Income Inequality???

[Mike at A+]

I am getting so tired of hearing 0bama and the Democrats whining about "income inequality". Incomes simply cannot be equal. People are like snowflakes, everyone different. We have different educational achievements, different degrees of experience, different work ethic and ultimately different worth to the companies that hire us for employment.

So I wrote a "Letter to the Editor" of my local liberal rag (The Allentown Morning Call) and was very surprised when they actually printed it. And last night, I got a phone call from a total stranger who probably found my number in the phone book and he congratulated me on writing such a good letter and encouraged me to keep speaking out against the gibberish spewed by the left.

I then went to the comments section of the newspaper's website and saw that most of the comments supported my letter and the one self identified Democrat pathetically attempted to hijack the thread by playing the "Bush card".

Here's a link to my letter: http://www.mcall.com/opinion/letters/mc-income-inequality-deangelo-20140113,0,4723354.story

[sammy the sage]

I am getting so tired of hearing 0bama and the Democrats whining about "income inequality". Incomes simply cannot be equal. People are like snowflakes, everyone different. We have different educational achievements, different degrees of experience, different work ethic and ultimately different worth to the companies that hire us for employment.

So I wrote a "Letter to the Editor" of my local liberal rag (The Allentown Morning Call) and was very surprised when they actually printed it. And last night, I got a phone call from a total stranger who probably found my number in the phone book and he congratulated me on writing such a good letter and encouraged me to keep speaking out against the gibberish spewed by the left.

I then went to the comments section of the newspaper's website and saw that most of the comments supported my letter and the one self identified Democrat pathetically attempted to hijack the thread by playing the "Bush card".

Here's a link to my letter: http://www.mcall.com/opinion/letters/mc-income-inequality-deangelo-20140113,0,4723354.story

there IS A point when THE haves...have TOO MUCH...History shows THAT....over & over again...PERIOD...

and currently THE haves have MORE than in 1929...

[Mike at A+]

there IS A point when THE haves...have TOO MUCH...History shows THAT....over & over again...PERIOD...

and currently THE haves have MORE than in 1929...
As long as they acquire it through legal means I have no problem with that. Another thing history proves is that when you discourage (or even criminalize) prosperity, bad things happen for EVERYONE.

[Mike at A+]

.

[Robert Goren]

Too much income difference and the rich man has no one to buy the products he makes. You can't sell $1,000 TVs and a $200 cable package to a minimum wage worker or an illegal immigrant. The result is a recession. Conservatives have a hard time grasping that concept. As the old saying goes. "A rich man will only buy so many shirts" .

[sammy the sage]

As long as they acquire it through legal means I have no problem with that. Another thing history proves is that when you discourage (or even criminalize) prosperity, bad things happen for EVERYONE.

Legal means...wfjoke...like our local electric company...DUKE Energy...just told our county to shove on tax's...refused to pay 19 million...++ cutting ALL pensions for worker's...++ raising rates...

then there's Glass/Stegal repeal...if you don't KNOW your history ABOUT...legalized monetary RAPE of everybody SMALL

But if it's legal...what a load of ---- argument..... :bang:

[sammy the sage]

Another thing history proves is that when you discourage (or even criminalize) prosperity, bad things happen for EVERYONE.

this part is ABSOLUTLY true...I did not say/write ANYTHING to contrary...but LEGALIZED theft is totally different...

Too bad you can't seem to grasp THAT concept...

[ArlJim78]

Good letter Mike. Income inequality is this years election cycle version of War on Women. of course they have the trusty old race card which seems to never goes out of style.

this is how big govenment/business deflects attention from their failures and corruption, and whips the masses into a frenzy against each other. yes, lets have government solve income inequality for us, and see how that turns out.:rolleyes:

[Mike at A+]

this part is ABSOLUTLY true...I did not say/write ANYTHING to contrary...but LEGALIZED theft is totally different...

Too bad you can't seem to grasp THAT concept...
By DEFINITION, "theft" is illegal. People will adjust to whatever impositions governments enact. Unfortunately in this STUPID COUNTRY, the idiots demonize a corporate CEO providing THOUSANDS OF JOBS because of how much he makes while IDOLIZING the elites in Hollywood, in the recording industry and in sports who provide NO SIGNIFICANT JOB CREATION outside of their bodyguards, many of whom have criminal records and are little more than the common thug.

[Mike at A+]

Too much income difference and the rich man has no one to buy the products he makes. You can't sell $1,000 TVs and a $200 cable package to a minimum wage worker or an illegal immigrant. The result is a recession. Conservatives have a hard time grasping that concept. As the old saying goes. "A rich man will only buy so many shirts" .
Very true. It is the middle class that has historically provided the purchasing power in our economy. Maybe you should explain that to 0bama who has done more damage to America's middle class and has taken us back to the putrid labor participation rates of the 70s. Why do you think he wants to raise the minimum wage? Here's the answer: HIS VOTERS OCCUPY THOSE JOBS.

[Robert Goren]

By DEFINITION, "theft" is illegal. People will adjust to whatever impositions governments enact. Unfortunately in this STUPID COUNTRY, the idiots demonize a corporate CEO providing THOUSANDS OF JOBS because of how much he makes while IDOLIZING the elites in Hollywood, in the recording industry and in sports who provide NO SIGNIFICANT JOB CREATION outside of their bodyguards, many of whom have criminal records and are little more than the common thug.Unfortunately this days, stock market rewards a new CEOs by how many employees he lays off and not by how many new ones he hires. Expansion has come to mean buying up a smaller company, not starting up new enterprises. A quick viewing of any of the stock market tv networks will back me up. Those are headlines all day long.

[hcap]

/QPKKQnijnsM?

[hcap]

One more for all peons. Or is that Pee-ons?

http://www.economicpopulist.org/files/u1/feudalism_then_now.jpg


http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20111029_WOC689.gif

[Mike at A+]

Unfortunately this days, stock market rewards a new CEOs by how many employees he lays off and not by how many new ones he hires. Expansion has come to mean buying up a smaller company, not starting up new enterprises. A quick viewing of any of the stock market tv networks will back me up. Those are headlines all day long.
When you say "rewards a new CEOs by how many employees he lays off", you are just repeating the talking points of the left that seek to demonize anyone who understands that there is waste and redundancy in all corporations. And without shareholders to believe in a corporation's ability to compete in a global economy, that corporation doesn't last. And when that happens, many more jobs are lost than the token amount eliminated through more logical methods. And regarding the negativity you associate with "buying up" smaller companies, that is the entrepreneur's dream - to be bought up.

[FantasticDan]

Jon Stewart recently did a great bit about income inequality and republican hypocrisy..

bNtEPAtKT4k

[Mike at A+]

Nice chart hcap. I saw it on Facebook long ago. But I don't mind being in that 98.5% at the bottom. I don't qualify to be a doctor. I'm not an entertainer (although I play a mean guitar and used to sing in a band many years ago). I'm not holy enough to be clergy. I don't need the aggravation of being a bureaucrat or an elected official. I do have my own subchapter "S" corporation since 1991 but I am far from "Fortune 5,000,000" let alone Fortune 500. I've done IT consulting for investment banks but I have no desire to be a "big banker". I've learned that you generally get out of life what you put into it. Of the very successful people in the remaining 1.5% you seem to dislike, I would tend to believe that most of them achieved that status through their accomplishments, some of them because they were lucky and fewer because they got there through corruption (they usually end up getting caught and prosecuted). I lose no sleep over those who make 10,000 times more than I do. God bless them for their success.

[rastajenk]

Jon Stewart recently did a great bit about income inequality and republican hypocrisy..No he didn't.

[Robert Goren]

When you say "rewards a new CEOs by how many employees he lays off", you are just repeating the talking points of the left that seek to demonize anyone who understands that there is waste and redundancy in all corporations. And without shareholders to believe in a corporation's ability to compete in a global economy, that corporation doesn't last. And when that happens, many more jobs are lost than the token amount eliminated through more logical methods. And regarding the negativity you associate with "buying up" smaller companies, that is the entrepreneur's dream - to be bought up.That maybe the entrepreneur's dream, but its his employee' worst nightmare. Been there, survived, but many of my fellow employees did not. They were good employees and been there for a long time. A couple employees in their late fifties never did find another job anything close to what they had and retired at 62. Something they did not want to do. All bull shit about helping the laid off workers find other jobs was just that "Bull shit".

[ArlJim78]

North Korea and Cuba are leading the way on income equality.

[TJDave]

there IS A point when THE haves...have TOO MUCH...History shows THAT....over & over again...PERIOD...


The problem has always been in keeping it a secret.

[JustRalph]

The real problem is in the inequality of effort

[Mike at A+]

That maybe the entrepreneur's dream, but its his employee' worst nightmare. Been there, survived, but many of my fellow employees did not. They were good employees and been there for a long time. A couple employees in their late fifties never did find another job anything close to what they had and retired at 62. Something they did not want to do. All bull shit about helping the laid off workers find other jobs was just that "Bull shit".
As much as I sympathize with people this happens to, there is no escaping the fact that the new model for career success is trending toward entrepreneurship. When you elect a president who instills fear and mistrust into job creators, they simply are not willing to create new jobs. And calling them "fat cats" adds the spite factor. Why should I bend over backwards for a president who regularly demonizes me, they ask?

[Mike at A+]

The real problem is in the inequality of effort
BINGO - you just identified 0bama's low end supporters, the entitlement mentality gang.

[Tom]

How much more money do you suppose John Stewart makes than, say, a fireman, a teacher, a cop?

[FantasticDan]

BINGO - you just identified 0bama's low end supporters, the entitlement mentality gang.And BINGO, you just identified your singular reason for writing your letter and the vast majority of your posts here - your total contempt for Obama and his unmotivated, work-ethic lacking, "low end" supporters.. can't imagine who you're referring to there...:rolleyes: :sleeping:

[FantasticDan]

How much more money do you suppose John Stewart makes than, say, a fireman, a teacher, a cop?Lots and lots more. And?

[Clocker]

. yes, lets have government solve income inequality for us, and see how that turns out.

Not well, I'd wager. Since they still haven't figured out that government is a major cause of income inequality, I wouldn't bet any money on them coming up with a fix. Both sides of the aisle share the guilt, but the fact remains that income inequality is 50% higher under Obama than it was under Bush. Some of the reasons follow.

The Federal Reserve QE policy has served to do nothing except prop up asset prices. As a result the only place to make a safe return on money is the stock market. The rich are getting richer there because the demand for stocks is driving up prices. Buying stocks is an alternative to actually investing in creating new businesses and therefore new jobs. And QE is part of the problem of inflation, even though the Fed argues that there is no inflation, and cooks the books to prove it. Inflation further increases the gap in real income.

The poor suffer much more in a poor economy than the rich. The recession officially ended in June, 2009, but the economy remains stagnant. If the work force was still as large as it was in 2009, the official unemployment rate would be over 11%. Obama's efforts to stimulate the economy have been laughable, if not counterproductive.

ObamaCare has already greatly hurt the job market, with much more to come. Regulations have resulted in many jobs cut back from full time to part time, and in small businesses avoiding any expansion that would increase their head count to more than 50.

It has been shown over hundreds of years of history that a growing bureaucracy and increasingly burdensome regulation widen the income gap, especially hurting the middle class. Growing government regulation in this country (ACA, EPA, IRS, etc.) make it increasingly difficult to start or expand new businesses, which are the primary source for job creation. The only redeeming quality of Republicans here is that they generally grow the regulatory burden at a slower rate than Democrats.

[Mike at A+]

And BINGO, you just identified your singular reason for writing your letter and the vast majority of your posts here - your total contempt for Obama and his unmotivated, work-ethic lacking, "low end" supporters.. can't imagine who you're referring to there...:rolleyes: :sleeping:
The reason for my letter was the annoying term "income inequality". It would have been written regardless of who was pushing it. If there is any "contempt", it's directed at the fact that he and his lap dogs in the Senate are singlehandedly creating the inflection point in American history where the next generation has it worse than the previous one. You can't raise people up by bringing other people down. Pretty basic stuff.

[Tom]

Lots and lots more. And?

So he is part of the problem, right?
He makes more than he is entitled to make?

[Clocker]

Jon Stewart recently did a great bit about income inequality and republican hypocrisy..


100% show biz, 0% content. He could as easily put together a bit showing Democrats as inane and ignorant. Republicans are part of the problem, especially dinosaurs like Mitch McConnell and John McCain. But the fat cats at the top of the food chain are prospering as much, if not more, under the Obama administration compared to Bush. The problem is with the big fat bloated government. We have a two party system, the evil party and the stupid party. Both are to blame for that problem. The Democrats are more to blame right now, because they are running things. If the Republicans gain control, they will slow it down, but they won't fix it.

[Mike at A+]

100% show biz, 0% content. He could as easily put together a bit showing Democrats as inane and ignorant. Republicans are part of the problem, especially dinosaurs like Mitch McConnell and John McCain. But the fat cats at the top of the food chain are prospering as much, if not more, under the Obama administration compared to Bush. The problem is with the big fat bloated government. We have a two party system, the evil party and the stupid party. Both are to blame for that problem. The Democrats are more to blame right now, because they are running things. If the Republicans gain control, they will slow it down, but they won't fix it.
And this supports my theory that 0bama isn't out to get the so called "fat cats". They laugh at him because he is unable to get within miles of their riches. It is the MIDDLE CLASS that 0bama dislikes and targets, especially the upper middle class striving to get into a higher status. Again, this is why he wants to raise minimum wage. That won't do squat for the working middle class.

[thaskalos]

I am getting so tired of hearing 0bama and the Democrats whining about "income inequality". Incomes simply cannot be equal. People are like snowflakes, everyone different. We have different educational achievements, different degrees of experience, different work ethic and ultimately different worth to the companies that hire us for employment.

So I wrote a "Letter to the Editor" of my local liberal rag (The Allentown Morning Call) and was very surprised when they actually printed it. And last night, I got a phone call from a total stranger who probably found my number in the phone book and he congratulated me on writing such a good letter and encouraged me to keep speaking out against the gibberish spewed by the left.

I then went to the comments section of the newspaper's website and saw that most of the comments supported my letter and the one self identified Democrat pathetically attempted to hijack the thread by playing the "Bush card".

Here's a link to my letter: http://www.mcall.com/opinion/letters/mc-income-inequality-deangelo-20140113,0,4723354.story

That last paragraph of your letter-to-the-editor was the instigator of this "pathetic" hijacking, Mike...and you should have expected as much. Obama and the Democrats have latched on to the buzz phrase "income inequality"...and the Republicans of this board have latched on to the buzz phrase "Bush card". Bush is no longer president, so, apparently, no mention of Bush can be made when addressing criticism levied against Obama and his administration. It is somehow considered improper to compare the two presidents...and any such comparisons are considered by the right to be "pathetic hijackings".

You said that Obama's golf playing and his vacation to Hawaii was like rubbing salt in the wounds of those very talented people that you know of who have not been able to find work in the last 3 years. Do you suppose that our military might have felt the same way when ex-president Bush took more vacation time than Obama ever could...while, at the same time, engaging the military in conflicts on multiple fronts?

The truth is that ALL presidents take plenty of vacation time...even when the country is in shambles. And that BOTH political parties are responsible for the mess that our country finds itself in.

The way things stand right now...we should be embarrassed to call ourselves Democrats OR Republicans...IMO.

