell me.. if your "all in" to one political party.. you don't have an opinion... and he said this as his beloved daughter joined the young dem association in her 1st year of college... he said this as a staunch republican.. and two years later... I came back to his right wing tendencies.. we have been faithful Rush listeners even if we didnt agree with everything he had to say.. it didn't stop him from speaking. Have you seen the internet posts of all the people in this country that were arrested wearing Obama tshirts? Well.. if sharing my fox-news-lovin opinion that... this great country we live in, being the biggest business in the world and our need is for it to be run like one.. gets me arrested... I sure as heck hope I'm wearing a Reagan tshirt. Reagan was not afraid. He did what he did for the right economic stimulus . He raised taxes.. and he created jobs... the Fed controls our economy... it's a big facade.. they tighten and loosen credit.. buy and sell bonds... determine the cost of money, control the interest rates and more.. they make these decisions on a feel/felt basis and look to history as a determining factor because the cycle is reliant. Capitalism is necessary. I forget who said it.. but an American economist once said that capitalism was necessary for political freedom.. and i believe it. Reagan ran this country like a business.. hindsight is always 20/20... it's easy to look back and make a criticism.. let's deal with the hear and now. You can have all the great causes... legitimate causes... but you can't fix a thing without money... without a strong economy.. it's lip service. That is a top-down truism. Fix the money.. and you can make different choices.. better choices.. Promote small business.. bring back the American dream. Create jobs and raise taxes.. that's me... just sayin'
Sometimes I am amazed at the downright immaturity of staunch party lovers , the right have their way and the left have theirs . To belong to either one we must be ever loyal to the particular cause . Reason ? Forget about it . We don't need reason , we need fanaticism .
Reagan was the best thing that came along to America , you are right , he ran America like a business ! And even more than that he absolutely loved his country ! And yet , the left just HAS to hate Reagan , why ?Because It's just the right thing to do .
I make a prediction - Nothing will ever change in American politics as long as we continue to view the world through rose colored ,two party glasses ! Congress will continue ,business as usual , the White House will remain a bridge to incredible life long financial and power opportunities . Unless we the voters drop our twin partisan boundaries -------There will always be TWO parties -in voter mentality .
That stuff "trickling down?"
It isn't wealth--it's piss!
It sure is for the last six + years , yet we won't talk about that will we , that would require we be racists .
This is not about Obama or Georgy Porgy or Clinton for that matter. The system has been infiltrated by greed and corruption. The corruption has had over two hundred years of lawyers serving themselves to subvert the Constitution as they see fit for their benefit. Obama sold out to Wall Street, Bush sold out to big oil and the list goes on and on. The checks and balances was up to the electorate who are only too happy to reside in their own little bubble without doing a thing or possessing a responsible thought as to what is going on around them. Blaming one guy or choosing one party over the other only perpetuates the conundrum.
I don't think O'bashing makes me a racist... The fact is, he is the leader of our country. A leader must act, not react. I, for one, have times where I need to remind myself to embrace certain change that comes along in life. These times, I consider my struggles, the difficult change. Change is coming, it's here, and the longer I wait to accept it, the further it gets ahead of me. The times I am able to see beyond it, are my greatest successes. The leader of our country should be a step ahead of change. He can't just embrace it, he must anticipate and get ahead of it. Obama is the king of lip service. All his talk about change has left him reacting to it, instead of initiating it. I don't think that makes me the least bit racist. I don't think every black person is inept, and I am white. I don't think every leftist is wrong, and I lean to the right. Politics is defined as both an art and a science It is a science because it defines the rules and doctrines we live by, and is an art in the form of persuasion. "We the people, for the people..." I don't want anyone telling me what to think or believe. That is our freedom. Without opposition, there is no cause. Fill a room where everyone thinks alike and you have a cult. Opposing political parties ensure reasonable conflict and debate, to set limits in power. Redefining the parties would surely serve us better than eliminating them.
Well said, but consider the following two propositions:
1. While you may not be racist and are just criticizing PBOs policies and actions it is a statistical reality many on the Right are. The general PBO bashing is distinctly different in tone and content from the Clinton bashing and Bush bashing that occurred in spades during their administrations. A study just shows the vast majority of overtly PBO racist tweets occur from red states.
2. I must disagree with you regarding your comments on PBO's change accomplishments. I have a very lengthy hub on what PBO has accomplished, and it is a lot. The issue is the definition of "change". If you are one who thinks an action taken by PBO which you disapprove of and therefor is not "change", then I can see why you think he has done little. On the other hand, if you are one who removes their likes or dislikes from the equation, my list shows PBO has accomplished a lot; but not as much as those who think agree with everything he did was "change" because they agree with it.
