So, this has been happening....

[goldfly]

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1622832_10152156441403559_1254601850_n.png

[The Chosen One]

The free market would solve this. When I figure out how I'll let you know.

[zitothebrave]

I posted this or something close to it in another thread, it went ignored.

[sturg33]

The free market would solve this. When I figure out how I'll let you know.

Interesting that as more and more government regulation and money printing enters the equation, the gap gets wider and wider. Crazy man!

[The Chosen One]

Interesting that as more and more government regulation and money printing enters the equation, the gap gets wider and wider. Crazy man!

We should be like Russia. A 13% flat tax,no deficit, and has the biggest wealth inequality in the world.

[Oklahomahawk]

The regulations all work in one direction and for one group and ironically that's the same group that has made out like bandits like the Reagan 80's and yet conservatives still can't see the fix is in until it 2x4's them up side the head personally.

[zitothebrave]

Interesting that as more and more government regulation and money printing enters the equation, the gap gets wider and wider. Crazy man!

Well I think you could also point to a number of things. For example, tax rates. Of course the improved technology will create part of it. But it shouldn't be that steep.

[50PoundHead]

Bill Moyers' speech from a decade ago that kind of sums it up. And I don't want to blame the Republicans for all of this. The Democrats have become only slightly less slavish in their attitudes toward the plutocracy. And yeah, this is Bill Moyers, so you have to take with a grain of salt given his background and ideological bent, but this still sums things up. Near the bottom, you'll see the reference to Nixon Treasury Secretary William Simon and the mid-1970s is when the plutocratic 40-year plan started to take root.

Link: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0616-09.htm

[thethe]

I am most certainly a free market guy but the growing wealth inequality is going to be a huge problem moving forward. This is recipee of a revolution. Too much is catered to the absolute wealthy of the world and that needs to be stopped.

[sturg33]

If anyone doesn't understand the wealth gap is being caused by the federal reserve money printing spree, they can't be reasoned with.

All of that free money is going straight to the banks. That money is not going to the poor and middle class

[thethe]

If anyone doesn't understand the wealth gap is being caused by the federal reserve money printing spree, they can't be reasoned with.

All of that free money is going straight to the banks. That money is not going to the poor and middle class

I clearl dont' know close to what you do but wouldn't that just decrease the total dollars in the market? How would that change the percentage of who owns what?

[The Chosen One]

I clearl dont' know close to what you do but wouldn't that just decrease the total dollars in the market? How would that change the percentage of who owns what?

Exactly. An 8/10 ratio is still the same as 4/5 or 16/20.

[50PoundHead]

If anyone doesn't understand the wealth gap is being caused by the federal reserve money printing spree, they can't be reasoned with.

All of that free money is going straight to the banks. That money is not going to the poor and middle class

From my perspective, that's relatively recent and while I admit it may be contributing now, the massive steps toward deregulation that occurred starting with the Carter administration and the jimmying around with the tax code haven't helped. I basically agree that once you have money (banks, mega-conglomerates, etc.) it's pretty easy to wall yourself off and reap the benefits of pretty much any policy.

I understand your commitment to the gold standard and while I don't agree, I also don't believe that the economy would have expanded as rapidly if we had stayed on it. And maybe that wouldn't have been such a bad thing.

[FreemanFan]

The growing wealth inequality gap is certainly a problem. Middle income Americans are getting crushed. I disagree with the Obama administration's plan to close the gap, though. The solution is not to discourage wealth creation and investment, thereby reducing wealth at the top. Instead of playing class or income-level warfare, I would rather see changes which will benefit all Americans, or the vast majority. Repealing or revamping Obamacare and reforming the tax code would be two good places to start, IMO.

[The Chosen One]

It gets better.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ryan-poverty-20140304,0,24042.story#axzz2v0GBnn94

[Tapate50]

It gets better.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ryan-poverty-20140304,0,24042.story#axzz2v0GBnn94

I guess it gets better, if you think that was an unbiased article with just the facts from the LA Times is "better".

This pretty much sums up the purpose of his budget:

"This report will help start the conversation," Ryan said. "It shows that some programs work; others don't. And for many of them, we just don't know. Clearly, we can do better."

It isn't what the article makes it out to be...

[The Chosen One]

I guess it gets better, if you think that was an unbiased article with just the facts from the LA Times is "better".

This pretty much sums up the purpose of his budget:

"This report will help start the conversation," Ryan said. "It shows that some programs work; others don't. And for many of them, we just don't know. Clearly, we can do better."

It isn't what the article makes it out to be...

Not a fan of Paul Ryan. He may be young in age but he's been apart of the Republican establishment in the House for 15 years.

I could decipher the many false facts he laid out in the campaign.

[Tapate50]

Not a fan of Paul Ryan. He may be young in age but he's been apart of the Republican establishment in the House for 15 years.

I could decipher the many false facts he laid out in the campaign.

I had no idea! You hide your spite beautifully!

Forget the campaign, he just put a budget proposal out there. Blindly assuming that all welfare and poverty programs are the best way to address the issue is just idiotic. Audit the programs, see what is working and see how best to spend your dollar... or we could just cross our fingers that the Fed programs (Sure they are! its the Fed isn't it? ) are perfect just the way they are and blast anyone suggesting otherwise. I mean...its getting better right? (It isn't)

There is a finite amount of money available. Cuts have to be made in lots of areas. The best way is to find the most efficient use of your dollar. The best way is programs that get people OFF government assistance, not dependent on it. Sadly, the most effective programs for this are privately funded on the local level and fueled by contributions other than the government.

[The Chosen One]

Paul must have forgotten the billions of dollars he got in federal money to bring to Wisconsin the last few years on pork stuff.

[Tapate50]

Paul must have forgotten the billions of dollars he got in federal money to bring to Wisconsin the last few years on pork stuff.

He is sent to DC to secure money needed for his constituents. Above all, thats his job (to rep his voters). I feel like you just made a backhanded compliment.

[The Chosen One]

He is sent to DC to secure money needed for his constituents. Above all, thats his job (to rep his voters). I feel like you just made a backhanded compliment.

Of course that's his job, but if he wants to start talking about cuts and waste... he should check his resume first. Instead of being the lone ranger on fiscal responsibility, look in the mirror.

[Tapate50]

Of course that's his job, but if he wants to start talking about cuts and waste... he should check his resume first. Instead of being the lone ranger on fiscal responsibility, look in the mirror.

Are you claiming the money he got for his voters that they needed.... Waste?

What would they call it?

[The Chosen One]

Are you claiming the money he got for his voters that they needed.... Waste?

What would they call it?

Why do you insist I'm arguing it from his constituent's perspective.

I'm strictly saying on the federal level, he's been the right's posterchild for fiscal responsibility and cuts. Yet he reigns in pork as good as anyone else. Yes he's doing his district a good duty, but let's not pretend his state doesn't receive welfare money too that he's so desperately wants to cut.

Also, since he lives in a very very conservative district, I'd say his constituents don't care about the pork.

[sturg33]

Paul Ryan is a joke. And anything who thinks he's a fiscal conservative is not paying attention.

Having said that, I don't think people understand what earmarking is and why it happens.

[50PoundHead]

If a legislator is getting funding for something in his district that has a legitimate public purpose beyond his district, that's not pork. But I really laugh when the same folks who do this for the sake of jobs in their districts and then turn around and claim that John Maynard Keynes the anti-Christ. It just gets a bit rich.

I don't know if I'd go as far as sturg33 in labeling Ryan a joke, but he's pretty thin broth.

[The Chosen One]

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/q71/s720x720/1900053_639881569416321_1809052002_n.jpg

[Oklahomahawk]

Dude, you'd have an easier time convincing every conservative on this board that Obama is the greatest president ever than you would in convincing them that Reagan ever did anything wrong. Even if you show them some of the stuff he did you'd at best get an "well he had his reasons" or "I'd still take him over....". Once you get to this level of name recognition and acceptance I"m surprised they don't build and name a church in his name. I know this will probably offend some of you guys, but I seem to be on a roll with that lately anyway, so...

Reagan did also do some epically good things as president, but he was guilty of all the things in your pic, and more, but they could literally see him committing ritual human sacrifice, while taking part in a satanic worship ceremony, while robbing a convenience store and performing unclean acts with a goat and they would simply shrug if off. They're more blind and insanely devoted to this guy's memory than all Dems are about Clinton, Obama, JFK, and FDR all combined. It's one thing to like or admire a current or former president but Republican idolizing of this guy is beyond crazy AND scary!!!

[The Chosen One]

Dude, you'd have an easier time convincing every conservative on this board that Obama is the greatest president ever than you would in convincing them that Reagan ever did anything wrong. Even if you show them some of the stuff he did you'd at best get an "well he had his reasons" or "I'd still take him over....". Once you get to this level of name recognition and acceptance I"m surprised they don't build and name a church in his name. I know this will probably offend some of you guys, but I seem to be on a roll with that lately anyway, so...

Reagan did also do some epically good things as president, but he was guilty of all the things in your pic, and more, but they could literally see him committing ritual human sacrifice, while taking part in a satanic worship ceremony, while robbing a convenience store and performing unclean acts with a goat and they would simply shrug if off. They're more blind and insanely devoted to this guy's memory than all Dems are about Clinton, Obama, JFK, and FDR all combined. It's one thing to like or admire a current or former president but Republican idolizing of this guy is beyond crazy AND scary!!!

I think this would be a more thorough and cover more of what you said when you said "and more".

http://oi43.tinypic.com/4kwl5y.jpg

[Tapate50]

KL is big into the "i told you so stuff lately". Must be the end of the month and his internet points are low.