[Mike at A+]

That last paragraph of your letter-to-the-editor was the instigator of this "pathetic" hijacking, Mike...and you should have expected as much. Obama and the Democrats have latched on to the buzz phrase "income inequality"...and the Republicans of this board have latched on to the buzz phrase "Bush card". Bush is no longer president, so, apparently, no mention of Bush can be made when addressing criticism levied against Obama and his administration. It is somehow considered improper to compare the two presidents...and any such comparisons are considered by the right to be "pathetic hijackings".

You said that Obama's golf playing and his vacation to Hawaii was like rubbing salt in the wounds of those very talented people that you know of who have not been able to find work in the last 3 years. Do you suppose that our military felt the same way when ex-president Bush took more vacation time than Obama ever could...while engaging the military in conflicts on multiple fronts?

The truth is that ALL presidents take plenty of vacation time...even when the country is in shambles. And that BOTH political parties are responsible for the mess that our country finds itself in.

The way things stand right now...we should be embarrassed to call ourselves Democrats OR Republicans...IMO.
You are 100% correct that I should have omitted that last sentence even though the OPTICS of very exclusive, lengthy and often vacations do indeed rub salt in the wounds of the chronically unemployed. Perhaps a more low key vacation would be appropriate, similar to Bush spending time at his ranch costing the taxpayers much less. But the part or the letter I see as the major issue is the first sentence because income equality will NEVER happen simply because no two individuals are equal in all the qualities that define the wages we earn and this discussion is designed to make people forget about issues like Benghazi, the IRS scandal, NSA, Fast & Furious and all the other ongoing scandals that the mainstream media ignores taking their marching orders from their hero. A New Jersey traffic jam has already gotten something like 17 times the publicity than the IRS targeting of conservative groups. It sickens me how the media promotes nonsense and buries serious issues. Maybe they are afraid of being called racists?

[FantasticDan]

Perhaps a more low key vacation would be appropriate, similar to Bush spending time at his ranch costing the taxpayers much less.Please.. :rolleyes:

http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12/23/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush.html

[Mike at A+]

Please.. :rolleyes:

http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12/23/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush.html
Published by Guest Contributor under Uncategorized ???

Also I think Americans would care a lot less about 0bama's vacations if he was actually doing something to encourage job creation instead of dredging up this "income inequality" bullcrap designed to take the focus off more important issues.

[Clocker]

Please.. :rolleyes:

http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12/23/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush.html

What difference, at this point, does it make? -- Hillary Clinton

Bush wasn't a very good president. Obama is worse. Bush didn't make him worse. Obama is a self-made man.

This particular issue is one of image and perception. Bush was low key and low profile. Obama and family are ostentatious. And Obama is a lot more egotistical and hypocritical than Bush. Like calling out Congress for going into Christmas recess while a lot of work remained to be done in Washington, while he was on vacation in Hawaii.

Reality doesn't matter much in the world of politics, it's all about perception. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and Obama is a lot squeakier than Bush. The only thing worse than a bad president is a bad, annoying president.

[NJ Stinks]

Also I think Americans would care a lot less about 0bama's vacations if he was actually doing something to encourage job creation instead of dredging up this "income inequality" bullcrap designed to take the focus off more important issues.


I could care less period about Obama's vacations. Anybody mumbling about Obama taking his family to Hawaii for Xmas is spouting " bullcrap designed to take the focus off more important issues."

[FantasticDan]

This particular issue is one of image and perception. Bush was low key and low profile. Obama and family are ostentatious.Going back to his native Hawaii for two weeks for Xmas and New Year's is "ostentatious"? Does this vacation sound ostentatious?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/us/politics/for-a-pressured-president-a-real-and-rare-vacation-in-hawaii.html?_r=0

And you honestly think your average American cares or is upset that he does that? Get real.

Bitching about presidential vacations smacks of a "low end" critic.. :p

[burnsy]

Lets get the "non-political" economic truth of this. Its not income inequality...its stagnation of wages and forcing people into jobs they are over qualified for. What does this do to our economy? First off, the lower wages hurt the economy. The middle class is the "fuel" for our growth. Why has the economy been struggling for years? Because the wages have not kept up and the lower class is growing. People can't buy with credit when their income sucks ass..that simple. Having low paying, crummy jobs lowers our productivity. This is the number one factor of raising everyone's standard of living (macro)......say it out loud children.....prod-duct-ivity. When you have educated people working at shit jobs, for shit pay it lowers the productivity of the entire work force. It also makes the income gap grow larger and larger. Instead of creating new jobs...put people on unemployment...when that runs out they are forced to work 2 or 3 shit jobs...that's just brilliant...it becomes an endless cycle as we are witnessing ourselves. Finally, this is not a "left" or "right" deal......its not Bushes fault or Obamas fault. Our policies have shit away the edge we had since WW2.over the last 30 years..its over. We are scratching and clawing against all takers in this global economy. It has nothing to do with "effort" or being lazy. The government has no choice but to have programs and food stamps...they don't want bread lines, soup kitchens and riots. When poor people start looting rich people its very ugly and everyone will be bitching including the rich. Half the people that get that crap HAVE jobs..probably the only ones they could get. So the government actually gives subsidies to Wal mart, Mcdonalds and the rest by allowing these shit wages and then turning around and paying for these peoples benefits. Politically, it matters because at this rate eventually our economy will look like every shit hole, 3rd world country that ever existed. People starving, living in the streets and rich people living in "guarded castles". The government WILL NOT have it! My grandfathers generation got jobs that offered pensions, benefits and wages that could afford credit. Now its..."you're lucky to have a job sucker. Go down to social services to get your food stamps and Medicaid." Gee, why would people "game" a deal like that? Work like a slave for shit...or.....stay home and get shit for nothing......:bang:

[Tom]

Please.. :rolleyes:

http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12/23/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush.html

Why the :rolleyes:?

Obama spent his first term talking about shared sacrifice.
As an alleged leader, what better way to lead than by example?
Yes, the cost are trivial compared the trillions he has wasted in other areas, but allowing his wife to us AF1 4 hours after the family used, to go to the same place, well, it makes his rally cry a bit hollow.

And, Bush stopped playing golf, remember, out of respect for our troops in harms way?
More of our troops have died or been wounded in Afghanistan since Obama took office that under Bush.

Not earth shaking stuff, but, I think, it demonstrates the complete lack of integrity Obama possesses. A truly phony person.

[Tom]

Gee, why would people "game" a deal like that? Work like a slave for shit...or.....stay home and get shit for nothing......:bang:

If you are one of the ones still working like a slave to take of your own family, you can see why we would be pissed at the anchors. No one gets shit for nothing. Someone always pays for it. Those of us working.

[rastajenk]

Please.. :rolleyes:

http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/12/23/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush.html
That was the most useless link the entire history of linkage! Fantastic, Dan! :ThmbUp:

[hcap]

The real problem is in the inequality of effort
BINGO - you just identified 0bama's low end supporters, the entitlement mentality gang.

Not so fast bingo players.

https://motherjones.com/files/images/corp_taxes.png

And although productivity has gone up some, why is it the top tier are the ones to have benefited?

https://motherjones.com/files/images/change-since-1979-600.gif

No, people have not become lazier as conservatives claim. Conservatives have effectively shaped legislation and shifted the wealth from the middle and poor towards them.

https://motherjones.com/files/images/400-top-taxpayers.png

All of the socialist/commie propaganda is of course from :lol: :lol:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
.................................................. ........

Forgot 1

http://www.cbpp.org/images/chartbook_images/toptentaxfed/4b.jpg

From

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3478

[Clocker]

Going back to his native Hawaii for two weeks for Xmas and New Year's is "ostentatious"? Does this vacation sound ostentatious?

Bitching about presidential vacations smacks of a "low end" critic.. :p

Michelle and her entourage going places a day or two early on a separate plane smacks of ostentation. Michelle's shopping safaris abroad with troops of body guards smack of ostentation.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/08/06/article-1300852-0AB10F6E000005DC-818_634x724.jpg

The public lives of the rich and famous are fair game for ridicule. I don't believe that there is any relationship between Obama's vacations and his ineptitude as president. I make fun of the former for fun. I criticize the latter for the harm he is doing to the country.

[Tom]

hcap.....1992 - 2007 on your chart.
More years under Clinton than Bush......why did dems allow that to happen?
Kind of parallels the rise of Al Qeda those same years......more dem failures?
BTW, how much did it warm up world-wide under Clinton?:D

[Clocker]

And although productivity has gone up some, why is it the top tier are the ones to have benefited?


Conservatives have effectively shaped legislation and shifted the wealth from the middle and poor towards them.

That would be the conservatives that control the White House and the Senate? The conservatives that controlled the House until 2010 when the peasants arose and threw out the old guard?

That would be the conservatives that passed ObamaCare, enriching the fat cat insurance companies at the expense of the middle class? The ObamaCare that incentivizes employers to cut workers back to part time and to keep head counts low?

That would be the conservatives at the EPA who are hell bent on destroying the coal industry, and subsidizing fat cat investors in green industries? (So out of work miners can find jobs making solar panels?)

[mostpost]

I am getting so tired of hearing 0bama and the Democrats whining about "income inequality". Incomes simply cannot be equal. People are like snowflakes, everyone different. We have different educational achievements, different degrees of experience, different work ethic and ultimately different worth to the companies that hire us for employment.

So I wrote a "Letter to the Editor" of my local liberal rag (The Allentown Morning Call) and was very surprised when they actually printed it. And last night, I got a phone call from a total stranger who probably found my number in the phone book and he congratulated me on writing such a good letter and encouraged me to keep speaking out against the gibberish spewed by the left.

I then went to the comments section of the newspaper's website and saw that most of the comments supported my letter and the one self identified Democrat pathetically attempted to hijack the thread by playing the "Bush card".

Here's a link to my letter: http://www.mcall.com/opinion/letters/mc-income-inequality-deangelo-20140113,0,4723354.story
Income equality does not mean everyone should make the same amount of money. Different jobs have different value. The problem nowadays is that the decision on what a job is worth is being made by a few people and imposed on the majority without that majority having any say in the matter. Back in the prosperous 50's and 60's the average CEO was making 30 to 40 times what his average employee was making. Today he is making 380 or more times what that employee is making. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that those CEO's are now making ten times the contribution they did back then.

ETA: I almost forgot; Bush is an idiot.

[hcap]

hcap.....1992 - 2007 on your chart.
More years under Clinton than Bush......why did dems allow that to happen?
Kind of parallels the rise of Al Qeda those same years......more dem failures?
BTW, how much did it warm up world-wide under Clinton?:DNot much has changed. Look at gains in the stock market.

Article from December 5, 2013

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/

U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928

..In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution: By 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades.

But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall. The top 1% took heavy hits from the dot-com crash and the Great Recession but recovered fairly quickly: Saez’s preliminary estimates for 2012 (which will be updated next month) have that group receiving nearly 22.5% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90%’s share is below 50% for the first time ever (49.6%, to be precise).

[JustRalph]

Lets get the "non-political" economic truth of this. Its not income inequality...its stagnation of wages and forcing people into jobs they are over qualified for. What does this do to our economy? First off, the lower wages hurt the economy. The middle class is the "fuel" for our growth.

Why has the economy been struggling for years? Because the wages have not kept up and the lower class is growing. People can't buy with credit when their income sucks ass..that simple. Having low paying, crummy jobs lowers our productivity. This is the number one factor of raising everyone's standard of living (macro)......say it out loud children.....prod-duct-ivity. When you have educated people working at shit jobs, for shit pay it lowers the productivity of the entire work force.

It also makes the income gap grow larger and larger. Instead of creating new jobs...put people on unemployment...when that runs out they are forced to work 2 or 3 shit jobs...that's just brilliant...it becomes an endless cycle as we are witnessing ourselves. Finally, this is not a "left" or "right" deal......its not Bushes fault or Obamas fault. Our policies have shit away the edge we had since WW2.over the last 30 years..its over. We are scratching and clawing against all takers in this global economy. It has nothing to do with "effort" or being lazy. The government has no choice but to have programs and food stamps...they don't want bread lines, soup kitchens and riots.

When poor people start looting rich people its very ugly and everyone will be bitching including the rich. Half the people that get that crap HAVE jobs..probably the only ones they could get. So the government actually gives subsidies to Wal mart, Mcdonalds and the rest by allowing these shit wages and then turning around and paying for these peoples benefits. Politically, it matters because at this rate eventually our economy will look like every shit hole, 3rd world country that ever existed. People starving, living in the streets and rich people living in "guarded castles". The government WILL NOT have it!

My grandfathers generation got jobs that offered pensions, benefits and wages that could afford credit. Now its..."you're lucky to have a job sucker. Go down to social services to get your food stamps and Medicaid." Gee, why would people "game" a deal like that? Work like a slave for shit...or.....stay home and get shit for nothing......:bang:

Burnsy, you gotta toss a carriage return in there sometimes. Come on man!

[Clocker]

ETA: I almost forgot; Bush is an idiot.

That explains everything. Obama inherited Bush's bad economy and his idiocy.

[hcap]

hcap.....1992 - 2007 on your chart.http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/cassidy_01.jpg

[Mike at A+]

Income equality does not mean everyone should make the same amount of money. Different jobs have different value. The problem nowadays is that the decision on what a job is worth is being made by a few people and imposed on the majority without that majority having any say in the matter. Back in the prosperous 50's and 60's the average CEO was making 30 to 40 times what his average employee was making. Today he is making 380 or more times what that employee is making. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that those CEO's are now making ten times the contribution they did back then.

ETA: I almost forgot; Bush is an idiot.
What CEOs make is really not your business or mine. They are paid what they are worth on the market just like any other job.

ETA: 0bama is evil AND an idiot AND a racist.

[JustRalph]

Just in case ......

Corporations don't pay taxes

Their customers pay it for them

:bang:

[Tom]

The problem nowadays is that the decision on what a job is worth is being made by a few people and imposed on the majority without that majority having any say in the matter

The only ones who should have a say are those who are paying the wages.
It comes down to what the jobs are worth to them.

Oh, and by the way, Obama is a Kenyan.

[hcap]

That would be the conservatives that control the White House and the Senate? The conservatives that controlled the House until 2010 when the peasants arose and threw out the old guard?Income inequality goes back to around Reagans' tenure. Look at my recent chart.

It is not just the rethugs. But crap about Obama voters being lazier or greedier or more Randian takers is not a realistic explanation. But I know, serial Obama haters can't help themselves. Hey I know blame ObamaPhones or wait, wasn't there a thread about greedy penis pump users recently?


That's it. Blame major global issues on lazy talkers and pumpers. Where's John Galt when you need him?

[Clocker]

Just in case ......

Corporations don't pay taxes

Their customers pay it for them



That Econ 101 stuff might be a little too advanced for some in this class. :eek:

[Saratoga_Mike]

I could care less period about Obama's vacations. Anybody mumbling about Obama taking his family to Hawaii for Xmas is spouting " bullcrap designed to take the focus off more important issues."

....could NOT care less, you mean - pet peeve of mine

[Robert Goren]

Remember the biggest job killer since Herbert Hoover was GWB. What he did to economy is not quickly cured. It may take 20 years to recover from him and his banker friends. I know the Obama haters don't like hearing that, but the truth is truth. A return to his policies like many here want will only result in the same outcome, a deep recession with stock market value being cut almost in half. The fancy theories of that the conservatives spout here have failed miserably every time they have been tried.