For example, whether you agree with it or not, the following are a few real and major "changes" that he accomplished in the face of the greatest headwinds from the opposition than any President in the 1900s:
1. The stimulus and completing Bush's TARP
2. Elimination of the military's anti-gay policies
4. Opening diplomatic relations with Cuba
5. Implementing, as much as he is allowed, the bipartisan Senate immigration bill
6. Finally accepting and promoting the rights of gays to be normal citizens of the United States with the same rights and privileges as any other non-gay American
7. Promoted a much needed (in my opinion) renewable energy program
8.End torture as a permissible policy of the United States
9. Required economic justification for tax increases
10.Reimplemented some (but not enough in my opinion) regulations that were tossed by the way side that were designed to protect Americans from abuse by banks and creditors as well as allowing the Great Recession to happen to the extent that it did.
Now, if you disagree with all of these and don't count them as change, then yes, PBO simply sat on his thumb for 6 years. If, however, you overlook your likes or dislikes, then he has been quite busy making changes.
Also well said.
I am from Maryland (have been in Virginia for less than 2 years.) As for my status as a Fox-news-lover (or even viewer,) I used to raise my hand and say I'm the one!
I think anyone who uses a racist tone in voicing anything is self-deprecating behavior, as they have taken away their own power in their message. Let's go beyond accepting that exists and initiate a change not use it. The President of the United States stands in the most controversial position in the world. "Black" is a description (that even has ill-fated controversy surrounding it) that singles him out from all who have come before him. It is an achievement for our country. He initiated his first change upon being elected. I will also let you know that I am "all-in" when it comes to gay marriage. A supporter. I want my freedoms, and the same freedoms for every individual in my community. I believe in the division of church and state.
I will direct my response to your acknowledgement of "facing the greatest headwinds opposition since the 1900s.." (And even throw in an accolade... Obama has taken initiative in addressing the student loan crisis. We should not see headlines such as "Is Higher Education Worth the Cost?" I think he will continue to promote his INITIATIVE for a sound resolution prior to the end of his term.)
I never intended to imply that he has sat on his thumb for six years. I was expressing that as the leader of our nation he should be a step ahead of change... anticipating it, and getting in front of it. That he is running the biggest business in the world... and that can't be done effectively, in terms of leadership, unless you act instead of react. Reacting will still effect change, as you have fervently listed with fact-based opinions. The greatest headwind opposition factor that you pointed out, is a perfect example of my point.
I never implied that he hasn't made accomplishments.
In the prior post ahorseback noted that any criticism of Obama labeled us as racists. I am confident that I can point out that he is black and provide a negative perspective of his actions (I prefer to use "reactions" here) in the same sentence and there is no racism felt or intended.
While I appreciate your heartfelt fact-based rebuttal, I also was addressing the two-party, rose colored glasses comment, suggesting reform over elimination. Two sides to every story? Nah, three. Mine, yours, and the truth. Lol. I'm going to keep my eye on you My Esoteric. And if you get out of line.. I'm going to sick my 92 yr old grandmother on you. We call her "Mops" (affectionately, derived from Mops and Pops) but she also goes by "pick-a-side-and-I'll-take-the-other"... Remember to listen.. and 5he accomplishments are greater. Lol
Your welcome, I was very happy to serve.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, one which I have little disagreement with. As to the two-party system, I don't think it will ever go away and I am not sure I want it to. America is still fighting the same fight Hamilton/Adams (the lady needs to go on the $20 bill, not the $10, btw) and Jefferson/Madison fought so many years ago; even the issues are the same.
If a third, or fourth party is ever to evolve, it must be done from the ground up, at the city, district, and state level overseen by an organizing national headquarters. So far, contemporary efforts have been top down and will never work. Even if one did get elected President, working with Congress is almost DOA because he or she doesn't have a constituency in either Party.
At one time, from 1950 through 1994, I would argue we had a seven party system; three each for the Rs and Ds plus a few independents thrown in for good measure. Then from 1995 - 2000, it was a six party (liberal Republicans were put on the sideline), then after 2001 it is four party system, the conservative Rs, the moderate Ds, the liberal Ds, and some independents. Given the problems Boehner is having managing his heard of cats, you might say the conservatives split in two, the far Right and the far, far Right. Today, moderate and liberal Rs have no voice and almost no presence while conservative Ds have no real presence either having either switched Parties, or more commonly replaced by conservative Rs.
I think it is the "rules of the game" that is the real problem. So long as gerrymandering is allowed to exist as well as closed primaries, then nothing is going to change. Change those to rules and you would see a sea change in the political make-up of Congress.
The problem with our politics is not the number of parties we decide to have but the money that is supplied to support them. Even within the parties money is used to influence and garner support. As long as the greed corrupts the political process, money will inevitably win.