[The Chosen One]

KL is big into the "i told you so stuff lately". Must be the end of the month and his internet points are low.

I'm trying to catch up with Julio's thanks total but it's not working. I'm a failure in e-life.

[The Chosen One]

My biggest I told ya so was for a decade telling people Chipper Jones' best swings came with 2 hands on the bat and not letting go of the top hand. If only he'd listen to me. He'd have 500hrs and be a first ballot HOF

[Julio3000]

My biggest I told ya so was for a decade telling people Chipper Jones' best swings came with 2 hands on the bat and not letting go of the top hand. If only he'd listen to me. He'd have 500hrs and be a first ballot HOF

Haha, I remember that. The 12-year-old batting mechanics SAVant.

[weso1]

Dude, you'd have an easier time convincing every conservative on this board that Obama is the greatest president ever than you would in convincing them that Reagan ever did anything wrong. Even if you show them some of the stuff he did you'd at best get an "well he had his reasons" or "I'd still take him over....". Once you get to this level of name recognition and acceptance I"m surprised they don't build and name a church in his name. I know this will probably offend some of you guys, but I seem to be on a roll with that lately anyway, so...

Reagan did also do some epically good things as president, but he was guilty of all the things in your pic, and more, but they could literally see him committing ritual human sacrifice, while taking part in a satanic worship ceremony, while robbing a convenience store and performing unclean acts with a goat and they would simply shrug if off. They're more blind and insanely devoted to this guy's memory than all Dems are about Clinton, Obama, JFK, and FDR all combined. It's one thing to like or admire a current or former president but Republican idolizing of this guy is beyond crazy AND scary!!!

Obviously he made mistakes, but it's all relative. I mean compared to most presidents Reagan's cons list is pretty tame and his pros list is pretty impressive. When looking at it from an unbiased perspective that is. Plus as per usual memes are misleading. Great, Reagan raised taxes 11 times but what was the highest rate when he was sworn in and what was it when he left?

Sav's 2nd Meme is just absurd and not worthy of legitimate debate. Tapate is right, Sav was going for e cred on that one. His e sheep backed him up.:cooter:

Also, the idea that Reagan ignored AIDS is just a myth. Did he do enough? Probably not, but the federal government spent billions of dollars on AIDS research during his tenure, which is far from ignoring it.

[Julio3000]

I think a lot of the mythmaking surrounding Reagan does tend to ignore the man himself. He gets a pass from conservatives for the misery in El Salvador and Guatemala, and, jeez, let's not even get started on Iran-Contra. If Benghazi is some kind of unforgivable scandal, what the hell do you call covertly selling sophisticated weapons to an acknowledged enemy, then using to the proceeds to illegally fund an insurgent movement in a sovereign country?

[Oklahomahawk]

Obviously he made mistakes, but it's all relative. I mean compared to most presidents Reagan's cons list is pretty tame and his pros list is pretty impressive. When looking at it from an unbiased perspective that is. Plus as per usual memes are misleading. Great, Reagan raised taxes 11 times but what was the highest rate when he was sworn in and what was it when he left?

Sav's 2nd Meme is just absurd and not worthy of legitimate debate. Tapate is right, Sav was going for e cred on that one. His e sheep backed him up.:cooter:

Also, the idea that Reagan ignored AIDS is just a myth. Did he do enough? Probably not, but the federal government spent billions of dollars on AIDS research during his tenure, which is far from ignoring it.

Is there any such thing as an unbiased when talking about a politician??? You WILL notice that when anyone talks disparagingly about any Repub icon the bucket brigade WILL show up to defend them, it isn't always the same person mind you, but they will be out, usually with some prepackaged Repub talking points or a nice article from a far right website to try and discredit the disparagers (kudos to you for all original thoughts!!!) but isn't that fairly close to e behavior?? Anyway I was THE Reagan Republican back then, more hardcore than anyone on this board except for probably Vol and King and I don't know where the hell they get theirs from. You'll also notice I did say a couple of good things about him. I also remember what things were really like back then and I remember how he started (or at least oversaw) the process of a military buildup that caused the Soviet economy to implode (yeah I know there was more to it than that but I still give him a lot of credit for that) only to turn around and let the defense contractors, the savings and loan bigshots and big business in general anal rape the federal treasury for his presidency, a practice that's still going on today. He did make light of AIDS, created the concept of the welfare grandma, and did some other pretty crappy stuff. Oh and you'll notice I was a good boy this time and didn't even bring up Iran-Contra or the October Surprise. :icon_biggrin:

By the way, in spite of his warts he's still more epic than any pretender Repub we've had since then.


EDIT: What second meme?

[The Chosen One]

You've gone from being on a roll to AVALANCHE!!

[Oklahomahawk]

You've gone from being on a roll to AVALANCHE!!

Just spreading the truth brah, but I doubt many will admit to that. It also helps when you're the freakin' Highlander and you've been around long enough to see a LOT of presidents come and go..............

[The Chosen One]

Just spreading the truth brah, but I doubt many will admit to that. It also helps when you're the freakin' Highlander and you've been around long enough to see a LOT of presidents come and go..............

What was it like to see Grover Cleveland get elected in non consecutive terms?

[weso1]

I think a lot of the mythmaking surrounding Reagan does tend to ignore the man himself. He gets a pass from conservatives for the misery in El Salvador and Guatemala, and, jeez, let's not even get started on Iran-Contra. If Benghazi is some kind of unforgivable scandal, what the hell do you call covertly selling sophisticated weapons to an acknowledged enemy, then using to the proceeds to illegally fund an insurgent movement in a sovereign country?

You consistently bring up the point that foreign policy is complicated when defending Obama. Shouldn't we consider the same when discussing Reagan's foreign policy decisions? Or do we have all the answers there? Every president has blood on his hands either by action or inaction. Obama certainly has and will have blood on his hands via the middle east. But in the end I think we need to look at it from a relative sense. How did Reagan's decisions effect the US and the world compare to the decisions of other presidents? Was it truly that significant even though the blood shed existed? The US became very prosperous after Reagan and his philosophical predecessor left office in the 90's.

The mistakes of Presidents are amplified due to the magnitude of those decisions. So what were the worst decisions Reagan made and how did that impact the US in the world. Sometimes I also think we as human beings see political decisions we disagree with and assume they are mistakes.

[Oklahomahawk]

What was it like to see Grover Cleveland get elected in non consecutive terms?

Eh, he wasn't nearly as good a pitcher as they made him out to be, I don't know how in the heck he got into the HOF

[weso1]

Is there any such thing as an unbiased when talking about a politician??? You WILL notice that when anyone talks disparagingly about any Repub icon the bucket brigade WILL show up to defend them, it isn't always the same person mind you, but they will be out, usually with some prepackaged Repub talking points or a nice article from a far right website to try and discredit the disparagers (kudos to you for all original thoughts!!!) but isn't that fairly close to e behavior?? Anyway I was THE Reagan Republican back then, more hardcore than anyone on this board except for probably Vol and King and I don't know where the hell they get theirs from. You'll also notice I did say a couple of good things about him. I also remember what things were really like back then and I remember how he started (or at least oversaw) the process of a military buildup that caused the Soviet economy to implode (yeah I know there was more to it than that but I still give him a lot of credit for that) only to turn around and let the defense contractors, the savings and loan bigshots and big business in general anal rape the federal treasury for his presidency, a practice that's still going on today. He did make light of AIDS, created the concept of the welfare grandma, and did some other pretty crappy stuff. Oh and you'll notice I was a good boy this time and didn't even bring up Iran-Contra or the October Surprise. :icon_biggrin:

By the way, in spite of his warts he's still more epic than any pretender Repub we've had since then.


EDIT: What second meme?

So why complain about the people who defend Reagan rather than the people who post misleading memes about Reagan? Why not make your post when libs on this board defend Obama at all costs? These centrist posts of yours ring hollow when they only lecture one side of the aisle.

But my main point on Reagan is that obviously the mistakes are there, but it's relative. You seem to agree with that.

[Oklahomahawk]

Shouldn't we consider the same when discussing Reagan's foreign policy decisions? Every president has blood on his hands either by action or inaction. Obama certainly has and will have blood on his hands via the middle east. But in the end I think we need to look at it from a relative sense. How did Reagan's decisions effect the US and the world compare to the decisions of other presidents? Was it truly that significant even though the blood shed existed? The US became very prosperous after Reagan and his philosophical predecessor left office in the 90's.

The mistakes of Presidents are amplified due to the magnitude of those decisions. So what were the worst decisions Reagan made and how did that impact the US in the world. Sometimes I also think we as human beings see political decisions we disagree with and assume they are mistakes.

I know this wasn't to me but I'm about to go watch TV so I thought I would throw this out first. I edited what you posted a little but not with the intent to change the meaning. I tried to keep some of both sides. I pretty much agree with what you said about Obama and Reagan. Obama gave the orders that dropped the Somali pirates and he gave the orders that got Bin Laden, big kudos for those, but other than that he has no foreign policy IMO. Reagan did some epic good things (I already noted at least some of them, with the end of the Cold War being at least partially credited to stuff he did) he also cut and run from the Middle East because he (Reagan) felt, as Sheldon said put it (about women ironically) on a past episode of Big Bang Theory, those bitches be crazy. I remember those times, I remember the headlines, the news, the other stuff and remember I was a hardcore Repub so I would have filtered out any anti Repub nonsense. Reagan was epically good in some ways, epically terrible in others. At least, I guess you could say, he was epic and not a president to bore you to death.