[mostpost]

By DEFINITION, "theft" is illegal. People will adjust to whatever impositions governments enact. Unfortunately in this STUPID COUNTRY, the idiots demonize a corporate CEO providing THOUSANDS OF JOBS because of how much he makes while IDOLIZING the elites in Hollywood, in the recording industry and in sports who provide NO SIGNIFICANT JOB CREATION outside of their bodyguards, many of whom have criminal records and are little more than the common thug.
Plantation owners in the ante bellum South provided thousands of jobs. It's not the jobs you create; it's the quality of those jobs. In any case, CEO's do not create jobs. Jobs are created because workers produce products which people buy. You can have a thousand factories, but without workers to make the product all you have is a fancy building. Without workers to build the building you don't even have that.

Your statement about Hollywood elites is ridiculous even for you. A single movie employs thousands of people in well paying jobs. A movie actor, a recording star or a sports star gets paid what they get paid because they have leverage to negotiate a good salary. The average worker has no such leverage.

It is also dumb to compare those people to CEO's. Actors. recording artists, and sports stars are workers. They are wealthy workers but workers none the less.

[FantasticDan]

What CEOs make is really not your business or mine. They are paid what they are worth on the market just like any other job.

ETA: 0bama is evil AND an idiot AND a racist.Stop burying the lead. The latter is really the only message you care about. It's the one that burns in your belly and you have to belch it up every couple weeks. We get it.

[Robert Goren]

Plantation owners in the ante bellum South provided thousands of jobs. It's not the jobs you create; it's the quality of those jobs. In any case, CEO's do not create jobs. Jobs are created because workers produce products which people buy. You can have a thousand factories, but without workers to make the product all you have is a fancy building. Without workers to build the building you don't even have that.

Your statement about Hollywood elites is ridiculous even for you. A single movie employs thousands of people in well paying jobs. A movie actor, a recording star or a sports star gets paid what they get paid because they have leverage to negotiate a good salary. The average worker has no such leverage.

It is also dumb to compare those people to CEO's. Actors. recording artists, and sports stars are workers. They are wealthy workers but workers none the less.Most companies reach a point where the CEO can only hope not screw up a good thing and they get paid a lot of money not screw it up.. Given enough time most companies find the CEO that does screw it up and he, like a fired college football coach, will get paid a lot money to go away. A lot of low level workers will lose their jobs because that CEO, but unlike him, they will not get paid a lot of money to go away.

[Mike at A+]

Plantation owners in the ante bellum South provided thousands of jobs. It's not the jobs you create; it's the quality of those jobs. In any case, CEO's do not create jobs. Jobs are created because workers produce products which people buy. You can have a thousand factories, but without workers to make the product all you have is a fancy building. Without workers to build the building you don't even have that.

Your statement about Hollywood elites is ridiculous even for you. A single movie employs thousands of people in well paying jobs. A movie actor, a recording star or a sports star gets paid what they get paid because they have leverage to negotiate a good salary. The average worker has no such leverage.

It is also dumb to compare those people to CEO's. Actors. recording artists, and sports stars are workers. They are wealthy workers but workers none the less.
Oh so it's LEVERAGE that commands a high salary? I guess CEOs must have leverage too. And as for those "thousands of people" who benefit in those well paying jobs that Hollywood elites create, they are TEMPORARY jobs and they go to a select bunch of people. If 0bama was really serious about the fat cats paying their fair share, he would stop the trash talking directed toward "hedge fund managers" and "corporate jet owners" (his two favorite targets) and direct some of his venom toward ALL the high wage earners INCLUDING the NBA, the NFL, MLB and Hollywood. Surely all his supporters in those occupations will step up and kick in some big bucks to pay their fair share.

[Clocker]

Income inequality goes back to around Reagans' tenure. Look at my recent chart.

It is not just the rethugs. But crap about Obama voters being lazier or greedier or more Randian takers is not a realistic explanation. But I know, serial Obama haters can't help themselves. Hey I know blame ObamaPhones or wait, wasn't there a thread about greedy penis pump users recently?




A few people talk about "takers" and you paint any critics with the same broad brush. I agree that blaming "takers" is simplistic, and is confusing cause and effect. It is as simplistic as blaming fat cats and tax loopholes. And both are as simplistic as Ayn Rand's "philosophy".

Your graph is a short term snapshot. Income inequality goes back a lot further than Reagan. But notice in your graph that the decline in inequality, which was the result of economic growth after the war, ended around the time of the LBJ administration. Which marked the start of a long term (bipartisan) growth of government and regulation. Which was accompanied by a long term growth in income inequality. Which is not a coincidence.

Where's John Galt when you need him?

John Galt has left the building.

[Mike at A+]

Stop burying the lead. The latter is really the only message you care about. It's the one that burns in your belly and you have to belch it up every couple weeks. We get it.
His own words are on videotape:
Typical white woman
Punish your enemies
The police acted stupidly
If I had a son

VERY UNPRESIDENTIAL - BELCH ON THAT

[NJ Stinks]

....could NOT care less, you mean - pet peeve of mine


Fair enough, Professor. :cool:

[TJDave]

Just in case ......

Corporations don't pay taxes

Their customers pay it for them

:bang:

Almost. Only people pay taxes. Corporations are not people.

[Clocker]

Jobs are created because workers produce products which people buy. You can have a thousand factories, but without workers to make the product all you have is a fancy building. Without workers to build the building you don't even have that.

Jobs are created because entrepreneurs come up with new ideas and risk capital to put those ideas into practice. Wealth is created by entrepreneurs successfully employing labor and capital to produce and sell a product. Labor and capital are necessary inputs into a process. They are not the process.

[mostpost]

....could NOT care less, you mean - pet peeve of mine
I could care less about your pet peeves. OOPS!

[mostpost]

Just in case ......

Corporations don't pay taxes

Their customers pay it for them

:bang:
Paying taxes is a part of a corporations cost of doing business the same as the cost of labor and the cost of raw materials. Should General Motors not have to pay for glass or steel because they take that cost into account when pricing a car?

Corporations pay taxes just as they pay wages and pay for raw materials or finished products that they resell. A portion of those costs is passed onto the consumer but a portion is borne by the company out of its profit margin.

[PaceAdvantage]

It may take 20 years to recover from him and his banker friends.Wait...banker friends? I thought all his friends were BIG OIL friends...which is it? It can't be both.

Back when OIL was high (and hey, it's STILL high years after Bush is out) all we heard about were Bush and his BIG OIL friends.

Now you're rewriting history and making his friends BANKER friends.

Ask some people on this board (like sammy the sage) if Obama has banker friends...he'd laugh at you if you suggested otherwise...

[hcap]

A few people talk about "takers" and you paint any critics with the same broad brush. I agree that blaming "takers" is simplistic, and is confusing cause and effect. It is as simplistic as blaming fat cats and tax loopholes. And both are as simplistic as Ayn Rand's "philosophy".

Your graph is a short term snapshot. Income inequality goes back a lot further than Reagan. But notice in your graph that the decline in inequality, which was the result of economic growth after the war, ended around the time of the LBJ administration. Which marked the start of a long term (bipartisan) growth of government and regulation. Which was accompanied by a long term growth in income inequality. Which is not a coincidence.

John Galt has left the building.I am well aware income inequality goes back pre Reagan. My comment was mostly directed at these 2 "bingo enthusiasts"

The real problem is in the inequality of effort
BINGO - you just identified 0bama's low end supporters, the entitlement mentality gang.

I should have said Peaked with Hoover, began dropping with FDR & WWII, and leveled off with LBJ. Then began the rise of a more organized conservative movement in the 1980s. Reagan solidified conservative and republican strength. Dems weakened and traditional liberal dems scattered for cover until making a more right leaning appearance with Clinton. More centrist. Who went along with things like welfare reform and globalization. Of course GWB brought on the recession which further widened income inequality. The whole notion of cutting taxes as a means to ensure recovery, no matter all the other economic issues, a rethug idea, further widened the gap.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/cassidy_01.jpg

[Clocker]

Corporations pay taxes just as they pay wages and pay for raw materials or finished products that they resell. A portion of those costs is passed onto the consumer but a portion is borne by the company out of its profit margin.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

I don't know what "profit" means in Wonderland, but in English, it means revenues minus costs. Unless all costs, including taxes, are passed on to consumers, then there is no profit. And if there is no profit, the company does not stay in business very long. Unless it is a crony capitalist company and can get a subsidy from the feds.

[mostpost]

The only ones who should have a say are those who are paying the wages.
It comes down to what the jobs are worth to them.

So you think that people should only pay what a thing is worth to them. I think the next car I buy will only be worth $10,000 dollars to me. I don't care what it cost to manufacture it or what amenities it has, $10,000 dollars is the amount I have decided it is worth and I am telling the dealer that Tom said people should only pay what they think something is worth.

Wait a minute! The dealer is looking at me like I'm crazy. He's asking me if the labor that went into making the car doesn't have any value; if the investment in the plant should not be taken into consideration. For some reason this dealer-its probably our old friend Wisconsin-thinks that we should make a deal based on our mutual best interests. He doesn't think that I should dictate a price and I don't think that he should dictate a price. We will agree on a price based on a negotiation in which we are (reasonably) equal negotiators.

The same thing applies to wages.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Paying taxes is a part of a corporations cost of doing business the same as the cost of labor and the cost of raw materials.

Are you arguing for a lower US corporate tax rate?

[fast4522]

Robert Goren,

Posts 58 & 61 shows just how much that you know in totality. If CEO's, and VP's of company's got to where they are from a lack of intelligence you would be running a fortune 500 company today. Your net worth and station in life has more to do with what is between your ears as it should be. So you think President Bush has friends who are bankers that raped the economy and the housing market. That is your position, hey everyone has to blame someone.
But you should look no further than your beloved party.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/101037931

[JustRalph]

So you think that people should only pay what a thing is worth to them. I think the next car I buy will only be worth $10,000 dollars to me. I don't care what it cost to manufacture it or what amenities it has, $10,000 dollars is the amount I have decided it is worth and I am telling the dealer that Tom said people should only pay what they think something is worth.

Wait a minute! The dealer is looking at me like I'm crazy. He's asking me if the labor that went into making the car doesn't have any value; if the investment in the plant should not be taken into consideration. For some reason this dealer-its probably our old friend Wisconsin-thinks that we should make a deal based on our mutual best interests. He doesn't think that I should dictate a price and I don't think that he should dictate a price. We will agree on a price based on a negotiation in which we are (reasonably) equal negotiators.

The same thing applies to wages.

Holy crap!! You're a bigger wing nut than I thought..............(my apologies to Peter Boyle)

[Mike at A+]

Holy crap!! You're a bigger wing nut than I thought..............(my apologies to Peter Boyle)
I think what mostie is missing is the fact that both he and the dealer have the ability to say "go pound sand". No deal.

[RunForTheRoses]

While I do believe that Obama and his comrades are doin a lot of phony posturing on Income Equality:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-williams/income-inequality/

I do think there is some concern from a Conservative perspective regarding a too stratified society. The Bell Curve, which was vilified regarding race, to me was a book more warning of inevitable inequality, mainly regarding IQ and education and you can see that-entrance to the Ivy League and other elite universities pretty much corresponds to a different life, a better life.
Charles Murray fleshed this out in a more recent book Coming Apart
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/030745343X
He contrasted life in the Fishtown section of Philadelphia, a place of not so great employment and family life and health with more affluent areas in the region. Two summers ago I was passing through Long Beach Island, a Jersey Shore resort place for wealthy and I noticed how many people were staying active and going running, from college age to 70s.
Finally, it is definitely manipulations of the FED that are causing much of this:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/01/san-franciscos-new-gold-rush.html

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/01/why-fed-is-making-luxury-stores-boom.html
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xBfdRRU-scA/UtQRh5q22MI/AAAAAAAAOmM/5FLJJ9-xwoo/s1600/Money-Printing.png

[Mike at A+]

What do you call a basement full of liberals???


A whine cellar.

[sammy the sage]

nm...thanks Ras.

[rastajenk]

Conservatives have effectively shaped legislation and shifted the wealth from the middle and poor towards them.This seems to be saying that conservatives are all wealthy, or all conservatives are wealthy, or something like that. I'm a conservative who votes in legistlative shapers, but I ain't no one of "them."

[rastajenk]

Jeez, Sammy, he said exactly what you said. Check your ire at the door and re-read it. :p

[sammy the sage]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66056&highlight=obama

[fast4522]

Total BULLSHIT...I've posted repeatedly in THE past about Obama being THE banker's BEST friend...PERIOD...

Now the question is...

A)..will THIS response get deleted...as is normal modis operandi...
B)..will I get an apology...for putting words in my mouth...haven't in over a decade...even WHEN right
C)..get banned

I figure Mike lets 99.9 % fly, I have posted many times of Obama being the Bilderburgs bobble head repeatedly without any deletion. Granted there may have been a few Friday's I might have been bending the elbow with JD while at the keyboard and went further that I could see glasses or not that deserved to get the zapped. But all in all Sammy, vent to your hearts content.

[fast4522]

Bankers, used too loosely. Identify the exact elk by group name identification. To lump all into a general group is a mistake, put names to them.

[hcap]

What do you call a basement full of liberals???


A whine cellar.Serious question Mike,I have asked this before, how come all conservative comedians are NOT funny. No Seinfelds, no Jon Stewarts,. Please don't say the guy who used to be amusing when on SNL and a liberal.

For that matter no good Rock musicians. Conservative rockers are, very confused. Rock is/was anti-establishment. Same with Jazz and Blues. The same people whom these "rockers" associate with would've thrown them in jail and thrown away the key. Nugent, Toms buddy ain't one of the greats. Of course there is always Elvis :lol:

[Clocker]

Serious question Mike,I have asked this before, how come all conservative comedians are NOT funny. No Seinfelds, no Jon Stewarts,. Please don't say the guy who used to be amusing when on SNL and a liberal.



I think that you are asking a chicken/egg question. You are assuming that liberals become performing artists like comedians and singers. I suspect that the reverse is true. Apolitical performing artists become liberals, or take up liberal causes, because of peer pressure. Many conservatives in the entertainment business talk about the pressure in the industry to go along with the liberal super-majority. Even if it isn't overt pressure, young people coming into the industry without strong political views find that everyone they know is liberal, and tend to go along without questioning it.

[PaceAdvantage]

nm...thanks Ras.So you go and delete your own response...classic... :lol:

And I would never dream of banning you...you're top-notch entertainment

[hcap]

I think that you are asking a chicken/egg question. You are assuming that liberals become performing artists like comedians and singers. I suspect that the reverse is true. Apolitical performing artists become liberals, or take up liberal causes, because of peer pressure. Many conservatives in the entertainment business talk about the pressure in the industry to go along with the liberal super-majority. Even if it isn't overt pressure, young people coming into the industry without strong political views find that everyone they know is liberal, and tend to go along without questioning it.I was around when the Beatles, Stones, Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan, Crosby Stills, Nash, etc, first appeared. I remember Carlin, SNL, and Seinfeld fresh. A conservative among those would have been a major contradiction in terms. There weren't any

Now, I stopped paying attention to pop culture somewhere around 1975, a few years after my son was born and I had by then began to take things seriously, including my job. So I can't say I followed the twists and turns of what was moving in and out of pop culture from then on. I did still watch TV and had some notion of who was good and who was not. I remember hip hop first (painfully Ugh!) showing up and realizing (at that point listening to more Jazz and classical) how much I hated it. Kinda tough to run a shop in Manhattan and be fair about what was listened to radio wise, to the other guys I was supervising. :lol:

I can say with confidence up until around 1975-76, your theory would have been at least unrealistic, if not downright laughable. So any conservative here who has closely followed entertainment trends in those years (or before) please if you can, dig something up that contradicts my basic statement.