If all political parties were willing to represent the MAJORITY of Americans, then of course the number thereof could be deemed irrelevant ~
However, the regressive republican party has a long documented history of "Hostility & Contempt" toward the MARORITY of Americans while catering to the filthy rich and corporations. This is a serious problem ~
Federally Subsidizing Elections is one of the only solutions to the "Dirty Money" issue ~
The corruption is rampant in both parties. Why wasn't Wall Street hammered after the meltdown? Obama was financed heavily by them is why. Not to say the GOP doesn't have a heavy investment by big oil is any better.
Trying to pick any redeeming value of either party out of the rotten apple barrel is impossible. I do agree with publicly financed campaigns but go two steps farther. Term limits and lobby reform must accompany it as well.
Not even close to accurate ~ Just remember, forget the fox snooze talking points and understand the facts ~ Republicans Represent the Wealthy, Democrats Represent everyone else ~
I think you'll find that Republicans represent the wealthy, Democrats represent the not quite as wealthy and everybody else goes unrepresented.
That statement, John is very hard to reconcile with the policy proposals from each Party. By and large, most policy proposals from the Right benefit the wealthy and very wealthy disproportionately than the middle and lower economic classes; they have the false hope the trickle-down works, and there is simply no proof, now that it has been attempted by Reagan and Bush 42.
On the other hand, the Right loudly claims that all of the policies of the Left benefit the lower and middle income classes disproportionately more than the upper class.
inaccurate statement John Holden ~
Republicans represent the very small minority of wealthy individuals in this country, less than 1% of the total population ~
Democrats Champion Tirelessly for the Middle, Lower Middle, Upper Middle Classes, Senior Citizens, Income Challenged, Minorities of all Ancestral Heritage including African Americans & Latinos, Veterans, Disabled Vets, Women, and the list goes on ~
This is why the Regressive Republican Party is now Obsolete ~ When you are so extreme to the point of insanity with your beliefs, values, and political views, you no longer belong to our United States ~
I appreciate your fervor and faith but it is sorely misguided. The democrats recently had an opportunity to stop the TPP which is another corporate bid to totally squash jobs and ship more overseas. Almost two weeks ago House Democrats shot down Obama's Fast Track authority claiming such things would take place if it passed. It is currently slated to pass as the Senate gave its nod on changes that would make the Federal Government compensate those who lose their jobs due to this trade deal. That is a pretty good deal if you can exponentially grow your profits through putting people out of work, pocket the profits and have the government make up the difference.
Somebody got paid in the Democratic minority to pass this horrible deal.
I really don't think NAFTA is the boogieman most Progressives make it out to be. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA's_e … mployment.
According to one measure, 682,900 jobs were lost from when NAFTA went into effect until around 2010, the year the sources report was published. According to another source, in the first five years of NAFTA's existence, 709,988 jobs were created due to NAFTA. I don't presume that either of these numbers are "net" numbers since each was to prove point on each side. My guess is the net change due to NAFTA is a net increase of 27,000 jobs.
As to the loss of manufacturing, it is inevitable; just like climate change. The change is simply due to societies progressing from a labor-based economy to a technology-based economy. I had a futurist, can't remember his name, who spoke to my Air War College class in 1991 who said that, and it has always stuck with me.
Progressives should stop wasting their energy by trying to turn back the clock to a labor-based economy and start working on how to best to harness what technology means to the labor force. Leave the pushing back the clock to the good ol' days to the Right. Progressives must understand the world has ... progressed and they need to adapt.
The name calling and such does not add to the argument as it shows a propensity towards a certain platform and is derisive at best. Progressive thought aside the facts show what the devastating effects of NAFTA has created. Your claim of new jobs created by the NAFTA agreement do not show the lower waged jobs that were created and the enrichment of the corporate profits that ensued as a direct result. It also does not reflect the recent inability for th eeconomy to bounce back as many have given up looking for sustainable work.
This is from a twenty year study after NAFTA.
"Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after "investor-state" tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies." 
"Rather than creating in any year the net 200,000 jobs per year promised by former President Bill Clinton on the basis of Peterson Institute for International Economics projections, job loss from NAFTA began rapidly:" 
"• More than 845,000 U.S. workers in the manufacturing sector have been certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) since NAFTA because they lost their jobs due to imports from Canada and Mexico or the relocation of factories to those countries. The TAA program is quite narrow, covering only a subset of jobs lost at manufacturing facilities, and is difficult to qualify for. Thus, the NAFTA TAA numbers significantly undercount NAFTA job loss." 
"The export of subsidized U.S. corn did increase under NAFTA, destroying the livelihoods of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and about 1.4 million additional Mexican workers whose livelihoods depended on agriculture." 
Who cares as it is only Mexican labor, right? You should read the study in its' entirety as it really shows a different slant on how globalization has lowered the middle class into a losing battle with the corporations for a better than survivalist existence.