[weso1]

I know this wasn't to me but I'm about to go watch TV so I thought I would throw this out first. I edited what you posted a little but not with the intent to change the meaning. I tried to keep some of both sides. I pretty much agree with what you said about Obama and Reagan. Obama gave the orders that dropped the Somali pirates and he gave the orders that got Bin Laden, big kudos for those, but other than that he has no foreign policy IMO. Reagan did some epic good things (I already noted at least some of them, with the end of the Cold War being at least partially credited to stuff he did) he also cut and run from the Middle East because he (Reagan) felt, as Sheldon said put it (about women ironically) on a past episode of Big Bang Theory, those bitches be crazy. I remember those times, I remember the headlines, the news, the other stuff and remember I was a hardcore Repub so I would have filtered out any anti Repub nonsense. Reagan was epically good in some ways, epically terrible in others. At least, I guess you could say, he was epic and not a president to bore you to death.

I think Obama definitely has a plan on foreign policy. I think it's just a case of time will tell if it is successful. It's fun to talk about foreign policy, but it's impossible to know all the facts. I think from now on I'll just take a wait and see approach on it.

[The Chosen One]

I think Obama definitely has a plan on foreign policy. I think it's just a case of time will tell if it is successful. It's fun to talk about foreign policy, but it's impossible to know all the facts. I think from now on I'll just take a wait and see approach on it.

I commend you for that. That's refreshing to hear.

[Oklahomahawk]

So why complain about the people who defend Reagan rather than the people who post misleading memes about Reagan? Why not make your post when libs on this board defend Obama at all costs? These centrist posts of yours ring hollow when they only lecture one side of the aisle.

But my main point on Reagan is that obviously the mistakes are there, but it's relative. You seem to agree with that.


OK, help the old guy out, what exactly was misleading about the meme posted on this same page (I'm not sure about any other one if you're talking about it). Is some of the wording different than what I would have done? Yeah, somewhat, but it isn't that far off, unless we're not talking about the same things. I know being around and living through these things isn't really considered "fact based evidence" to you guys, I catch the same stuff from Bedell sometimes, you guys want to check what I say to be true/false and you can't find it on your "reliable sources". That's because it isn't there, it went the same place as the "possible evidence" O'Reilly was talking about on his show a while back regarding the JFK assassination. He wrote the book (OK somebody else wrote it but he helped!!!) and he was asked about a 2nd shooter, etc. and he said essentially he couldn't swear one way or the other but he went to Dallas and did the research and he couldn't find any such evidence. Well duh, I wonder why? It's because IF it was ever there it was eliminated 50 years ago by the Warren Commission folks, that is IF it was ever there.

As for me being a centrist, eh I"m not a centrist, I'm just an asshole who does his best to tell what he believes to be the truth, and the whole truth, not the doctored up left or right truth. I tend to think if you weigh everything in its entirety and averaged it all up I'd be somewhere in the middle but there would be some zig zagging along the way. I know you're just trying to take up for your guys and that's commendable and you want to see Obama get the same crappy treatment that your guy got and that's fine too. The fact is I don't give 2 craps about the current administration. As far as I'm concerned the Dems serve only 3 purposes in this world:
1.) They aren't the Republicans
2.) They royally piss off the Republicans
3.) Even though they claim to care about things like outsourcing, wealth inequality, the economic game being rigged, keeping the world free against aggression, and so on, they haven't done jack schidt about it for what now almost 6 years, that sucks and the only thing I can say would be worse than their utter suckiness is the current crop of Repubs who actually seem to think the rich simply aren't rich enough yet, even though the top 20% own 90% of the wealth in this country. Even if the bullschidt Repub belief that the poor are just lazy and fat (you know, the takers) and overfed (too much SNAP), the rich are just harder working, more industrious, they are the good folks, (the givers) and even though they're richer than 6 feet up a bull's arse they're really the real picked on minority in this country, which is just the BS I accused it of by the way.
In short whether you guys see it or not the Repub agenda is actively destroying the middle class in this country for their own selfish gain, the Dems are pretty much useless but at least they only passively stand by and allow it to happen more slowly.

Tell the Repubs to get their heads out of their arses and I'll think about supporting them, but they won't do that, they're sure they already have everything right and it's just the greedy poor people and those too blind to see through Obama (I mean come on, how hard can that be)??? Their arrogance is worse than it was when flipped them the bird and walked away from their TEA Party (yeah ok, pun intended) several years back. Talk radio is going to be the death of that party and quite possibly the nation. You want proof of how bad the Repubs are, Sarah Palin (who we've all spent way more time talking about lately than she deserves) is absolutely terrible and she isn't even in the top 3 big name Republican Dumas Club.

[Julio3000]

You consistently bring up the point that foreign policy is complicated when defending Obama. Shouldn't we consider the same when discussing Reagan's foreign policy decisions? Or do we have all the answers there? Every president has blood on his hands either by action or inaction. Obama certainly has and will have blood on his hands via the middle east. But in the end I think we need to look at it from a relative sense. How did Reagan's decisions effect the US and the world compare to the decisions of other presidents? Was it truly that significant even though the blood shed existed? The US became very prosperous after Reagan and his philosophical predecessor left office in the 90's.

The mistakes of Presidents are amplified due to the magnitude of those decisions. So what were the worst decisions Reagan made and how did that impact the US in the world. Sometimes I also think we as human beings see political decisions we disagree with and assume they are mistakes.

That's a fair point. Still, I think Iran-Contra was pretty cut-and-dried.

[Oklahomahawk]

I think Obama definitely has a plan on foreign policy. I think it's just a case of time will tell if it is successful. It's fun to talk about foreign policy, but it's impossible to know all the facts. I think from now on I'll just take a wait and see approach on it.

I"m sure he does, LOL. It's probably the same plan Stonewall Jackson's replacement Dick Ewell had on the first day of Gettysburg. Lee told him to take the Stonewall brigade up there to the north end of Cemetary Ridge and take that high ground as soon as it was "practicable", well Ewell went up there and fought for a little while and decided if he just waited long enough the Yankees would all just leave of their own accord and it would be a lot easier. Obama's plan is either to wait until the Russians all die or get bored and leave, or maybe he's trying to figure out if he can afford to pay them to go home. Even the German chancellor said he was batsh!t crazy (Putin) and coming from a German chancellor isn't that pretty high praise?

[Oklahomahawk]

So why complain about the people who defend Reagan rather than the people who post misleading memes about Reagan?

Sorry, but I did not see this sentence earlier and think it's worth addressing. I know you guys (the Repubs) don't believe me or agree with me. I get that and it's totally your right to believe that way and run with it. I agree I"m harder on you guys than I am on the Dem supporters, just I'm harder on the Repub party than I am on the Dems. I believe the Dems on this board are good folks and that they believe what the Dems tell them for all the right reasons, I just don't typically agree with a lot of those reasons. I still like them and their intentions though. When I see some of the Repub followers I just don't get why you guys can't see through the Repub crap!! I know you guys, I've known most of you for over a decade. You're smarter than that, yet you hang on and go along with their BS, I suppose for the same reason the Dems follow their people. For some reason it just bothers me more to see someone like Vol for example who is SOOOOOOOOOOOO freakin' right wing it literally makes me sick to my stomach. I don't know if you guys really know Vol but I've spent time talking to him away from this forum, we play fantasy football together and have for years so we can let the persona stuff go and just talk and I"m telling you he is a real legitimate American success story and an incredibly smart guy, in fact I'll put him up against anybody on this board, bar none, that is until he starts talking politics and then I just shake my head and don't even know what to say. He was even a big Batsh!t Glenn Beck follower for years (though he promised me he had been to rehab and wasn't any more) They don't make words to describe how that whole situation makes me feel. Maybe it's the educator in me who just can't let it go when he sees people being misled. You can literally bring up anything you've seen or heard in the news, anything that's going on in the world or even freakin' sports analogies and he's got a quip that he spits out in 3 seconds or less about how it's the Dems who effed this situation or that situation up and if the Repubs just had their way.......

Anyway, I know none of us is in any danger of saving anyone else's political soul, so thanks for letting me rant everyone, good night and I hope you guys solve all the world's problems...

[Oklahomahawk]

That's a fair point. Still, I think Iran-Contra was pretty cut-and-dried.

Dude, the official Repub stance on Iran-Contra is that about the first 1/2 of it didn't actually happen, it was just all a Dem lie to try and implicate "you know who" in a scandal that at least borders on treason. You're NEVER going to get them to go along with any part of that one, trust me I've been trying for over 10 years.

[jpx7]

Reagan is in the bottom-ten of US Presidents, in my mind, without much equivocation—though he's not quite a Grant-level ****-up.

I think either Bush has a more illustrious record—or, I should say, a less deleterious record.

[zitothebrave]

Reagan is in the bottom-ten of US Presidents, in my mind, without much equivocation—though he's not quite a Grant-level ****-up.

I think either Bush has a more illustrious record—or, I should say, a less deleterious record.

I could get behind Reagan being bottom 10. Mainly because of the superficial change he put on the presidency and the economic shift which has put us where we are now and who konws where in the future. I think history will not be kind to Reagan while it will be kinder to say Nixon and Bush 1.

[sturg33]

Reagan is in the bottom-ten of US Presidents, in my mind, without much equivocation—though he's not quite a Grant-level ****-up.

I think either Bush has a more illustrious record—or, I should say, a less deleterious record.

Where would you put someone like FDR? Who is a bottom 5 for me...

[Hawk]

It all depends on the criteria used to determine the top and bottom (cough) candidates.

What makes a good President? Is it his domestic policy, foreign policy, economy policy -- relationship with the citizenry, or with congress? The list goes on. And it is nigh impossible to find a President whose success is amalgamation of the aforementioned.

Liberals enjoy ****ting on Reagan because he is beloved by Conservatives.
Republicans love ****ting on Clinton because he is beloved by Liberals.