That you guys are, and have been seriously out of the loop, and there are NO funny conservatives and NO great conservative rock, jazz or blues artists. Point them out if you can. I do not buy that they hid in plain sight because of of a pervasive anti-conservative bias.

[RunForTheRoses]

I was around when the Beatles, Stones, Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan, Crosby Stills, Nash, etc, first appeared. I remember Carlin, SNL, and Seinfeld fresh. A conservative among those would have been a major contradiction in terms. There weren't any

Now, I stopped paying attention to pop culture somewhere around 1975, a few years after my son was born and I had by then began to take things seriously, including my job. So I can't say I followed the twists and turns of what was moving in and out of pop culture from then on. I did still watch TV and had some notion of who was good and who was not. I remember hip hop first (painfully Ugh!) showing up and realizing (at that point listening to more Jazz and classical) how much I hated it. Kinda tough to run a shop in Manhattan and be fair about what was listened to radio wise, to the other guys I was supervising. :lol:

I can say with confidence up until around 1975-76, your theory would have been at least unrealistic, if not downright laughable. So any conservative here who has closely followed entertainment trends in those years (or before) please if you can, dig something up that contradicts my basic statement.

That you guys are, and have been seriously out of the loop, and there are NO funny conservatives and NO great conservative rock, jazz or blues artists. Point them out if you can. I do not buy that they hid in plain sight because of of a pervasive anti-conservative bias.

http://www.nycrepublican.org/lhrc/index.htm

http://guitar.about.com/od/guitaristsatod/p/jeff_skunk_baxter_profile.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Ramone

[hcap]

http://www.nycrepublican.org/lhrc/index.htm

http://guitar.about.com/od/guitaristsatod/p/jeff_skunk_baxter_profile.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Ramone

Hampton yes, I did not know.
1st tier other 2 ?
Ok, I guess, but still outnumbered 20:1

Comedians?

[Tom]

Serious question Mike,I have asked this before, how come all conservative comedians are NOT funny.

Conservatives do not have the time to practice routines or music.
They all have jobs and are not home all day.;)

[hcap]

Conservatives do not have the time to practice routines or music.
They all have jobs and are not home all day.;)Like Ted (the nut) Nugent?

[Mike at A+]

I think part of the reason why there are seemingly more liberal entertainers is that conservatives tend to keep their politics and their entertainment separate from each other. Also conservatives tend to be much more polite and would laugh along with a joke they disagree with while liberals would try to ban an act they disagree with and call for protests and boycotts. Liberals are also known to disrupt when they don't agree with someone. You are probably aware of many instances when conservative speakers at colleges were prevented from speaking because of a few hooligans in the audience who planned disruptions.

[hcap]

At least RFTR mentioned Lionel Hampton. I will go with that as one great jazz figure so far.

But I don't buy the Hollywood bias theory against repugs, or that cons are just too damn gentlemanly and polite to be great musicians or very funny.

Actually if unfunny Dennis Miller used some of the replies here, he would get some chuckles for a change :cool:

[Tom]

I have to admit, some lefties with full time jobs are the very best comedians.

You know, their NEWS ANCHORS!:lol:

[Clocker]

Video at Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/11/david_mamet_hollywood_conservatives_legitimately_f rightened_for_their_jobs.html):

Screenwriter and playwright David Mamet tells FOX News' Megyn Kelly why there seems to be so few conservatives in Hollywood. Mamet said that people in Hollywood who fake being liberal do so because they’re "legitimately frightened for their jobs."

Mamet explained why he believes there are few open conservatives in Hollywood. "Conservatives believe in smaller government and in the power of the electorate. So I think that we’re less likely to try to use a dramatic forum to warp people’s political views."

Also read "Why I Am No Longer a Brain-dead Liberal" from the Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/full/).

[RunForTheRoses]

Hampton yes, I did not know.
1st tier other 2 ?
Ok, I guess, but still outnumbered 20:1

Comedians?

Jackie Mason and uh...
there are many comics out there now who react against political correctness, I wouldn't exactly call them liberal or conservative, liberalism has become so entrenched that to rebel now you have to go against it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_DiPaolo
Lisa Lampinelli, Artie Lange...
and how can you classify the great Arabic insult comedian Goaffeq Youseef?

[Clocker]

Comedians?


Drew Carey
Adam Sandler
Larry the Cable Guy
Jeff Foxworthy
Jim Nabors

Just a quick search to make a point. What's all this prove?

[Robert Goren]

Hollywood is the ultimate free enterprise place. If their movie makes money, they will get paid a bunch for your next one. Two or three money losing bombs in a row and they end up in independent films that play in art houses.

[hcap]

Drew Carey
Adam Sandler
Larry the Cable Guy
Jeff Foxworthy
Jim Nabors

Just a quick search to make a point. What's all this prove?That your guys are obviously no match for their lio counterparts, but yes, I will admit there are some.

[Clocker]

That your guys are obviously no match for their lio counterparts

They are not "my guys". I just found some names in a 30 second goggle search to show that sweeping generalities are pointless. Most of what passes for comedy these days, especially in Hollywood, is at the level of 4th grader fart jokes.

[Tom]

If you said:

That your guys are obviously no match for their lio counterparts, but yes, I will admit there are some.

You might be a redneck!
Here's your sign.
I don't care who you are, that's funny!

[Mike at A+]

Income equality does not mean everyone should make the same amount of money. Different jobs have different value. The problem nowadays is that the decision on what a job is worth is being made by a few people and imposed on the majority without that majority having any say in the matter. Back in the prosperous 50's and 60's the average CEO was making 30 to 40 times what his average employee was making. Today he is making 380 or more times what that employee is making.
Well mostie, I know it doesn't mean that "everyone should make the same amount of money". It means the gap is growing. I know that, you know that and we all know that. Now consider this. What can a gap do? It can grow, it can shrink or it can stay the same. It's highly unlikely that it will stay exactly the same over time. So let's consider the other two possibilities. What is more likely? Will very smart people who have been capable of earning the big bucks become more like the people making the smaller salaries? Or will they find even better ways through innovation to maximize their earnings? If you're making a million bucks a year it isn't unfathomable to think that maybe you'll make two million next year. Someone making 20 grand would be quite happy to make 30 grand the next year. So the gap between these two wage earners grows by $990,000. Which outcome do you think is more likely given the marketability of the skills of these two wage earners? You should be much more concerned about a government that steals from the guy making $100K to redistribute to the guy making $20K. And that is EXACTLY what 0bama wants to do. This whole fantasy about no one earning below $250K would see their taxes increase by "one single dime" was a filthy lie spewed by 0bama. And so many idiots swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

[TJDave]

Income inequality is a misnomer. It should be wealth. The 1/2 of 1%'s control an obscene amount.

[Mike at A+]

Income inequality is a misnomer. It should be wealth. The 1/2 of 1%'s control an obscene amount.
Don't lose any sleep over it. There's plenty for all who are willing to go for it.

[TJDave]

Don't lose any sleep over it. There's plenty for all who are willing to go for it.

I'm not worried about a thing. I've got mine. You started this thread.

[thaskalos]

Don't lose any sleep over it. There's plenty for all who are willing to go for it.
So...the ones who are currently struggling are where they are because they are not "willing to go for it"?

That's a short-sighted view, IMO.

[Mike at A+]

So...the ones who are currently struggling are where they are because they are not "willing to go for it"?

That's a short-sighted view, IMO.
That applies when the government doesn't get in the way as it has been for 5 years now. The lies about tax increases have hurt the middle class most and the fact that companies are sitting on big cash afraid to invest also prevents people from moving up. I think anyone with an IQ above 99 knows that this would not be happening had Romney been elected. As a very smart businessman, he would not allow this to happen on his watch. We opted instead for a "community organizer" who isn't interested in prosperity for the middle class and instead instigates the low information crowd into believing that the rich are responsible for their failures. Again, this is simple stuff. Common Sense 101. It's a great political strategy to mobilize large groups of low income low intelligence people and get them to vote against those who played by the rules to achieve the American Dream. People can either openly acknowledge it or pretend that they don't agree for the sake of deep rooted partisan reasons. When people stop identifying themselves by political party and start supporting solid ideas, only then will society benefit as a whole. We have 3 more years of the haves and have nots with a shrinking middle. It's sad but it's the truth.

[fast4522]

Entertainer left or right as long as the power of the remote is there all is cool.
As far as people, get over yourself's because the poor man never hired a bunch of people. I have seen examples good and bad many times, someone dusts themselves off and works the job they don't like. Or completely does a 180 and does something extraordinary that has not been done. Most everyone are capable extraordinary or the job that they do and might not like. It is one or the other in this life, the guy doing the right thing by his family owes absolutely nothing to the indecisive anchors who deserve a tall roof to jump from.

[Ocala Mike]

Put 100 people on an island with their food, shelter, clothing, and medical needs taken care of, and give them each $1,000 for "extras.".

After a finite amount of time, one of them will have $100,000, the rest will have nothing and will organize protests denouncing income inequality.

It's called capitalism; a pyramid with very littlle room at the very top.

[sammy the sage]

A wealthy hospital benefactor was being shown around the hospital. During her tour, she passed a room where a male patient was masturbating furiously.

"Oh my GOD!" screamed the woman. "That's disgraceful! Why is he doing that?"

The doctor who was leading the tour calmly explained, "I'm very sorry that you were exposed to that, but this man has a serious condition where his testicles rapidly fill with semen, and if he doesn't do that at least five times a day, he'll be in extreme pain and his testicles could easily rupture.."

"Oh, well in that case, I guess it's okay," said the woman...

As they passed by the next room, they saw a male patient laying in bed while a nurse performed oral sex on him.

Again, the woman screamed, "Oh my GOD! How can THAT be justified?"

Again the doctor spoke very calmly: "Same illness, better health insurance.."

[elysiantraveller]

Put 100 people on an island with their food, shelter, clothing, and medical needs taken care of, and give them each $1,000 for "extras.".

After a finite amount of time, one of them will have $100,000, the rest will have nothing and will organize protests denouncing income inequality.

It's called capitalism; a pyramid with very littlle room at the very top.

I'll take your model and after a "finite" amount of time in politics their is a party that is profiting largely off that ideology.... pick one...

Like someone else said this doesn't have to be partisan.

[Ocala Mike]

Agree with elysiantraveller. Income inequality is built into capitalism as a given. Unfortunately, no other economic system has dealt with it any better in practice.

[Robert Fischer]

I'm 100% for "income inequality".

My belief is that we created our economy based upon the natural power laws.

Many will play , few will win.

I have no issue with 1 guy being a billionaire and another being in the working class.

I do think there should be some debate about ethical practices.

The working class and the poor seem to have a lower value as humans when it comes to considerations of the conglomerates.

So many of the largest industries seem place maximizing efficiency and profit above quality of life of the working class and poor.

[FantasticDan]

I think anyone with an IQ above 99 knows that this would not be happening had Romney been elected. As a very smart businessman, he would not allow this to happen on his watch. We opted instead for a "community organizer" who isn't interested in prosperity for the middle class and instead instigates the low information crowd into believing that the rich are responsible for their failures. Again, this is simple stuff. Common Sense 101. It's a great political strategy to mobilize large groups of low income low intelligence people and get them to vote against those who played by the rules to achieve the American Dream.This is terrific stuff. Seriously, it's just amazing. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

That applies when the government doesn't get in the way as it has been for 5 years now. The lies about tax increases have hurt the middle class most and the fact that companies are sitting on big cash afraid to invest also prevents people from moving up. I think anyone with an IQ above 99 knows that this would not be happening had Romney been elected. As a very smart businessman, he would not allow this to happen on his watch. We opted instead for a "community organizer" who isn't interested in prosperity for the middle class and instead instigates the low information crowd into believing that the rich are responsible for their failures. Again, this is simple stuff. Common Sense 101. It's a great political strategy to mobilize large groups of low income low intelligence people and get them to vote against those who played by the rules to achieve the American Dream. People can either openly acknowledge it or pretend that they don't agree for the sake of deep rooted partisan reasons. When people stop identifying themselves by political party and start supporting solid ideas, only then will society benefit as a whole. We have 3 more years of the haves and have nots with a shrinking middle. It's sad but it's the truth.
There is no sense in common sense. Things are not always the way your senses tell you they are. For instance, for thousands of years we knew that the sun revolved around the earth because we could see it travel across the sky. We knew that the earth was flat because it looked that way.

Your Common Sense tells you that if you let someone keep all their money, they will invest it in their business and grow the economy. My common sense tells me if you let them keep all their money they will keep all their money.

Your Common Sense tells you that a free market serves to keep everyone honest and that unfettered competition guarantees everyone will prosper. My common sense tells me that the competition will last only until someone gains a monopoly then everyone else will be eating table scraps.

Businesses are not holding on to their capital because they are afraid of taxes or regulation; they are holding on to it because they are afraid that no one has the wherewithal to buy their product. Maybe I would be more accurate if I said a lack of customers is the main reason businesses are not investing. If we had prosperous workers which means prosperous consumers no one would be worrying about possible taxes or regulations. Companies dealt with 60 and 70 and even 90% tax rates because consumers were consuming.

[mostpost]

This is terrific stuff. Seriously, it's just amazing. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
You're pulling our leg, right? Problem is Mike at A+ won't get it.

[JustRalph]

Businesses are not holding on to their capital because they are afraid of taxes or regulation; they are holding on to it because they are afraid that no one has the wherewithal to buy their product. Maybe I would be more accurate if I said a lack of customers is the main reason businesses are not investing. If we had prosperous workers which means prosperous consumers no one would be worrying about possible taxes or regulations. Companies dealt with 60 and 70 and even 90% tax rates because consumers were consuming.

Hysterical. This is really your view of the economy. Why didn't you just say,

"If we gave away free money, then everybody would be rich"

[hcap]

Hysterical. This is really your view of the economy. Why didn't you just say,

"If we gave away free money, then everybody would be rich"Milton Friedman. Just sayin'

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html

...Market forces can accomplish wonderful things, he realized, but they cannot ensure a distribution of income that enables all citizens to meet basic economic needs. His proposal, which he called the negative income tax, was to replace the multiplicity of existing welfare programs with a single cash transfer — say, $6,000 — to every citizen. A family of four with no market income would thus receive an annual payment from the I.R.S. of $24,000. For each dollar the family then earned, this payment would be reduced by some fraction — perhaps 50 percent. A family of four earning $12,000 a year, for example, would receive a net supplement of $18,000 (the initial $24,000 less the $6,000 tax on its earnings).

Mr. Friedman’s proposal was undoubtedly motivated in part by his concern for the welfare of the least fortunate. But he was above all a pragmatist, and he emphasized the superiority of the negative income tax over conventional welfare programs on purely practical grounds. If the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money, he reasoned, the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more. He saw no advantage in hiring armies of bureaucrats to dispense food stamps, energy stamps, day care stamps and rent subsidies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income

PS: American revolutionary Thomas Paine advocated a Citizen's Dividend to all US citizens as compensation for "loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property" (Agrarian Justice, 1795).

French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte echoed Paine's sentiments and commented that 'man is entitled by birthright to a share of the Earth's produce sufficient to fill the needs of his existence' (Herold, 1955).

[HUSKER55]

hcap, when I was in college I had a lot of economic teaches who defended the negative income tax theory. They claimed that in the long run it would stabilze the economy for all and do away with welfare, which would shift to disability only.