I don't know what industry you work in but Disney has shown how they intended to lay off highly skilled labor jobs (the ones we are supposed to retrain to fill) but had enlisted the H-1B immigration loophole to fill the 250 currently filled jobs with tech people from India. This loophole is to fill in for companies that can't fill their needs with domestic labor. It is totally against the purpose of the law. The best part was that they were to train their replacements before they were laid off.  Only because of all the negative press and their inability to find enough Indian immigrants to fill the jobs it was cancelled. It was like nothing ever happened said one employee.  This is the purpose of corporate America to cause a race to the bottom while the profits go to the top.
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wall … 50207.html
 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/la … .html?_r=0
 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/in … yoffs.html
When time permits, I'd like to see a Vote Count on the House ~
Last I heard it was controlled by Republicans ~
Is this why Democrat Obama used the tax payers money to bail out the (privately owned) banks?
There was no other alternative after the "Wall Street Wizards" like Mutt Romney, Jed Bush, and other geniuses plundered our Real Estate market ~
It was a very wise use for our collective funds, much wiser than subsidizing oil cos ~
The banks were and are "To Big To Fail" ~ This is why Bernie Sanders is advocating the downsizing and or seperation of major financial institutions ~
Just go to the donor list of the prospective candidates and the ones that won to see what I am talking about. Both parties are equally corrupt and by denying it you play right into the delusion of thinking they care what is best for you or me. We are led astray with phony flashpoint issues that help to keep the focus off of the politician. Until you see it you will be caught up in the farce.
For a much more accurate snapshot depicting what truely matters, just look at the Core Issues to discover which party actually fights for Americans and which party fights for the extremely wealthy ~
The answer is the regressive GOP will fight to the bitter end to steal from the working class, senior citizens, and income challenged only to enrich the wealthy ~ And that's a fact ~
I wish neither Party received their money in a much different way, but since one does, the other must, even if it didn't want to. To do otherwise means extinction. Sometimes pragmatism must take the place of principle.
And apathy has taken the place of pragmatism with many. When I talk with many about the issues and policies our government pursues I am always amazed at how little most people know or even care about it. I don't know how many have come up with the reasoning of it doesn't affect them yet in the next breath they will complain about the wars or taxes and the best one is the economy as if the problems with them appear out of mid air with no warning. What a lazy lethargic mass of lemmings we have become.
And for dems , The incredible amount of waste and redundancy in education ,Obama's health care , bigger government ? BOTH parties are at fault and they know it , problem is the gridlocking of Two party mentality in voters !
Absolutely false ~ The republicans are to blame not both parties ~ Nice try with the old worn out GOP "Talking Points" ~
I like my government, it's the only adhesive which binds together a "United" states ~ Sure, it's not perfect but it's much better than the republican "Anarchistic" tendencies ~
If you don't like government then move to a place where you'll be happier and a little more content instead of consistently attempting to undermine or sabatage our union of rational states ~
Once we remove those who wish to be out from under the EVIL Fed, states like Texas, Alaska et al, then maybe we can begin to really accelerate with the new "Wealth Disbursement" ~
ahorseback ~ Obviously you are unaware of the most profoundly important provisions within the Obamacare Healthcare Law ~
Are you "Off the Grid"? That would explain the lack of understanding ~ I'm not so sure individuals who live in rural or "Ultra-Rural" regions have the capability or necessary infrastructure to receive updated or accurate information ~
Believe me, there are critically important components within Obamacare that benefit ALL Americans ~
AS long as YOU keep seeing all our problems in America through the eye's of Republican or Democrat ...............Nothing will ever change . Nothing !
by Moderndayslave5 years ago
With the income gap between the wealthiest American's and the soon to be decimated middle or working class ever increasing. How much more proof do you need that tax cuts for the wealthy isn't creating jobs or supplying...
by Mike Russo4 years ago
The next time someone tells you that Obama is destroying the economy, remind them that the stock market and corporate profits are at all-time highs.When they tell you that this hasn't helped them, remind them they've...
by rhamson4 years ago
The CBO recently released a study on the trickle down economics Reagan through both Bushes espoused as the be all end all of economic growth. It seems as though the only ones that really made a dent in their bottom line...
by My Esoteric2 years ago
To cement the fact that since the 1980s, the rich have been getting richer because the middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting poorer was the recent announcement that the American Middle Class, the bulwark of...
by Deforest2 years ago
poor" by Gore Vidal. He added that the rich are living off the federal government (contracts and tax breaks...).I definitively agree with him. Your opinion?
by ledefensetech7 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090826/ap_ … ma_economyAll I can say is: Oh my God!There's a story that right before the end of World War II Montgomery Ward, the guy who had the department store the same name, close...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.