Yawn.

We can all agree that Carter is worth ****ting on, I guess. Although he was on the money about the "Crisis of Confidence" and his Energy Policy was beyond its years.

Obama, at this point in his Presidency, now has approval ratings lower than Jimmy Carter. Will we look back and applaud the ... ACA?

People think it's funny to hate on W., although he enjoyed the highest approval rating of all time (90) in 2001 (I guess the 10% who disapproved reside around these parts).

Point is, our 'approval' is rather meaningless.

[The Chosen One]

It all depends on the criteria used to determine the top and bottom (cough) candidates.

What makes a good President? Is it his domestic policy, foreign policy, economy policy -- relationship with the citizenry, or with congress? The list goes on. And it is nigh impossible to find a President whose success is amalgamation of the aforementioned.

Liberals enjoy ****ting on Reagan because he is beloved by Conservatives.
Republicans love ****ting on Clinton because he is beloved by Liberals.

Yawn.

We can all agree that Carter is worth ****ting on, I guess. Although he was on the money about the "Crisis of Confidence" and his Energy Policy was beyond its years.

Obama, at this point in his Presidency, now has approval ratings lower than Jimmy Carter. Will we look back and applaud the ... ACA?

People think it's funny to hate on W., although he enjoyed the highest approval rating of all time (90) in 2001 (I guess the 10% who disapproved is around these parts).

Point is, our 'approval' is rather meaningless.

His approval was after 9/11. I think most presidents would have been in and handled it similarly. After 9/11 nearly all of America was thirsty for blood. I was 11 and I was fully behind him as was my dad who is a lifelong Democrat. That was the power of fear after 9/11 the fear of going to the mall or anywhere out in public and risk having getting hurt.

Clinton left with the highest approval rating.

I think bo's rating is low in part to the huge negativity from the right. Anything he does good or bad is spun terribly. The sturg's of the world are by default not going to like anything he does.

[Hawk]

His approval was after 9/11. I think most presidents would have been in and handled it similarly. After 9/11 nearly all of America was thirsty for blood. I was 11 and I was fully behind him as was my dad who is a lifelong Democrat. That was the power of fear after 9/11 the fear of going to the mall or anywhere out in public and risk having getting hurt.

Clinton left with the highest approval rating.

I think bo's rating is low in part to the huge negativity from the right. Anything he does good or bad is spun terribly. The sturg's of the world are by default not going to like anything he does.

It's interesting, both Presidents Bush enjoyed higher average approval ratings than Obama has, so far, with the very distinct possibility of 44's numbers continuing to nosedive.

The 9/11 theory is worth considering, and certainly boosted Bush's approval, but I would stop short of giving the event full responsibility for his positive public opinion. FDR barely scratched 80% after the attacks on Pearl Harbor (arguably more egregious than the attacks in NYC) and Truman only reached 87% after V-E day.

[zitothebrave]

Where would you put someone like FDR? Who is a bottom 5 for me...

Yeah, winning WWII sure was easy.

[weso1]

Reagan is top ten to fifteen (top 20 at worst) for those who truly look at it from an unbiased perspective. That's a fair rating. I'd have the first Bush ranked pretty high too.

[zitothebrave]

Reagan is top ten to fifteen (top 20 at worst) for those who truly look at it from an unbiased perspective. That's a fair rating. I'd have the first Bush ranked pretty high too.

That's not really unbiased.

Most lists on aggregate have him around 17 or so. That's including the uber republican friendly ones. Again I think he'll come down over time.

[weso1]

I guess it's possible future presidents could push him down, but with all the internet snoopers out there I would be surprised. It sure aint going to be Obama unless something dramatic happens over the next couple years. So I think 10 - 20 is fair on Reagan and he'll probably stay put there for a while. Anything below 20 and you're getting into homerism territory.

[zitothebrave]

I hate Reagan, he's not the worst, but I think over time when we realize how terrible the movement in the economy that started in his reign was.

[weso1]

I hate Reagan, he's not the worst, but I think over time when we realize how terrible the movement in the economy that started in his reign was.

You seem quite biased. The economy will be fine once we recover from the housing crisis. The housing crisis just flumoxed everything and screwed up median household net worth. But eventually that will come back.

Honestly the economy is rolling just fine outside of the occasional recessions, which are inevitable.

[Oklahomahawk]

You seem quite biased. The economy will be fine once we recover from the housing crisis. The housing crisis just flumoxed everything and screwed up median household net worth. But eventually that will come back.

Honestly the economy is rolling just fine outside of the occasional recessions, which are inevitable.

weso, the economy is not fine, it has not been fine, and will not ever be fine with 20% of the population owning 90% of the wealth in country and this gets worse every single year. You can ease your mind with the typical Repub lines if it makes you feel better but while I am convinced communism is a stupid system that doesn't work, capitalism with this kind of effed up wealth distribution won't work either People have to have some incentive, your party's friends have all but taken that away and it started during Reagan's terms. Ignoring it won't make things better. Oh and as for Bush 41, google the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal sometime and find a good thorough article and see if you recognize any of the prime offenders last name.

[zitothebrave]

You seem quite biased. The economy will be fine once we recover from the housing crisis. The housing crisis just flumoxed everything and screwed up median household net worth. But eventually that will come back.

Honestly the economy is rolling just fine outside of the occasional recessions, which are inevitable.

It's fine of rnow but at some point deby based spending has to stop. And that's when Reagan willbe reconned upon.

Look at the graph and notice when the first major jumps started

http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/increases-us-debt-limit-560.jpg

Don't get me wrong, every president since Reagan has contributed.

[weso1]

It's unfair to extrapolate Reagan's debt spending out to today. Reagan clearly had no intention to create some exorbitant debt total. Most of what was spent on the debt was in regards to ending the Cold War which wasn't meant to be long lasting, and wasn't. Debt hasn't been a real issue until the most recent financial crisis.

[weso1]

weso, the economy is not fine, it has not been fine, and will not ever be fine with 20% of the population owning 90% of the wealth in country and this gets worse every single year. You can ease your mind with the typical Repub lines if it makes you feel better but while I am convinced communism is a stupid system that doesn't work, capitalism with this kind of effed up wealth distribution won't work either People have to have some incentive, your party's friends have all but taken that away and it started during Reagan's terms. Ignoring it won't make things better. Oh and as for Bush 41, google the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal sometime and find a good thorough article and see if you recognize any of the prime offenders last name.

But the economy has been fine in the past. That's fine if you think it will never be fine again. We just disagree on that.

You talking about Neil Bush's scandal? I seriously doubt Bush 41 was involved in that. It wouldn't make any sense.

[zitothebrave]

It's unfair to extrapolate Reagan's debt spending out to today. Reagan clearly had no intention to create some exorbitant debt total. Most of what was spent on the debt was in regards to ending the Cold War which wasn't meant to be long lasting, and wasn't. Debt hasn't been a real issue until the most recent financial crisis.

Reagan started that spending, no president did that before. Speculating on what Reagan wanted or not is moronic. Obama wants universal health care, but gave us ****ty Obamacare.

[weso1]

Reagan started that spending, no president did that before. Speculating on what Reagan wanted or not is moronic. Obama wants universal health care, but gave us ****ty Obamacare.

But Reagan hasn't been president in nearly 30 years. You're blaming all debt after he was in office on him? And what do you mean no president did that before? We've had a long history of federal debt way before Reagan was in office.

[zitothebrave]

Reagan's economic strategy is debt based, so yeah I'm blaming debt on him after he left office.

[weso1]

Reagan's economic strategy is debt based, so yeah I'm blaming debt on him after he left office.

I wouldn't call it debt based, but even if you're right I don't understand how that applies to our current debt. I mean are you going to blame Obama if Hillary Clinton decides to raise taxes to 80%? His economic policy is tax based after all, so she's just continuing what he started. No, I mean there are clearly sustainable levels of debt and then we have what we have now.

I think your assumption that Reagan's policies implied some infinite increase in federal debt is misguided.

[zitothebrave]

That's silly. Reagan increased the debt 188.6% during his term.

[Oklahomahawk]

But the economy has been fine in the past. That's fine if you think it will never be fine again. We just disagree on that.

You talking about Neil Bush's scandal? I seriously doubt Bush 41 was involved in that. It wouldn't make any sense.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we aren't going to agree on much if we're talking about the 80's and that's fine, but google (I assume you trust google to not be a left wing schill) wealth distribution by class and find a grid/table/chart that you feel comes from a source you think is relatively honest and go back to the 1980's and then follow how things were then and how they've developed into how they are now. Remember this though, I'm not setting up what I think we need to do next regarding the unfreakingbelievable disparity in wealth and I'm not even calling out the top 5%-10% (mainly) on what a bunch greedy c*cksuckers I think they are, I'm really just talking about how thing were wealth distribution wise 30 years ago and then see how things are now and I challenge you and all other Repubs to just say "oh well things have been bad before economically speaking and they got better ergo they're going to get better again". Well your Repub buddies had better get their heads out of their arses and start making some changes in how they do business or things WILL start to equalize out but not in a way they're going to be happy about.

Oh and on the Neil Bush/Bush 41 thing check the dates and ask yourself what really big went on around that same time that made everyone forget about Silverado and really all the savings and loan scandals.

[weso1]

That's silly. Reagan increased the debt 188.6% during his term.

And if you have a penny and I give you 3 cents then I've increased your wealth by 200%. YOU'RE RICH!