I remember one instructor who said that everyone should have a chance to make it to the top. Capitalism allowed for that. But, if it gets skewed the sword cuts both ways. Meaning, it becomes stagnet because no one can move.

[Tom]

Obama says the economy is good and strong.
Why do we need to continue handouts in a good economy?
Has there been a direct relationship between people going off welfare with the amazing number of new jobs being rolled out every day by the Obama policies?

[Robert Goren]

That applies when the government doesn't get in the way as it has been for 5 years now. The lies about tax increases have hurt the middle class most and the fact that companies are sitting on big cash afraid to invest also prevents people from moving up. I think anyone with an IQ above 99 knows that this would not be happening had Romney been elected. As a very smart businessman, he would not allow this to happen on his watch. We opted instead for a "community organizer" who isn't interested in prosperity for the middle class and instead instigates the low information crowd into believing that the rich are responsible for their failures. Again, this is simple stuff. Common Sense 101. It's a great political strategy to mobilize large groups of low income low intelligence people and get them to vote against those who played by the rules to achieve the American Dream. People can either openly acknowledge it or pretend that they don't agree for the sake of deep rooted partisan reasons. When people stop identifying themselves by political party and start supporting solid ideas, only then will society benefit as a whole. We have 3 more years of the haves and have nots with a shrinking middle. It's sad but it's the truth.If Romney would have been elected, the bank system would have imploded already or would shortly. Most companies have learn from the Bush crash not to trust the banks and keep large amounts of cash around because they know that is what they need to ride out a recession. The next recession is just waiting for a small misstep by the Fed or poorly thought out budget cuts. The big banks despite all talk to the contrary have not stopped their gambling on high risk investments. If anything goes wrong, the house of cards comes falling down again. The next recession will be deeper and longer than the last one because the government will not act as quickly next time to end it. Companies with smart leadership know this and are not about to part with very much of their cash.

[Mike at A+]

If Romney would have been elected, the bank system would have imploded already or would shortly. Most companies have learn from the Bush crash not to trust the banks and keep large amounts of cash around because they know that is what they need to ride out a recession. The next recession is just waiting for a small misstep by the Fed or poorly thought out budget cuts. The big banks despite all talk to the contrary have not stopped their gambling on high risk investments. If anything goes wrong, the house of cards comes falling down again. The next recession will be deeper and longer than the last one because the government will not act as quickly next time to end it. Companies with smart leadership know this and are not about to part with very much of their cash.
The "Bush crash"? Do you forget who controlled the purse strings between 2007 and the day Bush left office? If I recall, unemployment was well under control until the Dems took Congress and then came up with hairbrained ideas like giving mortgages to people who had neither the ability nor the intention of taking on the responsibilities of home ownership.

[Mike at A+]

Your Common Sense tells you that if you let someone keep all their money
This speaks VOLUMES!

[Saratoga_Mike]

The "Bush crash"? Do you forget who controlled the purse strings between 2007 and the day Bush left office? If I recall, unemployment was well under control until the Dems took Congress and then came up with hairbrained ideas like giving mortgages to people who had neither the ability nor the intention of taking on the responsibilities of home ownership.

Don't be too harsh - he just don't understand US economic history. Excess leverage had been building in the US for the past four to five decades.* It was the leverage, actually the partial unwind, that made this past downturn so painful. I'm not sure how one can blame GWB for what happened in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, but I suspect someone will find a way.

By the way, China is on the same leverage path right now,** except the composition of the debt is different.

*fault lies mostly with the Federal Reserve
**fault lies mostly with the Bank of China (monetary policy) and state-dictated enterprise hasn't helped either

[Saratoga_Mike]

. The next recession is just waiting for a small misstep by the Fed or poorly thought out budget cuts.

Name ONE US recession in the past 100 yrs that was caused by budget cuts (outside of 1946/1947 timeframe when govt spending was truly slashed in the real sense of the word). You won't find one. Sorry.

[fast4522]

I think Robert Goren has every right to be concerned but the guy is always going to blame someone else. All the big money has pulled out in preparation of another financial crisis that will occur. When the domino effect next hits there will be no smart money that burns up because it went to safer grounds many months ago. When it hits the people who can least afford what they pay for now will have to pay 3 to 4 times what they do now for essentials like milk, eggs and bread etc.. There is no way to avoid the hyperinflation that will occur. Do not expect bipartisan support in the congress for bail outs next out, Huge austerity cuts will happen out of absolute necessity. It won't be income Inequality but just very hard times.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think Robert Goren has every right to be concerned but the guy is always going to blame someone else. All the big money has pulled out in preparation of another financial crisis that will occur. When the domino effect next hits there will be no smart money that burns up because it went to safer grounds many months ago. When it hits the people who can least afford what they pay for now will have to pay 3 to 4 times what they do now for essentials like milk, eggs and bread etc.. There is no way to avoid the hyperinflation that will occur. Do not expect bipartisan support in the congress for bail outs next out, Huge austerity cuts will happen out of absolute necessity.

I could envision a scenario with 8% to 10% inflation, but not hyperinflation. I guess it depends on your definition of hyperinflation.

[mostpost]

The "Bush crash"? Do you forget who controlled the purse strings between 2007 and the day Bush left office? If I recall, unemployment was well under control until the Dems took Congress and then came up with hairbrained ideas like giving mortgages to people who had neither the ability nor the intention of taking on the responsibilities of home ownership.Your recollection is as faulty as usual. The idea of giving mortgages to low income people was around for years. And for years the default rate was low. It was during the early Bush years that standards were lowered (The Ownership Society was a favorite Bush mantra). It was also during the Bush years that financial institutions were allowed to create unstable financial instruments such as derivatives which hastened and exacerbated the collapse of the housing market.

I have asked this question several times and have never received an answer. What specific legislation passed by the 110th Congress led to or heightened the great recession and why did George W. Bush not veto that legislation.

Three laws were passed in 2008 which were related to the economic crisis of the time. On Feb. 13, 2008 The Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was passed by a vote of 80-4 in the Senate and 385-35 in the House and signed by Bush. On July 30, 2008 the Housing and Economic Recovery Act was passed by a vote of 72-13 in the Senate and 272 to 152 in the House. Again the bill was signed by Bush. Finally on Oct. 3, 2008. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was signed by Bush after passing the House 263 to 171 and the Senate 74-25.

None of those acts did anything to ease requirements for obtaining mortgages.

[Mike at A+]

Your recollection is as faulty as usual. The idea of giving mortgages to low income people was around for years.
My recollection is not faulty at all. I seem to recall Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson playing the race card against certain banks and threatening to disrupt business at branches by busing in the usual crowd of hooligans. And of course the Democrats in the locales where these actions were threatened responded with a wink and a nod.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Your recollection is as faulty as usual. The idea of giving mortgages to low income people was around for years. And for years the default rate was low. 1) It was during the early Bush years that standards were lowered (The Ownership Society was a favorite Bush mantra). 2) It was also during the Bush years that financial institutions were allowed to create unstable financial instruments such as derivatives which hastened and exacerbated the collapse of the housing market.


.

1) Laughable. If we must place blame for the housing bubble (taking the Fed out of the equation), it's 85% Dems (think: Barney Frank) and maybe 15% Reps, saying otherwise is nothing more than partisan folly.

2) Factually incorrect. CDS was not "invented" during the GWB yrs. In fact, it was Larry Summers, in all his intellectual glory, who convinced Clinton not to regulate the CDS market.

[mostpost]

Name ONE US recession in the past 100 yrs that was caused by budget cuts (outside of 1946/1947 timeframe when govt spending was truly slashed in the real sense of the word). You won't find one. Sorry.
The Recession of 1937 is only considered minor when compared to the Great Depression, but is otherwise among the worst recessions of the 20th century. Three explanations are offered for the recession: that tight fiscal policy from an attempt to balance the budget after the expansion of the New Deal caused recession, that tight monetary policy from the Federal Reserve caused the recession, or that declining profits for businesses led to a reduction in investment.[33]
That's one.

Recession of 1960-1961
Another primarily monetary recession occurred after the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates in 1959. The government switched from deficit (or 2.6% in 1959) to surplus (of 0.1% in 1960). When the economy emerged from this short recession, it began the second-longest period of growth in NBER history.[30] The Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow) finally reached its lowest point on Feb. 20, 1961, about 4 weeks after President Kennedy was inaugurated.
That's two

Recession of 1969-1970
The relatively mild 1969 recession followed a lengthy expansion. At the end of the expansion, inflation was rising, possibly a result of increased deficits. This relatively mild recession coincided with an attempt to start closing the budget deficits of the Vietnam War (fiscal tightening) and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates (monetary tightening).[30]
Number three

[mostpost]

1) Laughable. If we must place blame for the housing bubble (taking the Fed out of the equation), it's 85% Dems (think: Barney Frank) and maybe 15% Reps, saying otherwise is nothing more than partisan folly.
Barney Frank was opposed to ending easily obtainable mortgages in the mid-2000's. He later admitted he was wrong. But he did nothing to prevent the passage of such legislation, because
No such legislation ever a came up for a vote on the floor of the House or the Senate.

2) Factually incorrect. CDS was not "invented" during the GWB yrs. In fact, it was Larry Summers, in all his intellectual glory, who convinced Clinton not to regulate the CDS market.
More like unclear. They existed prior to Bush but were taken to new extremes and no attempts were made to control them.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The Recession of 1937 is only considered minor when compared to the Great Depression, but is otherwise among the worst recessions of the 20th century. Three explanations are offered for the recession: that tight fiscal policy from an attempt to balance the budget after the expansion of the New Deal caused recession, that tight monetary policy from the Federal Reserve caused the recession, or that declining profits for businesses led to a reduction in investment.[33]
1) That's one.

Recession of 1960-1961
Another primarily monetary recession occurred after the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates in 1959. The government switched from deficit (or 2.6% in 1959) to surplus (of 0.1% in 1960). When the economy emerged from this short recession, it began the second-longest period of growth in NBER history.[30] The Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow) finally reached its lowest point on Feb. 20, 1961, about 4 weeks after President Kennedy was inaugurated.
2) That's two

Recession of 1969-1970
The relatively mild 1969 recession followed a lengthy expansion. At the end of the expansion, inflation was rising, possibly a result of increased deficits. This relatively mild recession coincided with an attempt to start closing the budget deficits of the Vietnam War (fiscal tightening) and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates (monetary tightening).[30]
3) Number three


1) The vast majority of economists blame the Fed for this downturn, but I'll put it in the jump ball category.
2) WRONG. Federal spending (on and off-budget) from 1959 to 1961: $92.1 billion, $92.2 billion and $97.7 billion.
3) WRONG. Federal spending (on and off-budget) from 1968 to 1970: $178.1 billion, $183.6 billion and $195.6 billion.
Have you ever considered refraining from debating topics that you haven't actually studied in detail?

[Saratoga_Mike]

More like unclear. They existed prior to Bush but were taken to new extremes and no attempts were made to control them.

I honestly don't understand your point - the larger font didn't help. Perhaps you could articulate it more clearly? Were you saying Frank didn't put something up for a vote? Or GWB didn't make proposals? I have no idea.

[Clocker]

Your recollection is as faulty as usual. The idea of giving mortgages to low income people was around for years. And for years the default rate was low. It was during the early Bush years that standards were lowered (The Ownership Society was a favorite Bush mantra).

Looks like a lot of that faulty recollection going around. Bush contributed to a problem started by Democrats. The roots of the problem are in Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. This act was strengthened by Clinton in 1995 to promote minority home ownership. Among other things, he had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase more subprime mortgages.

Also, Barney Frank, while the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was a leader in pushing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to expand subprime lending

[Clocker]

I seem to recall Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson playing the race card against certain banks and threatening to disrupt business at branches by busing in the usual crowd of hooligans.

Also, in the mid 1990's, a group called ACORN filed suit against Citibank to make them issue more mortgages to marginal borrowers. One of ACORN's attorneys in the suit was a guy named Obama.

[Clocker]

Maybe I would be more accurate if I said a lack of customers is the main reason businesses are not investing.

Wow! Blind squirrels do find acorns.

And why do we have a lack of consumer demand? At the 2009 labor force participation rate, we have 11% unemployment. Full time jobs are being destroyed and part time jobs created because of ObamaCare. Small businesses are not expanding to avoid 50+ head counts because of ObamaCare. Ever-increasing government regulations are making new business formations harder and harder. EPA regs are destroying jobs. Inflation has been defined away by the Fed, but the new normal of $3+ gas and $3+ ground beef leaves little money for discretionary spending. Many analysts blame increased insurance premium, and future increases, for declining retail sales. Many of the big companies sitting on cash are keeping it off shore because of the confiscatory taxes they would pay if they brought it back here.

Etc.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Wow! Blind squirrels do find acorns.

And why do we have a lack of consumer demand? At the 2009 labor force participation rate, we have 11% unemployment. Full time jobs are being destroyed and part time jobs created because of ObamaCare. Small businesses are not expanding to avoid 50+ head counts because of ObamaCare. Ever-increasing government regulations are making new business formations harder and harder. EPA regs are destroying jobs. Inflation has been defined away by the Fed, but the new normal of $3+ gas and $3+ ground beef leaves little money for discretionary spending. Many analysts blame increased insurance premium, and future increases, for declining retail sales. Many of the big companies sitting on cash are keeping it off shore because of the confiscatory taxes they would pay if they brought it back here.

Etc.

National Federation of Independent Small Business Survey results--

Number 1 problem cited from Oct 2008 until July 2012: POOR SALES

Number 1 problem cited in the December 2013 survey: regulation (21.7%), followed by taxes (20.7%) and poor sales (16.2%).

Source: Ed Yardeni in Barron's 1/20/14

[hcap]

hcap, when I was in college I had a lot of economic teaches who defended the negative income tax theory. They claimed that in the long run it would stabilze the economy for all and do away with welfare, which would shift to disability only.

I remember one instructor who said that everyone should have a chance to make it to the top. Capitalism allowed for that. But, if it gets skewed the sword cuts both ways. Meaning, it becomes stagnet because no one can move.Ironic isn't it?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2012/12/05/46817/5-charts-that-show-how-increasing-income-inequality-leads-to-less-opportunity/

5 Charts that Show How Increasing Income Inequality Leads to Less Opportunity


The Great Gatsby Curve shows that children born in countries with high levels of income inequality will experience less economic mobility on average than children born in more equal countries. (see Figure 1)

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Corak_web_1.png




...As these charts show, economic mobility is largely associated with the level of income inequality in a country. If there is high income inequality, children will likely experience low economic mobility and opportunity as adults. Families, the market, and the state largely determine life chances for the future generation of citizens, and several factors can improve these outcomes for children. For a more detailed description, please see our report.

[classhandicapper]

IMO, the housing bubble resulted from a combination of policy from Washington, easy money from the Fed, and irresponsible behavior from both borrowers and lenders.

I tend to discount greed/irresponsible behavior because all the greed in the world isn't going to cause a bubble like that extreme UNLESS the Fed accommodates all the recklessness with easy credit. If the Fed had tightened sooner, no bubble would have formed.

The thing most people don't understand (because we are all mis-educated in school about the role of the Fed and the causes of recessions) is that we don't have a free market monetary system. Money and new credit is essentially created out of thin air based the whims of a handful of guys at the Fed. That's not a market.

The real role of the Fed is:

1. To SOCIALIZE banking risks within the private sector. Bankers make irresponsible loans, get wealthy during the boom, and then when it blows up the Fed lowers real interest rates and prints money to bail them out at the expense of the general public.

2. To monetize the WELFARE and WARFARE STATE. There are 3 ways to deal with the deficits that result from spending for out of control social programs and wars.

a) You can raise taxes to pay for the ever greater promises politicians make to get elected, but then the people will throw you out of office.

b) You can slow the growth of out control programs to sustainable levels, but then the people will throw you out of office.

c) The Fed can print the money to finance it and no one will hold a politician accountable. So that's what they often do.

But then you eventually debase the currency and risk creating bubbles, inflation, economic busts, and income inequality.

When the Fed provides too much easy money and credit, it winds up going somewhere (could be stocks, could be real estate, could be junk bonds or treasuries, could be hard assets etc..). Once that speculation starts, then it brings in others (momentum players, the uninformed public, etc...)

That's what leads to bubbles, busts, bailouts, unequal wealth/income distribution and the kind of mess we are in now.

The put it bluntly, the Fed is marketed to the people as the great economic stabilizer, but it is generally just stabilizing the excesses it contributed to on the way up. IMO, it is an intrinsically immoral and economically unsound institution that should be dismantled immediately, but people do not understood it or its role well enough.

It came about because at it's core, the monetary/banking system (fractional reserve banking) was/is fundamentally unsound but bankers/politicians did not want to create a sound system that would limit their ability to confiscate and transfer wealth in a backdoor way from you and I.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Good post Class.

[Mike at A+]

I just got this in an email and this guy says it far better than I ever could!

WOW, THIS GUY HITS ALL THE RIGHT NOTES!

In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to 0bama's "income inequality speech":

Two Americas
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t.
The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.
It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts.
Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t. That’s the divide in America.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.
It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.
It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country. That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when 0bama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, 0bama will take it for you. Vote Democrat.
That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.
It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope.
The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.
Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.
You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.
Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.
He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.
Does that mean he cheated and Barack 0bama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack 0bama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.
There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.
The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.
Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack 0bama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get." 0bama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.
Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack 0bama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.
He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What 0bama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.
Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

[JustRalph]

Lonsberry is great. Great radio personality.

[Clocker]

The America that works, and the America that doesn’t.

He's out of date. That is now the America that is job-locked and the America that follows its passion.

[thaskalos]

"A good man cannot succeed in politics", declared the great Plato...2,500 years ago. It is still true today.

The main reason we have multiple political parties taking turns in ruling us is so we can become attached to them, and be distracted as we blame one another...as these parties alternate in power. All political parties lie...all of them cheat...and they all preach hate and greed while disempowering the citizens.

The only thing that separates them is their empty rhetoric.

[Mike at A+]

The only thing that separates them is their empty rhetoric.
One other thing separates them. One BIG thing. One believes in rewarding and encouraging success. The other believes that people are too stupid to make it on their own.

[thaskalos]

One other thing separates them. One BIG thing. One believes in rewarding and encouraging success. The other believes that people are too stupid to make it on their own.

Remind me again how the one that "rewards and encourages success" goes about its business.

Has it been documented that people are "more successful" during the Republican years?

Do you see the rich "struggling" during the Obama years?

[Mike at A+]

Remind me again how the one that "rewards and encourages success" goes about its business.

Has it been documented that people are "more successful" during the Republican years?

Do you see the rich "struggling" during the Obama years?
Tax incentives = more hiring.
Calling companies "fat cats" = less hiring.

The middle class was doing much better during the last Republican administration.

The rich NEVER struggle. They have friends in both parties who watch their backs. Today's rich are doing great in the stock market because they have the money to invest in companies with huge cash reserves that refuse to hire under this president (and 0bamacare).

Common sense 101.

Next!

[jballscalls]

One other thing separates them. One BIG thing. One believes in rewarding and encouraging success. The other believes that people are too stupid to make it on their own.

You really believe that don't you? That's what makes the divide in our country so frightening.

How do regular democrats believe people are too stupid to make it on their own? They want people to be able to get help if they need it.

People who label things so black and white like that pathetic list from the above radio commentator, they divide us more and more. "The party that works more" Give me a ****ing break. I know liberals and conservatives both who bust their ass for their money and to support their families. Stop the divisive stuff Mike! You and I and all of us are in this together!

[thaskalos]

Tax incentives = more hiring.
Calling companies "fat cats" = less hiring.

The middle class was doing much better during the last Republican administration.

The rich NEVER struggle. They have friends in both parties who watch their backs. Today's rich are doing great in the stock market because they have the money to invest in companies with huge cash reserves that refuse to hire under this president (and 0bamacare).

Common sense 101.

Next!

You could also say that the middle class was doing much better during the Clinton years than it did during the last Republican administration...right?

So...what does that prove?

Both parties suck...and they are both after the middle class. We've seen the two worst administrations, back-to-back...and they have represented both political parties; do we need more proof?

[rastajenk]

Allow me to re-phrase Mike's distinctions. One party thinks the government has all the solutions to all of society's ills. The other knows that it doesn't.

[Mike at A+]

You really believe that don't you? That's what makes the divide in our country so frightening.

How do regular democrats believe people are too stupid to make it on their own? They want people to be able to get help if they need it.

People who label things so black and white like that pathetic list from the above radio commentator, they divide us more and more. "The party that works more" Give me a ****ing break. I know liberals and conservatives both who bust their ass for their money and to support their families. Stop the divisive stuff Mike! You and I and all of us are in this together!
Yes I do "really believe that". This guy has failed on every level (or succeeded at dividing the country and screwing the middle class to put it more bluntly). He is a spiteful person who flaunts his spite in the biggest abuse of power this country has EVER seen. With the stroke of his pen (and a CHANGE IN HIS ATTITUDE) he could right so many wrongs. But he doesn't and he won't. He is perfectly happy with the increasing divide between his rich friends and his middle class enemies. He is GIVING THE COUNTRY AWAY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE BASICALLY LAZY UNDESERVING SLUGS. And it isn't the "evil rich" who are picking up the tab, it's the middle class. He HATES the middle class. Yes, we are "all in this together", The difference is that you seem to believe that talking about what is happening and expressing displeasure over policies that go against everything America ever stood for isn't constructive. Politicians only listen when the numbers increase because they begin to think they may lose their jobs. It's complacency and tolerance of the status quo that they love.

[thaskalos]

Allow me to re-phrase Mike's distinctions. One party thinks the government has all the solutions to all of society's ills. The other knows that it doesn't.

I hadn't realized that the Republican party was so modest...

[jballscalls]

Yes I do "really believe that". This guy has failed on every level (or succeeded at dividing the country and screwing the middle class to put it more bluntly). He is a spiteful person who flaunts his spite in the biggest abuse of power this country has EVER seen. With the stroke of his pen (and a CHANGE IN HIS ATTITUDE) he could right so many wrongs. But he doesn't and he won't. He is perfectly happy with the increasing divide between his rich friends and his middle class enemies. He is GIVING THE COUNTRY AWAY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE BASICALLY LAZY UNDESERVING SLUGS. And it isn't the "evil rich" who are picking up the tab, it's the middle class. He HATES the middle class. Yes, we are "all in this together", The difference is that you seem to believe that talking about what is happening and expressing displeasure over policies that go against everything America ever stood for isn't constructive. Politicians only listen when the numbers increase because they begin to think they may lose their jobs. It's complacency and tolerance of the status quo that they love.

politicians and policies are fine. that list you put up was just one of stereotypes and is wholly aimed at dividing and not bringing together and working for a better result.

[Clocker]

Both parties suck...and they are both after the middle class.

We have the evil party and the stupid party. The stupid party sucks slightly less than the evil party.

Neither is "after the middle class" in terms of deliberately targeting them. Both are harmful to the middle class as a result of the unintended consequences of their policies. The middle class bears the biggest burden of big government, heavy handed regulation, growing socialism, and expansionary monetary policy. ObamaCare is a text book model of this. The bottom quintile (lowest 20%) of the population is mostly helped and the top quintile is relatively unaffected. Those in the middle are taking the big hit.

While the GOP is dead set against ObamaCare, their general rhetoric opposing tax and spend Democrats is rarely transferred into significant action. Under Republicans, big government grows at a slower rate than under Democrats, but it continues to grow. Under the Big Lie of base line budgeting, spending normally grows at an automatic rate of 8% a year. The GOP have gotten so detached from reality that they consider a growth rate of 4% to be a spending cut. And the ever-shrinking middle class bears the burden.

[Mike at A+]

politicians and policies are fine. that list you put up was just one of stereotypes and is wholly aimed at dividing and not bringing together and working for a better result.
To use your phrase, "you really believe that, don't you"? This administration seems to be discouraging "working for a better result". I hope Jay Carney gets paid well because I'd hate to have to stand up there realizing the whole room knows he's full of shit (although MOST of the room cuts him a lot of slack because of who his boss is). I think it's sad that some people are unwilling to acknowledge that 0bama is selling the middle class down the river. And as I've noted before, the rich AND the poor are just fine with that.

[Clocker]

Allow me to re-phrase Mike's distinctions. One party thinks the government has all the solutions to all of society's ills. The other knows that it doesn't.

Let me rephrase that. One party believes that big government can solve society's ills and directs its efforts in that direction. The other party believes the opposite, but cannot seem to do anything effectively to stop moving in that direction, even when in control.

[Mike at A+]

Let me rephrase that. One party believes that big government can solve society's ills and directs its efforts in that direction. The other party believes the opposite, but cannot seem to do anything effectively to stop moving in that direction, even when in control.
That's because "the other party" fears the race card which is played the minute they talk about individual responsibility.

[TJDave]

The other party believes the opposite, but cannot seem to do anything effectively to stop moving in that direction, even when in control.

That's because the natural progression for democratic government is socialism.

[Clocker]

That's because the natural progression for democratic government is socialism.

The natural progression of any unchecked form of government is the accumulation of power.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

[mostpost]

I just got this in an email and this guy says it far better than I ever could!

WOW, THIS GUY HITS ALL THE RIGHT NOTES!

In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to 0bama's "income inequality speech":

Two Americas
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas.
The America that works, and the America that doesn’t.
The correct division is the America that can get a job and the America that can't.

The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.
When Lonsberry says the America that doesn't contribute is he referring to the corporations who cheat on their taxes, move operations overseas and ignore safety regulations?

It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts.
Some of those that do, don't have. Some of those that have don't do enough to justify what they have.

Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t. That’s the divide in America.
Lonsberry is a fool if he believes that criminality is confined to one socio-economic stratus. Let me rephrase that. Lonsberry is a fool.
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.
Let me say again, income equality does not mean equal incomes.

It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office.
Is Lonsberry referring to the political party that is opposed to allowing gay people to marry; that tries to prevent poor people from voting; that does not want people to have sufficient nutrition and adequate lodging? In other words, is he referring to the Republican Party?

It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.
As I said, the Republicans.

That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
Truth and Republican propaganda; not the same, actually the opposite.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when 0bama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
I am absolutely certain that Obama never said anything of the sort. I am equally certain that Mr. Lonsberry knows Obama never said anything of the sort. Therefore he is lying.


That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, 0bama will take it for you. Vote Democrat.
That is the philosophy that produced Detroit. It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.
The other guy has it, but did he earn it, or did he steal it from the labor of those who work for him? If the other guy paid his workers fairly, provided a safe and pleasant work place and provided health and retirement benefits then he earned what he has. If he did not, then he did not earn anything.

It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope.
Democrats think that a man should be paid fairly for the work he does. Democrats believe in the right of the working man to organize to achieve fair pay and fair working conditions. Republicans believe in the right to work FOR LESS.
The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful – seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices.
Because, by and large, income variations in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences. Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure. Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income.
You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.
You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.
Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant.
He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine.
Does that mean he cheated and Barack 0bama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack 0bama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.
There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.
The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.
Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.
Barack 0bama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get." 0bama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.
Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack 0bama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.
He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts. It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What 0bama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.
Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Mr Lonsberry talks about the consequences of choices without acknowledging that everyone does not have the same options. His doctor became a doctor while he went to work in restaurant for a reason. You don't need to know much about the circulatory system or how the nervous system works to work in a restaurant. A person born into poverty is not likely to raise the capital to start a business.

The false philosophy is everything Republicans think about what Democrats think.

[Mike at A+]

Mr Lonsberry talks about the consequences of choices without acknowledging that everyone does not have the same options. His doctor became a doctor while he went to work in restaurant for a reason. You don't need to know much about the circulatory system or how the nervous system works to work in a restaurant. A person born into poverty is not likely to raise the capital to start a business.

The false philosophy is everything Republicans think about what Democrats think.
But Mr. Lonsberry defines a very large segment of people who never even try because the entitlements are generous and the desire is weak.

[TJDave]

The natural progression of any unchecked form of government is the accumulation of power.


Unchecked government is a direct consequence of a lazy electorate.

We get the government we deserve.

[Mike at A+]

Unchecked government is a direct consequence of a lazy electorate.

We get the government we deserve.
There are clearly 2 we's. One gets what they think they deserve and the other gets screwed.

[FantasticDan]

This cartoon really paints the picture of Mike's argument.. "Genie" Bugs is Obama, who richly rewards "Hassan" (his base of lazy slugs and takers) after "releasing" (electing) him. Look fast to see Daffy Romney trying to warn everyone... :lol:

fu92wc7IQl0

[Mike at A+]

Cartoons, jokes, whistling in the dark.

[TJDave]

There are clearly 2 we's. One gets what they think they deserve and the other gets screwed.

The answer is simple. Convince more than half the votes to go your way.

[Mike at A+]

The answer is simple. Convince more than half the votes to go your way.
I really don't care either way. My portfolio is growing in leaps and bounds because corporate bottom lines are growing in leaps and bounds. My kids know the score and will do fine in any climate. But the day will come when having firearms is the most important thing in your life. Hunger can produce some very ugly behavior and when the spigot shuts off it will be something like this country has never seen before.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hunger can produce some very ugly behavior and when the spigot shuts off it will be something like this country has never seen before.Who's going to be hungry? According to you, the rich will always be rich. The poor are getting all the handouts so they can sit back and relax and not work and live off the teat of the state. And the middle class will always get enough just to get by.

So who's going to be hungry and looking to steal from you?

[Mike at A+]

Who's going to be hungry? According to you, the rich will always be rich. The poor are getting all the handouts so they can sit back and relax and not work and live off the teat of the state. And the middle class will always get enough just to get by.

So who's going to be hungry and looking to steal from you?
Eventually there will be no more to take from what's left of the middle class. You ARE aware that the middle class is drastically declining in numbers, right? Also there is the local aspect where people will physically move to escape the states where the non-producers live and reproduce. People will only take so much for so long before they vote with their feet. Compare it to the way neighborhoods decline on a smaller scale. The trash moves in and the responsible people move out. It happened in Brooklyn 30-40 years ago and it's happening just about everywhere in America. Responsible people don't want to live among trash.

[JustRalph]

Who's going to be hungry? According to you, the rich will always be rich. The poor are getting all the handouts so they can sit back and relax and not work and live off the teat of the state. And the middle class will always get enough just to get by.

So who's going to be hungry and looking to steal from you?

As a friend of mine likes to say.....

"When the EBT stops working, the most precious metal in the world will be lead"

[FantasticDan]

As a friend of mine likes to say.....
"When the EBT stops working, the most precious metal in the world will be lead"Why, cuz all the kids and seniors and working poor that make up the majority of those receiving benefits will suddenly start marauding? Fortunately I still have boxes of ammo from when the blacks were gonna burn everything down when Obama lost.. we'd still be better off than him winning :lol: :lol:

[JustRalph]

Why, cuz all the kids and seniors and working poor that make up the majority of those receiving benefits will suddenly start marauding? Fortunately I still have boxes of ammo from when the blacks were gonna burn everything down when Obama lost.. we'd still be better off than him winning :lol: :lol:

There's a certain percentage I have my sights set on.........