[weso1]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we aren't going to agree on much if we're talking about the 80's and that's fine, but google (I assume you trust google to not be a left wing schill) wealth distribution by class and find a grid/table/chart that you feel comes from a source you think is relatively honest and go back to the 1980's and then follow how things were then and how they've developed into how they are now. Remember this though, I'm not setting up what I think we need to do next regarding the unfreakingbelievable disparity in wealth and I'm not even calling out the top 5%-10% (mainly) on what a bunch greedy c*cksuckers I think they are, I'm really just talking about how thing were wealth distribution wise 30 years ago and then see how things are now and I challenge you and all other Repubs to just say "oh well things have been bad before economically speaking and they got better ergo they're going to get better again". Well your Repub buddies had better get their heads out of their arses and start making some changes in how they do business or things WILL start to equalize out but not in a way they're going to be happy about.

Oh and on the Neil Bush/Bush 41 thing check the dates and ask yourself what really big went on around that same time that made everyone forget about Silverado and really all the savings and loan scandals.

This is a straw man argument. You're making the assumption that Reagan is responsible for income disparity or that he had significant control over it and I call BS on that. Don't forget that Reagan raised cap gains rates and corporate tax rates whilest lowering rates for low income families at the end of his tenure. So how is he responsible if he argued for higher tax rates than Obama is arguing for? I've been arguing on this board for a while now that pubs are dumb for becoming obsessed with lowering taxes. Reagan understood this. It's not about minimal changes to tax rates so long as you stick with the basic supply side philosophy.

I feel like anti Reagan liberals extrapolate current pub policies back to the past onto Reagan.

[Oklahomahawk]

This is a straw man argument. You're making the assumption that Reagan is responsible for income disparity or that he had significant control over it and I call BS on that. Don't forget that Reagan raised cap gains rates and corporate tax rates whilest lowering rates for low income families at the end of his tenure. So how is he responsible if he argued for higher tax rates than Obama is arguing for? I've been arguing on this board for a while now that pubs are dumb for becoming obsessed with lowering taxes. Reagan understood this. It's not about minimal changes to tax rates so long as you stick with the basic supply side philosophy.

I feel like anti Reagan liberals extrapolate current pub policies back to the past onto Reagan.

You know, I typed out a fairly long (well not for me) response to this, but you know what, I just don't want to continue with this. It's obvious we don't agree and we never will. Keep believing that the Repubs are the right, correct, and noble party that wants to help regular folks when the only things he you ever hear from them are let's cut SNAP (while rolling that money back into more subsidies for "corporate ag"), cutting funding for the arts and PBS, that Social Security is a non-sustainable "entitlement", even though those people have been paying in (along with their employers) for years or even decades and it's Congress who can't stop spending the money. Keep cutting those PELL grants because $5000 or so YEAR is just too damn much money to give to college students, while their kids are getting full paid scholarships to big named schools whether they're straight A students or straight D-minus students. After all we don't want to muddy the waters of college graduates with a bunch of "takers" do we? Keep talking about Benghazi and ignoring all the embassy attacks and those American casualties while W was president, keep pretending that 85 people worldwide owning as much wealth as 3 1/2 BILLION people is a good and admirable thing and that just gives those 3 1/2 BILLION people some real role models to emulate. Keep thinking Obamacare is the devil when major US corporations make BILLIONS in profits and don't want to cut into their CEO's A-Rod type contracts by giving some back to their workers (I actually about small businesses having an exemption) but how long have major corporations hidden behind helping small businesses, that is when they're not using laws they helped create to put them out of business or take them over legally. Let's keep giving BILLIONS in subsidies to oil companies but at the same time pretending the oil and gas business is simply a supply and demand industry with no collusion going on.

Republicans didn't create all those problems but they sure seem to support them all don't they? Even the Pope gets called names for suggesting that maybe just having almost all the wealth in the world might be enough, and that maybe they should actually listen sometimes when they're sitting in the front row of their churches to all that nonsense about the poor not being just put here on this Earth for their amusement and starvation. After all it's the suggestion that maybe they shouldn't exploit all those rules and laws they and their bought and paid for legislators created to not be happy until they have 100% of the world's wealth. But is that really going to make them happy either???

Picture it this way, you're on a mountaintop with two other people, one is actively trying to push you off, stepping on your fingers as you hold on for dear life, while the other guys sits there telling you how much he cares about you, while reading a Gold Digest and a copy of Ebony, bemoaning your fate but not actually doing anything about it, except to occasionally tossing you a biscuit that you can eat as long as you can do so while dodging the other guys' attempt to finish you off. Want to guess which political party (and their agenda) goes with which guy?

So go ahead and believe whatever you want, defend Reagan perpetually, defend Bush 41 and 43, blast anyone who favors a system where everyone might have a chance to make it, though to be fair are only passive supporters of that philosophy. I'll bet that after having your fingers stomped on for a few years by one of those guys, especially when you spend most of your life supporting him, sounds even worse than the other guy, even though he isn't really anything to write home about either.

Oh and be careful of those straw men, sometimes those finger stomping guys come dressed as one of those and you only find out the truth after you're hanging from the ledge.

[jpx7]

an unbiased perspective

There's no such thing.

[Tapate50]

There's no such thing.

I can get on board with this post.

[weso1]

There's no such thing.

I'd agree with that, but it's coming from a biased perspective.

[weso1]

You know, I typed out a fairly long (well not for me) response to this, but you know what, I just don't want to continue with this. It's obvious we don't agree and we never will. Keep believing that the Repubs are the right, correct, and noble party that wants to help regular folks when the only things he you ever hear from them are let's cut SNAP (while rolling that money back into more subsidies for "corporate ag"), cutting funding for the arts and PBS, that Social Security is a non-sustainable "entitlement", even though those people have been paying in (along with their employers) for years or even decades and it's Congress who can't stop spending the money. Keep cutting those PELL grants because $5000 or so YEAR is just too damn much money to give to college students, while their kids are getting full paid scholarships to big named schools whether they're straight A students or straight D-minus students. After all we don't want to muddy the waters of college graduates with a bunch of "takers" do we? Keep talking about Benghazi and ignoring all the embassy attacks and those American casualties while W was president, keep pretending that 85 people worldwide owning as much wealth as 3 1/2 BILLION people is a good and admirable thing and that just gives those 3 1/2 BILLION people some real role models to emulate. Keep thinking Obamacare is the devil when major US corporations make BILLIONS in profits and don't want to cut into their CEO's A-Rod type contracts by giving some back to their workers (I actually about small businesses having an exemption) but how long have major corporations hidden behind helping small businesses, that is when they're not using laws they helped create to put them out of business or take them over legally. Let's keep giving BILLIONS in subsidies to oil companies but at the same time pretending the oil and gas business is simply a supply and demand industry with no collusion going on.

Republicans didn't create all those problems but they sure seem to support them all don't they? Even the Pope gets called names for suggesting that maybe just having almost all the wealth in the world might be enough, and that maybe they should actually listen sometimes when they're sitting in the front row of their churches to all that nonsense about the poor not being just put here on this Earth for their amusement and starvation. After all it's the suggestion that maybe they shouldn't exploit all those rules and laws they and their bought and paid for legislators created to not be happy until they have 100% of the world's wealth. But is that really going to make them happy either???

Picture it this way, you're on a mountaintop with two other people, one is actively trying to push you off, stepping on your fingers as you hold on for dear life, while the other guys sits there telling you how much he cares about you, while reading a Gold Digest and a copy of Ebony, bemoaning your fate but not actually doing anything about it, except to occasionally tossing you a biscuit that you can eat as long as you can do so while dodging the other guys' attempt to finish you off. Want to guess which political party (and their agenda) goes with which guy?

So go ahead and believe whatever you want, defend Reagan perpetually, defend Bush 41 and 43, blast anyone who favors a system where everyone might have a chance to make it, though to be fair are only passive supporters of that philosophy. I'll bet that after having your fingers stomped on for a few years by one of those guys, especially when you spend most of your life supporting him, sounds even worse than the other guy, even though he isn't really anything to write home about either.

Oh and be careful of those straw men, sometimes those finger stomping guys come dressed as one of those and you only find out the truth after you're hanging from the ledge.

Well, that's disappointing. I feel like I made some good arguments itt and dispelled a few Reagan myths. I would have liked to hear your opinion on those. If anything I think sturg has something to complain about rather than the liberals. Reagan is more up my alley as a moderate conservative... A compassionate conservative. Never underestood the liberal hate for him. It's pretty obvious to me that he never intended current pub philosophy of no tax increases no matter what and no debt. He seemed quite translational in his decision making. Also, he believed in defense by strength but that was during the cold war. It's unfair to extrapolate that policy to today when there isn't a cold war. Sure you could argue slippery slope, but why only argue that in the case of conservatism. Sturg's libertarianism is based on slippery slope. They very well could be right, but it doesn't fit the liberal perspective.

[57Brave]

Wes you act like Reagan entered the scene in the late 70's with a blank slate. You also forget the inncident in Philadelphia,Mississipi the site of the murder of 3 civil rights workers.

from Wiki:
On August 3, 1980, Ronald Reagan gave his first post-convention speech at the Neshoba County Fair after being officially chosen as the Republican nominee for President of the United States. He said, "I believe in states' rights ... I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment." He went on to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them".[6] Analysts believed that his use of the phrase was seen by many as a tacit appeal to Southern white voters and a continuation of Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, while some argued it reflected Reagan's libertarian economic beliefs. The speech drew attention for his use of the phrase "states' rights" at a place just a few miles from a town associated with the 1964 murders of civil rights workers
////////////////////////////////////

You also are leaving out his years as Governor of California. A simple review of just these two examples should tell you why liberals have never seen Reagan as St Ronnie

[The Chosen One]

Well, that's disappointing. I feel like I made some good arguments itt and dispelled a few Reagan myths. I would have liked to hear your opinion on those. If anything I think sturg has something to complain about rather than the liberals. Reagan is more up my alley as a moderate conservative... A compassionate conservative. Never underestood the liberal hate for him. It's pretty obvious to me that he never intended current pub philosophy of no tax increases no matter what and no debt. He seemed quite translational in his decision making. Also, he believed in defense by strength but that was during the cold war. It's unfair to extrapolate that policy to today when there isn't a cold war. Sure you could argue slippery slope, but why only argue that in the case of conservatism. Sturg's libertarianism is based on slippery slope. They very well could be right, but it doesn't fit the liberal perspective.