The seniors will be easy......they're slow.......

[HUSKER55]

not when my wheel chair is in high gear! :D

[Clocker]

The seniors will be easy......they're slow.......

You just don't lead them as much. Get some!!!

[Mike at A+]

I had occasion to look over yesterday's White House State Dinner menu (see below) and I noticed that by coincidence we prepared the exact same meal for dinner at our house last night. The only differences were that the caviar in our first course was River Beluga Malossol, I find the Osetra a bit too "briny" and we served a Chateau Montelena’s 1973 Chardonnay, I find the Thibaut-Janisson offering a bit "oaky"

The President and The First Lady (who wore a spectacular $12,000 designer gown to yesterday's dinner) spoke today about the unfairness of income inequity in our nation. That seems about right............

The menu:

First course
American Osetra caviar
Fingerling potato velouté, quail eggs, crisped chive potatoes

Second course
“The Winter Garden Salad”
Petite mixed radish, baby carrots, merlot lettuce
Red wine vinaigrette

Main course
Dry-aged rib eye beef
Jasper Hill Farm blue cheese, charred shallots, oyster
Mushrooms, braised chard

Dessert
Hawaiian chocolate-malted ganache
Vanilla ice cream and tangerines

Wines
Morlet “La Proportion Doree” 2011 Napa Valley, California
Chester-Kidder Red Blend 2009 Columbia Valley, Washington
Thibaut-Janisson “Blanc de Chardonnay” Monticello, Virginia

[Tom]

The 0bama's (thanks for the 0 idea!) know that you have to dress well and eat lavishly or no one will take you seriously when you talk about income inequality.

[Tom]

Wonder if he brought up the BS about shared sacrifice. :rolleyes:

[Mike at A+]

When Lonsberry says the America that doesn't contribute is he referring to the corporations who cheat on their taxes, move operations overseas and ignore safety regulations?
Cheat on their taxes? Hey mostie, if you know this for a fact you should report them to the IRS and collect a reward.

[Tom]

Lonsberry is great. Great radio personality.

He has a great show every day.
Local hero of sorts - he has a lot of followers here.

[JustRalph]

Via twitter

[Tom]

Great post, Ralph.....but with the total hypocrisy of the left, you have a lot of good material! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

We need to start a 90% tax Hollywood earnings.
Only seems fair.

[hcap]

Talk about social Darwinism.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/03/17/lifespan_inequality_the_rich_are_living_longer_liv es_than_the_poor.html

We Know About Income Inequality. Now It’s Time to Talk About Lifespan Inequality

On average, Americans live longer if they are rich than if they are poor. As the income gap in the U.S. has widened over the past 30 years, so too has the “longevity gap,” as Annie Lowrey puts it in a New York Times article published over the weekend.

Here’s the money stat: Once they reach age 65, men who are in the top half of earners live about six years longer today than they did in the 1970s. But men who are in the bottom half of earners only live 1.3 years longer than they did 40 years ago. (The Social Security Administration hasn’t analyzed data for women, because of their changing work habits.) For all we hear about rising life expectancies, the reality is that only half the population seems to be reaping the gains. Aaron Carroll of the Incidental Economist captured the trend some years ago in the very simple chart below.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2014/03/17/lifespan_inequality_the_rich_are_living_longer_liv es_than_the_poor/life_expectancy_incidental_economist_1.jpg.CROP.pr omovar-mediumlarge.jpg

[tucker6]

Cappy,

Something doesn't jive with that graph. I'm willing to take bets that in 1977, the longevity gap between the top earners and the bottom earners was not near zero differential. Farm accidents, mining accidents, and worse habits in general back in that time period lead me to believe that something isn't right in that graph. Seems counter to my intuition.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
On average, Americans live longer if they are rich than if they are poor.

...

I guess another reason I'm happy to be poor.

Eighty-two is more than old enough, thanks.

[rastajenk]

I was just going to add something along those lines, Smith. How many of those extra six years are spent just being kept alive because there's money there to be spent on extended skilled care? I don't know, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that longer life isn't necessarily better life. Put me down for the shorter version, too, unless the longer one comes with certain guarantees, which it doesn't.

[hcap]

Cappy,

Something doesn't jive with that graph. I'm willing to take bets that in 1977, the longevity gap between the top earners and the bottom earners was not near zero differential. Farm accidents, mining accidents, and worse habits in general back in that time period lead me to believe that something isn't right in that graph. Seems counter to my intuition.Many things are counter intuitive to many. Something tells me the more to the right you are----well you know the rest! :lol:

How's this graph from the same guy?

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/LE-by-earnings-country2-500x442.jpg

To me it correlates well with our piss poor health care system as compared to the rest of the world.




.

[hcap]

I guess another reason I'm happy to be poor.

Eighty-two is more than old enough, thanks.You must be on an Obama "death panel" :lol: :lol:

[HUSKER55]

do you mean as a judge or volunteer.... :D

[hcap]

Ask S. Palin

[Robert Fischer]

But isn't this stuff self explanatory? Do we really need graphs to tell us that if we can afford quality things, and good medical care, that we will live longer?

What is the point?

[tucker6]

Many things are counter intuitive to many. Something tells me the more to the right you are----well you know the rest! :lol:

My question was a serious one. The original graph you posted doesn't pass a simple smell test. I find it difficult to believe that in the mid 1970's, being rich or poor made little difference in longevity. I highly doubt that "fact". I'm willing to be shown how wrong I am, so go for it.

[Robert Fischer]

My question was a serious one. The original graph you posted doesn't pass a simple smell test. I find it difficult to believe that in the mid 1970's, being rich or poor made little difference in longevity. I highly doubt that "fact". I'm willing to be shown how wrong I am, so go for it.
I agree with you.

[Valuist]

Intelligence has a greater impact on life expectancy than money. It just so happens that those that are intelligent are more likely to have more money. They tend to be better informed, and less likely to live a life of destructive behavior. Maybe the less intelligent don't care; maybe they just don't know any better.

[Robert Fischer]

Intelligence has a greater impact on life expectancy than money. It just so happens that those that are intelligent are more likely to have more money. They tend to be better informed, and less likely to live a life of destructive behavior. Maybe the less intelligent don't care; maybe they just don't know any better.

I don't know if I agree with that.

[hcap]

My question was a serious one. The original graph you posted doesn't pass a simple smell test. I find it difficult to believe that in the mid 1970's, being rich or poor made little difference in longevity. I highly doubt that "fact". I'm willing to be shown how wrong I am, so go for it.

I do not have access to the methods used to create that chart. But there are other facts and studies

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st342

Social Security benefits are used to rank counties’ retirees as lower or higher in the distribution of lifetime income. The average life expectancy at age 65 is then calculated for the men and women in the counties found to be at the lower and upper end of the income distribution. For example:

Between 1970 and 2009, life expectancy for men at the age of 65 rose about 32 percent in counties around the 10th percentile, or low end, of lifetime income distribution.

In contrast, life expectancy for men at the age of 65 rose about 43 percent in counties around the 90th percentile, or high end, of lifetime income distribution. These findings based on county-level income and life expectancy data are consistent with other studies: life expectancy at age 65 has grown over time for all retirees, has grown more rapidly for men than for women, and women’s life expectancy continues to exceed men’s. Further, life expectancy at the higher end of the lifetime earnings distribution has grown more rapidly than at the lower end of the distribution — more so for men than for women.

Given that life expectancy is growing more rapidly at the high end of the income distribution that at the low end, the question then is, should Social Security be reformed such that the full retirement age is higher for high income workers than for lower income workers, as some have suggested?


http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/10/23-inequality-life-expectancy-burtless

One of the most basic indicators of well-being is life expectancy. Analysts have long recognized the powerful association between personal income and expected life spans. People with higher incomes tend to live longer than people with lower incomes. Statistical tabulations suggest that the relationship is nonlinear. A $10,000 increase in annual income does more to lift the life expectancy of someone who lives on a meager income than it does to boost the life span of someone who is already well off. This suggests that transferring $10,000 a year from someone who is rich to someone who is poor should lift the expected life span of the poor recipient more than it hurts the life span of the rich donor. It therefore seems logical to expect that a more egalitarian income distribution would lift average life expectancy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/business/income-gap-meet-the-longevity-gap.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/research-ties-economic-inequality-to-gap-in-life-expectancy/2013/03/10/c7a323c4-7094-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html

[hcap]

Correction. More on that chart.

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0015_life-expectancy

SOURCES: Data from a Social Security Administration Report, "Trends in Mortality Differentials and Life Expectancy for Male Social Security-Covered Workers, by Socioeconomic Status" by Hilary Waldron (2007). Compiled by PGPF.
NOTE: Data covers male Social Security-covered workers, and earnings distribution is determined by relative average positive earnings during peak earning years (ages 45-55). The vertical axis measures the expected age of death of a 65-year-old in the given year. - See more at: http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0015_life-expectancy#sthash.1TOj5SPX.dpuf

[tucker6]

Correction. More on that chart.

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0015_life-expectancy

SOURCES: Data from a Social Security Administration Report, "Trends in Mortality Differentials and Life Expectancy for Male Social Security-Covered Workers, by Socioeconomic Status" by Hilary Waldron (2007). Compiled by PGPF.
NOTE: Data covers male Social Security-covered workers, and earnings distribution is determined by relative average positive earnings during peak earning years (ages 45-55). The vertical axis measures the expected age of death of a 65-year-old in the given year. - See more at: http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0015_life-expectancy#sthash.1TOj5SPX.dpuf
Thank you. That answers my question. They assumed rich versus poor by county level and not by individual. I would tend to think that you'd get homogenization of data that way, which isn't necessarily a good thing in my book.

[hcap]

Thank you. That answers my question. They assumed rich versus poor by county level and not by individual. I would tend to think that you'd get homogenization of data that way, which isn't necessarily a good thing in my book.Nonsense you are wrong. Some of the other studies I linked to did just that. Not the chart you questioned.

[Robert Fischer]

these studies are all funded by sponsors and often special interest groups. Both sides of the coin on polarized issues are BS.

Like I said - this stuff should be obvious, so what is the point ?

It's like this income inequality movement is itself an attempt to play on the masses.

"Having power and wealth is better, now don't you feel weak?, Don't you feel jealous and angry?"

[tucker6]

Nonsense you are wrong. Some of the other studies I linked to did just that. Not the chart you questioned.
I guess I always question studies that don't gel with my understanding of things. Honestly, why would there be less life expectancy inequality in 1977 than now? Think about that. There was less chance of quality care for the poor in yesteryear than there is today. Something is amiss in that study, but I don't care enough to look deep enough. But thanks for the info all the same.

[Clocker]

A $10,000 increase in annual income does more to lift the life expectancy of someone who lives on a meager income than it does to boost the life span of someone who is already well off.

This assumes that the money is used to move to a safer neighborhood, drive a safer car, live a healthier life, eat a healthier diet, exercise, spend more on preventive medicine, etc. Much of that can be done without more money. Culture, education, peer pressure, and many other factors are as critical as income. You can't hold everything else equal and say that more money equals a longer life.

[PaceAdvantage]

To me it correlates well with our piss poor health care system as compared to the rest of the world..What world are you living in? Michael Moore's world?

How deluded can you be to call our health care system PISS POOR?

[thaskalos]

What world are you living in? Michael Moore's world?

How deluded can you be to call our health care system PISS POOR?

The terms "Health Care System" and "Health and Wellness" are the wrong terms to use when describing the practice of medicine in the west. Our doctors are not concerned with "health and wellness". They remain curiously quiet when it comes to disease-prevention...and then they spring into action when the patient gets sick -- and start prescribing life-long medications that only treat the symptoms instead of the diseases.

Some "health care system", IMO...

[RaceBookJoe]

The terms "Health Care System" and "Health and Wellness" are the wrong terms to use when describing the practice of medicine in the west. Our doctors are not concerned with "health and wellness". They remain curiously quiet when it comes to disease-prevention...and then they spring into action when the patient gets sick -- and start prescribing life-long medications that only treat the symptoms instead of the diseases.

Some "health care system", IMO...

"Disease Maintainance System" , with a large % of cases due to piss-poor lifestyles.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... They remain curiously quiet when it comes to disease-prevention...

Unless you smoke. :rolleyes:

Then you get the pleasure of having every possible little malady conveniently blamed on tobacco until you just stop going to the prick.

[Tom]

Last year, my sister could barely walk due to a bad hip, and cataracts were severely limiting her vision. At 71, she can ride a bike this year and read books with small print.

Piss poor system?
What a tool!

[Tom]

"Disease Maintainance System" , with a large % of cases due to piss-poor lifestyles.

Amen.

[hcap]

This assumes that the money is used to move to a safer neighborhood, drive a safer car, live a healthier life, eat a healthier diet, exercise, spend more on preventive medicine, etc. Much of that can be done without more money. Culture, education, peer pressure, and many other factors are as critical as income. You can't hold everything else equal and say that more money equals a longer life.Yes we can.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/health/the-root-causes-behind-many-health-problems-may-surprise-you-20140313

The Root Causes Behind Many Health Problems May Surprise You
You think it's only medical care that influences your health? The real truth is all around you.


From her office in the peaceful and picturesque Laurel Heights neighborhood, Paula Braveman directs the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California (San Francisco) and writes prolifically on the links between class, race, and health. She spoke recently to National Journal about the complex relationships among opportunity, biology, personal responsibility, and the way Americans live and die. Edited excerpts follow.

Question: In assessing America's overall health, how important are the social determinants, such as poverty and disparities in income and education, versus medical care?

There are people who [conclude] about 10 percent of premature mortality is due to lack of access and/or deficiencies in medical care. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 20 percent [is medical care].

[hcap]

What world are you living in? Michael Moore's world?

How deluded can you be to call our health care system PISS POOR?I guess you forgot all the stuff I wrote on the "Obama Failed for Now" thread, and all the other threads we have had on health care?

[Clocker]

There are people who [conclude] about 10 percent of premature mortality is due to lack of access and/or deficiencies in medical care. If I had to guess, I'd say maybe 20 percent [is medical care].

Is that a peer reviewed guess?

You keep trying to prove what every thinking person already knows: there is income inequality in this country, and it has gotten worse under Obama.

You are ignoring the cause.

[hcap]

Is that a peer reviewed guess?

You keep trying to prove what every thinking person already knows: there is income inequality in this country, and it has gotten worse under Obama.

You are ignoring the cause.Is all the crap you post from the Daily Caller peer-reviewed? Income inequality began (again after the earlier 20th century shift to the top 1%)---- with Saint Ronald of Hollywood.

[Robert Fischer]

power inequality is a natural thing

and with improvements in the media and technology, the most powerful people have become more efficient at harnessing those media technologies for their own benefit

you can't blame a president for these things

[hcap]

Yes you can if the playing field is rigged.

Since saint Ronald

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png

[Saratoga_Mike]

Looks like the ultra-wealthy did especially well under Clinton, according to HCAP's chart. Thanks HCAP.

[tucker6]

Yes you can if the playing field is rigged.