Every time I read or hear the term compassionate conservative... I just wonder why they just don't say A Conservative that likes Spending.

Compassionate conservative makes it sound like they really care and are breaking their own rules to help out.

Reality is the conservatives like spending just as much as the liberals.

[AerchAngel]

You know, I typed out a fairly long (well not for me) response to this, but you know what, I just don't want to continue with this. It's obvious we don't agree and we never will. Keep believing that the Repubs are the right, correct, and noble party that wants to help regular folks when the only things he you ever hear from them are let's cut SNAP (while rolling that money back into more subsidies for "corporate ag"), cutting funding for the arts and PBS, that Social Security is a non-sustainable "entitlement", even though those people have been paying in (along with their employers) for years or even decades and it's Congress who can't stop spending the money. Keep cutting those PELL grants because $5000 or so YEAR is just too damn much money to give to college students, while their kids are getting full paid scholarships to big named schools whether they're straight A students or straight D-minus students. After all we don't want to muddy the waters of college graduates with a bunch of "takers" do we? Keep talking about Benghazi and ignoring all the embassy attacks and those American casualties while W was president, keep pretending that 85 people worldwide owning as much wealth as 3 1/2 BILLION people is a good and admirable thing and that just gives those 3 1/2 BILLION people some real role models to emulate. Keep thinking Obamacare is the devil when major US corporations make BILLIONS in profits and don't want to cut into their CEO's A-Rod type contracts by giving some back to their workers (I actually about small businesses having an exemption) but how long have major corporations hidden behind helping small businesses, that is when they're not using laws they helped create to put them out of business or take them over legally. Let's keep giving BILLIONS in subsidies to oil companies but at the same time pretending the oil and gas business is simply a supply and demand industry with no collusion going on.

Republicans didn't create all those problems but they sure seem to support them all don't they? Even the Pope gets called names for suggesting that maybe just having almost all the wealth in the world might be enough, and that maybe they should actually listen sometimes when they're sitting in the front row of their churches to all that nonsense about the poor not being just put here on this Earth for their amusement and starvation. After all it's the suggestion that maybe they shouldn't exploit all those rules and laws they and their bought and paid for legislators created to not be happy until they have 100% of the world's wealth. But is that really going to make them happy either???

Picture it this way, you're on a mountaintop with two other people, one is actively trying to push you off, stepping on your fingers as you hold on for dear life, while the other guys sits there telling you how much he cares about you, while reading a Gold Digest and a copy of Ebony, bemoaning your fate but not actually doing anything about it, except to occasionally tossing you a biscuit that you can eat as long as you can do so while dodging the other guys' attempt to finish you off. Want to guess which political party (and their agenda) goes with which guy?

So go ahead and believe whatever you want, defend Reagan perpetually, defend Bush 41 and 43, blast anyone who favors a system where everyone might have a chance to make it, though to be fair are only passive supporters of that philosophy. I'll bet that after having your fingers stomped on for a few years by one of those guys, especially when you spend most of your life supporting him, sounds even worse than the other guy, even though he isn't really anything to write home about either.

Oh and be careful of those straw men, sometimes those finger stomping guys come dressed as one of those and you only find out the truth after you're hanging from the ledge.

Where to start?

So much truth in this. The black eye of the Republican Party ways so eloquently put together in this post.

nice job!

[AerchAngel]

Well, that's disappointing. I feel like I made some good arguments itt and dispelled a few Reagan myths. I would have liked to hear your opinion on those. If anything I think sturg has something to complain about rather than the liberals. Reagan is more up my alley as a moderate conservative... A compassionate conservative. Never underestood the liberal hate for him. It's pretty obvious to me that he never intended current pub philosophy of no tax increases no matter what and no debt. He seemed quite translational in his decision making. Also, he believed in defense by strength but that was during the cold war. It's unfair to extrapolate that policy to today when there isn't a cold war. Sure you could argue slippery slope, but why only argue that in the case of conservatism. Sturg's libertarianism is based on slippery slope. They very well could be right, but it doesn't fit the liberal perspective.

As I admired Okies post, I admire this as well. There is some truth in this but the bottom line is Liberals/Democrats are idiots as well. They hate Reagan because he has an R denoted to his party. They, Dems and Liberals have sheep like mentality that if you aren't with them, they will "hate" you.

[The Chosen One]

As I admired Okies post, I admire this as well. There is some truth in this but the bottom line is Conservatives/Republicans are idiots as well. They hate Obama because he has a D denoted to his party. They, GOP and conservatives have sheep like mentality that if you aren't with them, they will "hate" you.

Took the words out of my mouth.

[AerchAngel]

Every time I read or hear the term compassionate conservative... I just wonder why they just don't say A Conservative that likes Spending.

Compassionate conservative makes it sound like they really care and are breaking their own rules to help out.

Reality is the conservatives like spending just as much as the liberals.

After Bush I can see that, but not to the extent of Liberals. They like to make money magically appear so they can spend on schit we don't need. Sturg audit request would be very interesting.

Reagan tried to help out the less unfortunate but ever since he left office, the Republicans was all about oil business and power...aka neoconic philosophy and since they beat the Democrats to the punch, the Democrats decided to poison the well by attacking social/illegal principals that Republicans stand for, ie illegal immigration (which helps Republican pocket books but Democrat voting block), christian morality (abortion, male on male marriage, etc).

This is why I can't stand either party, you both think you are right and you are not. All you doing is hurting the people and they have no voice to get rid of this crap. The last 14 years of crappy presidents and even more crappy choices. Dumb (Chimpy) and Dumber (Elephant Ears) lead our nation the last 14 years.

[AerchAngel]

Took the words out of my mouth.

no, because he is black.

Big difference. Republicans like even some love Clinton. Do you see any Republicans ripping him? Nope. If they do, it is rare.

Republicans will ripped their own president as well on here, the Democrats would defend that piss of caca we have in office to their last dying breath, for what? He boned you and laughed while doing it.

[BedellBrave]

Making the rich less rich sounds like a good idea. How do you guys make that happen for CEOs, lobbyists, Hollywood stars, musicians, union bigwigs, Big-University administrators, Joel Osteen and his tribe of goobers, and pro-athletes?

How?

National wage controls? Tax penalties? It's got to be something airtight for these rascals can hire some pretty sharp accountants to get around things.

Oh, that we didn't have the filthy rich among us. Maybe Jesus was wrong about that.

All that said, this actually seems like a problem for both parties. They just got different rich folk that they take their money from and their marching orders....

Most all are whores for somebody.

[Krgrecw]

no, because he is black.

Big difference. Republicans like even some love Clinton. Do you see any Republicans ripping him? Nope. If they do, it is rare.

Republicans will ripped their own president as well on here, the Democrats would defend that piss of caca we have in office to their last dying breath, for what? He boned you and laughed while doing it.



Not only do the defend him they also deflect everything.

A) it's Bushs fault
B) the house isn't cooperating
C) it's the 1% and big business and banks behind this

And if that doesn't work they always have the Race card to play.

Or they can take the road of: lots talk **** about Palin even though she has no power whatsoever because God Knows we can't talk about the man with power

[weso1]

Every time I read or hear the term compassionate conservative... I just wonder why they just don't say A Conservative that likes Spending.

Compassionate conservative makes it sound like they really care and are breaking their own rules to help out.

Reality is the conservatives like spending just as much as the liberals.

It's just a political phrase. Like how fetus termination is called abortion or how a surveillance bill is called The Patriot Act. To me it just means moderate conservative. Those who recognize a need for some social programs but expect them to be implemented in a responsible manner. I think most of them do care or they wouldn't be moderate conservatives in the first place. It doesn't mean moderate conservatives like spending, but they feel it's necessary to spend on some social programs. We aren't too far away from moderate dems, but moderate dems are pretty much marginalized in this country from an economic sense. They have to become moderate republicans for their voice to be heard. I would imagine Ohawk as a moderate democrat feels marginalized.

Also, there are many different subsets of all political parties. Even the libertarian party has subsets. You seem to want to tie every republican in to the vision that you have of the republican party.

[Oklahomahawk]

It's just a political phrase. Like how fetus termination is called abortion or how a surveillance bill is called The Patriot Act. To me it just means moderate conservative. Those who recognize a need for some social programs but expect them to be implemented in a responsible manner. I think most of them do care or they wouldn't be moderate conservatives in the first place. It doesn't mean moderate conservatives like spending, but they feel it's necessary to spend on some social programs. We aren't too far away from moderate dems, but moderate dems are pretty much marginalized in this country from an economic sense. They have to become moderate republicans for their voice to be heard. I would imagine Ohawk as a moderate democrat feels marginalized.

Also, there are many different subsets of all political parties. Even the libertarian party has subsets. You seem to want to tie every republican in to the vision that you have of the republican party.

I think weso's right, after all if people actually called things like they really were instead of coming up with all these BS euphemisms it might actually wake up the American people and piss them off to a point where they might actually get up off their arses, turn off American Idol, or the Real Housewives of BFE or whatever and go and take their damn country back before it's too late. And we certainly couldn't have that, could we?

[BedellBrave]

It's the easy thing to do... (In response to weso's last sentence)

[Oklahomahawk]

It's the easy thing to do... (In response to weso's last sentence)

True, but how many times do conservative pundits try to act like every lib is as far out as Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Or how about Hillary should be debated with Bill's affairs rather than policy stuff? I think all of us on here are guilty sometimes of preferring to nit pick or use lawyer tactics, etc, to keep the other side from making any points, like it even matters at the end of the day which party wins the day's "gotcha" extravaganza. It's really just good old fashioned "divide and conquer" at the national level that keeps us arguing amongst ourselves rather than seeing what those aholes are up to.

[50PoundHead]

I'm to the left of weso, but I pretty much agree with his assessment. The United States is a center/right country that has periodic center/left hiccups. I think where the national Republicans have gone a bit wrong (and only a bit, because they will likely control the US House of Representatives for most of this century given the population's geographic distribution) is that they have left this gaping hole in the political center that allows a moderate Democrat (often less scary than their Republican opponent) to occupy the middle ground more deftly in statewide and perhaps national races. That's going to give Hillary a leg up in 2016.

The United States has never been that ideological a country. Our revolution was not the French Revolution. We're pretty much a nation of pragmatists who know that there has to be some measure of activist government to keep things in balance. Of course, there's always an argument over where the needle should ultimately land, but I don't think there is much argument whether or not that needle should exist.

[Oklahomahawk]

But there is sometimes a HUGE difference between being a conservative or a liberal and actually being in lock step with Repubs or Dems. I think this is one of the main areas where they get us, they say some or even most of what we want to hear then go off on their own self serving tangents but since they say we're on the same side we go ahead and follow/support them anyway.

[BedellBrave]

Making the rich less rich sounds like a good idea. How do you guys make that happen for CEOs, lobbyists, Hollywood stars, musicians, union bigwigs, Big-University administrators, Joel Osteen and his tribe of goobers, and pro-athletes?

How?

National wage controls? Tax penalties? It's got to be something airtight for these rascals can hire some pretty sharp accountants to get around things.

Oh, that we didn't have the filthy rich among us. Maybe Jesus was wrong about that.

All that said, this actually seems like a problem for both parties. They just got different rich folk that they take their money from and their marching orders....

Most all are whores for somebody.


Got any good suggestions Hawk?

[50PoundHead]

But there is sometimes a HUGE difference between being a conservative or a liberal and actually being in lock step with Repubs or Dems. I think this is one of the main areas where they get us, they say some or even most of what we want to hear then go off on their own self serving tangents but since they say we're on the same side we go ahead and follow/support them anyway.

I think that has a lot to do with the candidate selection process, especially in caucus/convention states where a handful of activists pretty much pick the initial candidate. Sure, an opponent can win the primary against the "insider" choice, but it's often an uphill battle. A lot of this has changed because of the proliferation of media.

I hate to pick easy targets, but the Koch brothers on one hand and the unions on the other haven't helped with this.

[AerchAngel]

I'm to the left of weso, but I pretty much agree with his assessment. The United States is a center/right country that has periodic center/left hiccups. I think where the national Republicans have gone a bit wrong (and only a bit, because they will likely control the US House of Representatives for most of this century given the population's geographic distribution) is that they have left this gaping hole in the political center that allows a moderate Democrat (often less scary than their Republican opponent) to occupy the middle ground more deftly in statewide and perhaps national races. That's going to give Hillary a leg up in 2016.

The United States has never been that ideological a country. Our revolution was not the French Revolution. We're pretty much a nation of pragmatists who know that there has to be some measure of activist government to keep things in balance. Of course, there's always an argument over where the needle should ultimately land, but I don't think there is much argument whether or not that needle should exist.

Spot on.

Slick Willie was a D president by name, but acted much more in the middle and actually allow Republicans to work with him instead of antagonizing them. I won you lost deal with it macho crap that this president has spouted and he wonders why they give him the middle finger.

If Hillary do what her husband done and take us to the middle, this country will be better off.

[Oklahomahawk]

Got any good suggestions Hawk?

I'm not an economics guy, but I can tell you that those who have gotten noticeably richer since the Reagan 80's sure knew how to run this plan in reverse, so yeah I know it can be done, but given how loud these poor little mistreated pampered folks are I'll bet the shrieking would burst all our eardrums. It's a hell of a lot better than what else is coming their way one day soon if they don't change their tunes, but I'm sure a grand total of zero of them would believe me on that.

I'll go ahead and repost the same old table that I always post to try and point out how bad things are getting as far as wealth distribution goes but I'm sure it'll just be shrugged off like usual. I know I get on some people's nerves sometimes (and despite what you're all thinking I NEVER do this on purpose), depending on who I'm criticizing on any given day but I really believe politicians use our best emotions and tendencies against us. Weso likes to believe the economy will straighten itself out and the skewing we see is just "one of those things" and will correct itself in time and while I completely respect his right to feel this way, I can't for the life of me see where he gets any evidence to support this point of view.

We all have our blind spots and our preconceived ideas that we just can't or won't give up, and I guess that'll never change, in fact it's my opinion that the only thing that will change any of our mindsets on these political arguments is when something akin to Saul's epiphany on the road to Damascus. That's what happened to me back in the 1980s, though I don't expect any Repubs on this board to pay any heed to it (I gave that up long ago). Until a person experiences what I did way back then I don't guess it would be possible for them to change from a hardcore Reagan Republican to whatever the hell I am now unless they walk a mile in my geriatric shoes.

With that said, I believe that conservatives are just as blind about Reagan and Reaganomics and things like wealth distribution (and the fact that is doesn't all just happen by chance or hard work) as the Dems are when they tell themselves that abortion is totally acceptable because it really isn't a baby anyway, it's just a globule of protoplasm and nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body (which as long as it just affects her own body I would totally agree with) and that the corporations and all rich people are greedy aholes who never do anything good.

Clearly there are good people and bad people in every group, though those at the most extreme ends of things are the ones we all concentrate on because their often the most visible and in my particular case those are the best teaching tools, after all plain old dull drab good people, whatever group they're in are WAY under appreciated, but let's face it they usually aren't the stuff of front page news, though they ought to be.

I wish that whatever side a person was on they could look at this graph and how things have changed in the last 30 years or so and see that if something isn't done and soon we're all gonna be faced with a bunch of stuff we don't like very much. So, you have my permission to pre-ignore it if you so choose. Any of you young tech savvy whippersnappers also have my permission to clean up my tables which as you can see didn't copy over all that smoothly.

Table 2: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2010
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
2010 35.4% 53.5% 11.1%


Table 1: Income, net worth, and financial worth in the U.S. by percentile, in 2010 dollars
Wealth or income class Mean household income Mean household net worth Mean household financial (non-home) wealth

Top 1 percent $1,318,200 $16,439,400 $15,171,600
Top 20 percent $226,200 $2,061,600 $1,719,800
60th-80th percentile $72,000 $216,900 $100,700
40th-60th percentile $41,700 $61,000 $12,200
Bottom 40 percent $17,300 -$10,600 -$14,800
From Wolff (2012); only mean figures are available, not medians. Note that income and wealth are separate measures; so, for example, the top 1% of income-earners is not exactly the same group of people as the top 1% of wealth-holders, although there is considerable overlap.


Source:
(http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)

[Oklahomahawk]

I think that has a lot to do with the candidate selection process, especially in caucus/convention states where a handful of activists pretty much pick the initial candidate. Sure, an opponent can win the primary against the "insider" choice, but it's often an uphill battle. A lot of this has changed because of the proliferation of media.

I hate to pick easy targets, but the Koch brothers on one hand and the unions on the other haven't helped with this.


Well those who don't like the Koch brothers are spot on IMO, those aholes are godawful, I wish more Repubs would distance themselves from these pricks. I had a conversation with a liberal friend the other day and tried to tell him that if he got his legislation or amendment (whichever one they're after today) to get rid of Citizens United and that does actually remove the Koch brothers from politics he would also have to give up his pal George Soros who he refers to as "benevolent", yeah I'm definitely a lib, that's why I get along so well with them. LOL

As for the unions I think that is getting to border on one of weso and bedell's straw man arguments. At one time unions were powerful force in this country but today I think anybody who can't see how far they fallen just isn't looking. yeah a whole bunch of the leadership of the unions that are still around are corrupt as hell but the overall numbers aren't even close to what they once were.

[Oklahomahawk]

Spot on.

Slick Willie was a D president by name, but acted much more in the middle and actually allow Republicans to work with him instead of antagonizing them. I won you lost deal with it macho crap that this president has spouted and he wonders why they give him the middle finger.

If Hillary do what her husband done and take us to the middle, this country will be better off.

So, what do you think about Rand Paul's (and there are others though I"m not sure who all is on board with this right now) vow to blatantly use Bill's affairs as a campaign tool to beat Hillary in 2016??

[weso1]

I think weso's right, after all if people actually called things like they really were instead of coming up with all these BS euphemisms it might actually wake up the American people and piss them off to a point where they might actually get up off their arses, turn off American Idol, or the Real Housewives of BFE or whatever and go and take their damn country back before it's too late. And we certainly couldn't have that, could we?

I agree completely. Oh and also don't forget to pay your individual shared responsibility payment if you choose not to obtain healthcare for yourself next year.

[weso1]

I'm not an economics guy, but I can tell you that those who have gotten noticeably richer since the Reagan 80's sure knew how to run this plan in reverse, so yeah I know it can be done, but given how loud these poor little mistreated pampered folks are I'll bet the shrieking would burst all our eardrums. It's a hell of a lot better than what else is coming their way one day soon if they don't change their tunes, but I'm sure a grand total of zero of them would believe me on that.