Since saint Ronald

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png
Cappy,

Those graphs would look the same if we were looking at 1779 to 1808 and 1879 to 1908. You're giving us a lesson that history repeats. Seriously, no one disputes that your graphs are more related to the state of the economy of the times than who is in the white house. The party of the president is not material to the issue. :D

[hcap]

Started under Reagan and continues to this day. Democrats and republicans both contributed, however there are some key differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

The return to high inequality – or what Krugman and journalist Timothy Noah have referred as the "Great Divergence"[30] – began in the 1970s.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109

Today's Republican Party may revere Reagan as the patron saint of low taxation. But the party of Reagan – which understood that higher taxes on the rich are sometimes required to cure ruinous deficits – is dead and gone. Instead, the modern GOP has undergone a radical transformation, reorganizing itself around a grotesque proposition: that the wealthy should grow wealthier still, whatever the consequences for the rest of us.

Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.

"The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility," says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. "They're on an anti-tax jihad – one that benefits the prosperous classes."

The staggering economic inequality that has led Americans across the country to take to the streets in protest is no accident. It has been fueled to a large extent by the GOP's all-out war on behalf of the rich. Since Republicans rededicated themselves to slashing taxes for the wealthy in 1997, the average annual income of the 400 richest Americans has more than tripled, to $345 million – while their share of the tax burden has plunged by 40 percent. Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays less than 17 percent of his income in taxes – five percentage points less than a bus driver earning $26,000 a year. "Most Americans got none of the growth of the preceding dozen years," says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. "All the gains went to the top percentage points."

[tucker6]

Modern-day Republicans have become, quite simply, the Party of the One Percent – the Party of the Rich.

If this is true, why do the Dems typically outpace the GOP in donations?

[Saratoga_Mike]

If this is true, why do the Dems typically outpace the GOP in donations?

How do you win elections with 1% of the vote? Even our lousy candidates typically garner 46% to 49% of the national vote.

[TJDave]

How do you win elections with 1% of the vote? Even our lousy candidates typically garner 46% to 49% of the national vote.

Lie, cheat & steal. You get the other 49.5% by convincing others to vote against their nature or by gerrymandering or making it difficult to vote at all. When all else fails you just steal elections.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Lie, cheat & steal. You get the other 49.5% by convincing others to vote against their nature or by gerrymandering or making it difficult to vote at all. When all else fails you just steal elections.

"The voters are stupid" argument--often made by both sides. They were smart electing Obama twice, but if they elect a Rep in 2016, they're stupid again. Okay.

[TJDave]

"The voters are stupid" argument--often made by both sides. They were smart electing Obama twice, but if they elect a Rep in 2016, they're stupid again. Okay.

Both sides are stupid like a fox.

[hcap]

More on inequality from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629

Using the Census Survey and IRS Income Data

The broad facts of income inequality over the past six decades are easily summarized:

The years from the end of World War II into the 1970s were ones of substantial economic growth and broadly shared prosperity.

Incomes grew rapidly and at roughly the same rate up and down the income ladder, roughly doubling in inflation-adjusted terms between the late 1940s and early 1970s.

The income gap between those high up the income ladder and those on the middle and lower rungs — while substantial — did not change much during this period.

Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened.

Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly.

The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”).

Wealth (the value of a household’s property and financial assets net of the value of its debts) is much more highly concentrated than income, although the wealth data do not show a dramatic increase in concentration at the very top the way the income data do.

[hcap]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/here-s-how-nasa-thinks-society-will-collapse-20140318

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/nasa-funded-study-says-income-inequality-causing-civilizational-collapse

Here's How NASA Thinks Society Will Collapse

Too much inequality and too few natural resources could leave the West vulnerable to a Roman Empire-style fall.

Acording to a new study funded by NASA, inequality will lead to the collapse of Western civilization. The study by National Science Foundation’s Safa Motesharrei, funded by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, stated, “Two important features seem to appear across societies that have collapsed: the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity and the economic stratification of society into Elites and Masses.” The study continued:

....... Collapse is difficult to avoid....Elites grow and consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society…. [a] brief overview of collapses demonstrates not only the ubiquity of the phenomenon, but also the extent to which advanced, complex and powerful societies are susceptible to collapse.

[tucker6]

Cappy,

Your previous post points out a "jump the shark" moment for NASA and govt abuse of taxpayer money in general. Why in Hades is NASA funding an income inequality study???????????????????????????????????????? That's f'n moronic to have the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) perform any function not related to their core mission. If this is all they have left to do, disband the entire agency.

Even you cannot defend this insanity, can you??


As to your Roman Empire comment, they had a LOT more going wrong for them than income inequality my friend.

[Clocker]

Cappy,

Your previous post points out a "jump the shark" moment for NASA and govt abuse of taxpayer money in general. Why in Hades is NASA funding an income inequality study???????????????????????????????????????? That's f'n moronic to have the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) perform any function not related to their core mission. If this is all they have left to do, disband the entire agency.


Disband? Just because we have pretty much given up on taking the lead in space exploration? Let's hang on here before we do something rational. As Reagan said, the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. We don't cut government jobs just because those people have nothing to do.

In case you missed it, after NASA dropped space as its main focus, Obama expanded its operations to Muslim outreach, to make Muslim nations feel better about themselves.

I did not make that up. From ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/07/white-house-nasa-defend-comments-about-nasa-outreach-to-muslim-world-criticized-by-conservatives/), in 2010:

The White House and NASA today defended comments by National Aeronautic Space Administration administrator Charles Bolden about reaching out to the Muslim world – comments that conservatives criticized as undermining NASA’s mission.

A few days ago, in Cairo, Bolden told Al Jazeera that when he became the NASA administrator, President Obama charged him with three things: "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering — science, math and engineering."

This was part of President Obama’s desire, as stated in his Cairo address last year, to begin a new chapter in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world, Bolden said.

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, like many things Obama, it ain't working too well (the Muslim reach-out thingy).

[Tom]

Cappy,

Your previous post points out a "jump the shark" moment for NASA and govt abuse of taxpayer money in general. Why in Hades is NASA funding an income inequality study???????????????????????????????????????? That's f'n moronic to have the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) perform any function not related to their core mission. If this is all they have left to do, disband the entire agency.



that is a very good point.
Why, indeed?

[hcap]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

The study was conducted as a research project based on a new cross-disciplinary 'Human And Nature DYnamical' (HANDY) model, led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, in association with a team of natural and social scientists. The study based on the HANDY model has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological Economics.

http://www.sesync.org/

Welcome to
SESYNC
The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)—funded through a National Science Foundation grant to the University of Maryland—is dedicated to solving society’s most challenging and complex environmental problems. As one of only a few U.S. transdisciplinary research centers, SESYNC brings together different disciplines and stakeholders to increase knowledge on the complex interactions between human and ecological systems.

I guess any science that takes into account complex issues should be ignored until absolute proof is demonstrated. Why shouldn't these issues be examined? And debated?

I know, probably another international fat Al Gore/Bilderberger commie/fascist conspiracy to defraud all youse good old boys. :lol:

[Clocker]

Well, like many things Obama, it ain't working too well (the Muslim reach-out thingy).

Perhaps it is working too well. It appears that Muslim nations are feeling so good about themselves that they have decided that they can get along fine without the US.

[Clocker]

I guess any science that takes into account complex issues should be ignored until absolute proof is demonstrated. Why shouldn't these issues be examined? And debated?

That isn't the question. The question is why should the federal government be funding pure research into touchy-feely stuff like this when our infrastructure is apparently crumbling beneath our very feet and the members of our military qualify for food stamps.

The feds are already dumping enough money into aid and grants to universities to fund a ship-load of this crap. Why are we keeping NASA on life support with feel-good stuff that is well beyond their purpose?

Ooops, never mind. I just saw the part about peer-review. That makes everything well worth while, as long as it is peer-reviewed by other touchy-feely experts who are also sucking funds at the government teat. Who is doing the peer-review on the NASA work, the IRS? Maybe ATF?

[tucker6]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

The study was conducted as a research project based on a new cross-disciplinary 'Human And Nature DYnamical' (HANDY) model, led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, in association with a team of natural and social scientists. The study based on the HANDY model has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological Economics.

http://www.sesync.org/

Welcome to
SESYNC
The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)—funded through a National Science Foundation grant to the University of Maryland—is dedicated to solving society’s most challenging and complex environmental problems. As one of only a few U.S. transdisciplinary research centers, SESYNC brings together different disciplines and stakeholders to increase knowledge on the complex interactions between human and ecological systems.

I guess any science that takes into account complex issues should be ignored until absolute proof is demonstrated. Why shouldn't these issues be examined? And debated?

I know, probably another international fat Al Gore/Bilderberger commie/fascist conspiracy to defraud all youse good old boys. :lol:
Are you intentionally missing the point, or are you so blinded by ideology that you can't see the forest for the trees?

By the way, grant = taxpayer money.

[ArlJim78]

whenever I come across the terms "cross disciplinary" or "transdisciplinary" it a safe signal that what follows is complete nonsense.

everyone already knows that western societies will collapse, this is what we've been saying all along, that we're on an unsustainable path. corrupt statist social welfare states are the cause though, along with an ample supply of fiat currency.

[Clocker]

By the way, grant = taxpayer money.

You mean like this:

The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)—funded through a National Science Foundation grant to the University of Maryland—is dedicated to solving society’s most challenging and complex environmental problems.

First rule of bureaucracy: if the name of the project is meaningless, so is the output.

I think I saw that SESYNC place. It's right down the block from the Ministry of Truth.

[hcap]

The point is not that the government should NOT take part in scientific studies of issues that could affect the well being of American citizens. This thread is about income inequality, and it's relevant demonstrated problems, and you gents would rather blame Obama once again for all sorts of things tangential to the problems of inequality.

Start another ant-Obama thread for the 100th time in 2 days. Hey why not? After all this board is 24/7/365 Anti-Obama all the f**king time

[tucker6]

You mean like this:



First rule of bureaucracy: if the name of the project is meaningless, so is the output.

I think I saw that SESYNC place. It's right down the block from the Ministry of Truth.
SESYNC and all its employees and work appears to be entirely funded by you and me the taxpayer.

[Clocker]

everyone already knows that western societies will collapse, this is what we've been saying all along, that we're on an unsustainable path. corrupt statist social welfare states are the cause though, along with an ample supply of fiat currency.

But their findings on that as cited aren't even internally consistent. From the article linked:

C]ollapse is difficult to avoid....Elites grow and consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society…. [a] brief overview of collapses demonstrates not only the ubiquity of the phenomenon, but also the extent to which advanced, complex and powerful societies are susceptible to collapse.

We have a famine among the Commoners? According to Mama Obama, our biggest problem is obesity. We learned our lesson well from the Romans. Bread and circuses have been replaced by food stamps, ObamaPhones, free healthcare, and years of unemployment benefits. If anyone collapses, it is going to be those carrying that load, the job locked who can't follow their passions.

[tucker6]

The point is not that the government should NOT take part in scientific studies of issues that could affect the well being of American citizens. This thread is about income inequality, and it's relevant demonstrated problems, and you gents would rather blame Obama once again for all sorts of things tangential to the problems of inequality.

Start another ant-Obama thread for the 100th time in 2 days. Hey why not? After all this board is 24/7/365 Anti-Obama all the f**king time
who mentioned Obama? We're talking about govt waste, which afflicts both sides of the aisle these days.

[hcap]

Who mentioned Obama?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :jump: :jump: :jump: :liar: :liar: :D :D :D :D :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :sleeping:

[Clocker]

This thread is about income inequality, and it's relevant demonstrated problems, and you gents would rather blame Obama once again for all sorts of things tangential to the problems of inequality.

And you keep trying to prove the existence of income inequality and the problems it causes when no one doubts that. And to blame it all on Reagan.

What you ignore is the cause and the cure. The cause of the problem is long term and bipartisan. Obama is not the sole cause but he has done nothing to fix the problem, and his policies have made it worse.

[hcap]

Of course you doubt it. The republican playbook is many times a primer on social Darwinism. Survival of the economic fittest is a bunch of Randian economic crap left over from the middle ages.

[Clocker]

Of course you doubt it. The republican playbook is many times a primer on social Darwinism.

It doesn't matter what is in the Republican playbook. The Republicans don't practice what they preach, and therefore share the blame for the mess the country is in.

[hcap]

OK, conservative playbook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Social Darwinism is a modern name given to various theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, and which allegedly sought to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics.[1][2] Social Darwinists generally argue that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Different social Darwinists have different views about which groups of people are the strong and the weak, and they also hold different opinions about the precise mechanism that should be used to promote strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism; whereas the opposite concept of government intervention in social development (also known as Reform Darwinism) motivated ideas of eugenics, racism, imperialism,[3] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[4][5]

Geewillikers! Paceadvantage off topic conservative words to fight by.

Btw, Social evolution is much more than only survival of the fittest which really is not inclusive of..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory

Evolutionary game theory. Evolutionary game theory has proven itself to be invaluable in helping to explain many complex and challenging aspects of biology. It has been particularly helpful in establishing the basis of altruistic behaviours within the context of Darwinian process. Despite its origin and original purpose, evolutionary game theory has become of increasing interest to economists, sociologists, anthropologists, and philosophers.

Then again compassion and empathy that you gents denounce libs for as "feel good" naivety is also missing from much of the conservative play book.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Then again [B]compassion and empathy that you gents denounce libs for as "feel good" naivety is also missing from much of the conservative play book.

No, we conservatives prefer to help the disadvantaged through private charities, not the govt. You liberals prefer to confiscate money that isn't yours and give it to the disadvantaged. Open up your wallets cheap liberals!

And fostering govt dependence isn't compassion.

"Bleeding Heart Tightwads

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: December 20, 2008

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0"

[hcap]

Who died and made KRISTOF the authority on charity? His article is from 2008 and one guy he quotes is part of the AEI.

A more up rto date study.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033

Abstract:
Voluntary contributions from individuals are the lifeblood of nonprofit organizations, which in turn fund a large portion of social services in the United States. Given this reliance donor generosity, it is important to understand who contributes, and to where. In this paper, we argue against the conventional wisdom that political conservatives are inherently more generous toward private charities than liberals. At the individual level, the large bivariate relationship between giving and conservatism vanishes after adjusting for differences in income and religiosity. At the state level, we find no evidence of a relationship between charitable giving and Republican presidential voteshare. Finally, we show that any remaining differences in giving are an artifact of Republicans' greater propensity to give to religious causes, particularly their own church. Taken together, our results counter the notion that political conservatives compensate for their opposition to governmental intervention by supporting private charities.


Btw, social change and common rights really must be done through governmental actions. We are talking about change that cannot be classified as charitable giving.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Who died and made KRISTOF the authority on charity? His article is from 2008 and one guy he quotes is part of the AEI.
.

You liberals are great - you don't like the message, so you attack the source. And we all know Nic Kristof is a big-time conservative. :rolleyes:

Again, stop advocating the theft of other people's money. Instead, open up your wallet and make a donation. Don't be the typical cheap liberal that Nic references. Compassionate with others' money, but no compassion with your own. Shame on you liberals.

[hcap]

Sorry Mike there is no conclusive evidence for your charitable giving blathering. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence for conservatives cutting social programs based on the conservative maker/taker meme bullshit.

How many voters did Romney write off because they were just lazy takers?

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what… These are people who pay no income tax..."[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

And this is what goes on here all the time.

[Clocker]

Btw, social change and common rights really must be done through governmental actions.


So according to you, social change can't come from society, it must be imposed by the government. How's that worked out? Almost universally disasterously. Case in point, income inequality, an unintended consequence of big government.

And the only to "common rights" from the government are almost universally restrictions on them. We don't need any changes to our rights, except to honor them.