I'll go ahead and repost the same old table that I always post to try and point out how bad things are getting as far as wealth distribution goes but I'm sure it'll just be shrugged off like usual. I know I get on some people's nerves sometimes (and despite what you're all thinking I NEVER do this on purpose), depending on who I'm criticizing on any given day but I really believe politicians use our best emotions and tendencies against us. Weso likes to believe the economy will straighten itself out and the skewing we see is just "one of those things" and will correct itself in time and while I completely respect his right to feel this way, I can't for the life of me see where he gets any evidence to support this point of view.

We all have our blind spots and our preconceived ideas that we just can't or won't give up, and I guess that'll never change, in fact it's my opinion that the only thing that will change any of our mindsets on these political arguments is when something akin to Saul's epiphany on the road to Damascus. That's what happened to me back in the 1980s, though I don't expect any Repubs on this board to pay any heed to it (I gave that up long ago). Until a person experiences what I did way back then I don't guess it would be possible for them to change from a hardcore Reagan Republican to whatever the hell I am now unless they walk a mile in my geriatric shoes.

With that said, I believe that conservatives are just as blind about Reagan and Reaganomics and things like wealth distribution (and the fact that is doesn't all just happen by chance or hard work) as the Dems are when they tell themselves that abortion is totally acceptable because it really isn't a baby anyway, it's just a globule of protoplasm and nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body (which as long as it just affects her own body I would totally agree with) and that the corporations and all rich people are greedy aholes who never do anything good.

Clearly there are good people and bad people in every group, though those at the most extreme ends of things are the ones we all concentrate on because their often the most visible and in my particular case those are the best teaching tools, after all plain old dull drab good people, whatever group they're in are WAY under appreciated, but let's face it they usually aren't the stuff of front page news, though they ought to be.

I wish that whatever side a person was on they could look at this graph and how things have changed in the last 30 years or so and see that if something isn't done and soon we're all gonna be faced with a bunch of stuff we don't like very much. So, you have my permission to pre-ignore it if you so choose. Any of you young tech savvy whippersnappers also have my permission to clean up my tables which as you can see didn't copy over all that smoothly.

Table 2: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2010
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%
2010 35.4% 53.5% 11.1%


Table 1: Income, net worth, and financial worth in the U.S. by percentile, in 2010 dollars
Wealth or income class Mean household income Mean household net worth Mean household financial (non-home) wealth

Top 1 percent $1,318,200 $16,439,400 $15,171,600
Top 20 percent $226,200 $2,061,600 $1,719,800
60th-80th percentile $72,000 $216,900 $100,700
40th-60th percentile $41,700 $61,000 $12,200
Bottom 40 percent $17,300 -$10,600 -$14,800
From Wolff (2012); only mean figures are available, not medians. Note that income and wealth are separate measures; so, for example, the top 1% of income-earners is not exactly the same group of people as the top 1% of wealth-holders, although there is considerable overlap.


Source:
(http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)

My point earlier though was that Reaganomics has been distorted both by the right and the left. Clinton's economic policy was still technically Reaganomics in my book at least.

Also, what effect do you think the arrival of the internet had on the net worth disparity? I'd say it probably had a significant effect. Bunch of new money in that. Is that on Reagan?

[BedellBrave]

Well those who don't like the Koch brothers are spot on IMO, those aholes are godawful, I wish more Repubs would distance themselves from these pricks. I had a conversation with a liberal friend the other day and tried to tell him that if he got his legislation or amendment (whichever one they're after today) to get rid of Citizens United and that does actually remove the Koch brothers from politics he would also have to give up his pal George Soros who he refers to as "benevolent", yeah I'm definitely a lib, that's why I get along so well with them. LOL

As for the unions I think that is getting to border on one of weso and bedell's straw man arguments. At one time unions were powerful force in this country but today I think anybody who can't see how far they fallen just isn't looking. yeah a whole bunch of the leadership of the unions that are still around are corrupt as hell but the overall numbers aren't even close to what they once were.


How much money do unions pour into American politics Hawk? Give me a legitimate number.

Or try this, how much do the Koch brothers rank in political donations say to just one union like the AFL-CIO?

I mean, after looking at this chart (link (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php)), hey I hope I can fall as far as these poor unions have.

[BedellBrave]

Also, you've described the problem with the rich. And note - I'm not disagreeing with your description. Now give us a prescription for solving this problem.


The Time-Warner CEO is getting an $80 million Golden Parachute and here in Charlotte they are wanting the city (i.e., the tax-payers) to pony up $42 million to make luxury boxes in an 8 year old Time-Warner Arena more luxurious. You know, the arena that the city council ignored the vote of the citizens about.

So give us solutions Hawk, not just complaints.

[Julio3000]

How much money do unions pour into American politics Hawk? Give me a legitimate number.

Or try this, how much do the Koch brothers rank in political donations say to just one union like the AFL-CIO?

I mean, after looking at this chart (link (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php)), hey I hope I can fall as far as these poor unions have.

Sure, those are big numbers. But compare them to the 'dark money' numbers for the 2012 election cycle, BB. It's out there and easy to find. Post-Citizens United spending from the Kochs and Adelsons of the world dwarf the AFL-CIO/SEIU/AFSCMEs.

[Oklahomahawk]

How much money do unions pour into American politics Hawk? Give me a legitimate number.

Or try this, how much do the Koch brothers rank in political donations say to just one union like the AFL-CIO?

I mean, after looking at this chart (link (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php)), hey I hope I can fall as far as these poor unions have.


You guys just sit back like those trial lawyers you hate so much don't you?? How many times and how many things over the years have you totally ignored while you were searching for an opening you can use to try and discredit 99 facts by finding one weakness? Is that Repub honor? I never said unions weren't a problem, just that in my opinion they weren't the problem they once were. Do you deny how the past few years have gutted many unions? Of course the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters are still uber wealthy, they put aside so many millions/billions during the 60's and 70's they can influence American politics until strug is my age + your age put together, even if they never take in another dime.

Did you ignore the stuff I said about how the Dems would have to kick out Soros if they got CU eliminated? Yeah, the red glare from my mentioning the Koch brothers in a disparaging way probably caused that. My bad!!!

The next time somebody besmirches the honor of the wonderful Koch brothers, ask yourself, or better yet go to a nice reliable website (you know what kind I mean) and ask them how much they stand to gain on the Keystone pipeline Repubs call for every day.

[Oklahomahawk]

My point earlier though was that Reaganomics has been distorted both by the right and the left. Clinton's economic policy was still technically Reaganomics in my book at least.

Also, what effect do you think the arrival of the internet had on the net worth disparity? I'd say it probably had a significant effect. Bunch of new money in that. Is that on Reagan?

weso, I don't know what happened to the post I made about this, I'll try again but it'll no doubt be different than the original. Essentially it said that Reaganomics was what started the trend, but it was by no means all his fault, in fact considering his health during his presidency it wouldn't have been that tough for the robber barons of that time to slip stuff past him, and Clinton didn't cause the great economy of his presidency, he just had sense enough not to eff it up by trying to squeeze even more out of it for the top 1%, like you know who did. This is why I don't try and discuss stuff with you guys any more often than I do, you have your preconceived notions about Saint Ronnie and the Good Old Days, which I doubt you all even remember, but I sure as hell do, and anybody who says anything negative about any Repub icon, no matter how true or how innocent immediately gets the Repub Thought Police out to put out the fires of dissent. Eh I don't expect you guys to believe me, that's why I hardly post here any more and that trend will almost certainly continue.

Oh and the last thing I remember from that other post was that my biggest complaint of all against Obama and the Dems is that they can correctly point out the excesses of big business and the top 1% but the best they can come up with to make things better is to raise the minimum wage??? Wow!! If the phrase Whoop Dee ****e hadn't already been invented I'd say let's invent it right now, just for that wonderful solution.

[Oklahomahawk]

Also, you've described the problem with the rich. And note - I'm not disagreeing with your description. Now give us a prescription for solving this problem.


The Time-Warner CEO is getting an $80 million Golden Parachute and here in Charlotte they are wanting the city (i.e., the tax-payers) to pony up $42 million to make luxury boxes in an 8 year old Time-Warner Arena more luxurious. You know, the arena that the city council ignored the vote of the citizens about.

So give us solutions Hawk, not just complaints.


When W was a part owner in the Texas Rangers he and his group got a big government grant to go on the new stadium deal in Arlington, as well as the taxpayers footing the bill for the rest of the costs. Jerry Jones used every kind of propaganda BS when he wanted a new stadium, including hiring a real GM for the first time and last time ever (Bill Parcells). As soon as he got the deal passed, Bill decided to "go spend more time with his family". Why do you think the ultra wealthy think they're entitled (I actually enjoy using that word with them) to the rest of us paying for everything so they won't have to tap into their bazillions?? For the same reason our elected officials feel the same way, basically because we allow them to feel that way. They have us buffaloed and they know it.

My plan, which I have said plenty of other times, do away with corporate tax loopholes for any company that outsources jobs. See, I don't want to just "give the rich's money to the poor" I want to give the poor a chance to earn a real living, not minimum wage increase for working at Burger King, but real jobs that those greedy bastards sent overseas so they could make just a few more millions. You see to me, hurting American families, breaking up American families (because married couples argue and get divorced eventually) over money, or the lack of it more than anything else. What do you have then? More single parent families, more kids committing crimes because of no supervision because their single parent is out trying to make a living. You don't have as many positive role models because a single parent working 3 jobs just to make ends meet isn't sexy, but for some reason known only to God himself some ahole rapper talking about how all women are bitches or whores, (or maybe on a good day they might be able to do both) and how they made money by pimping, selling drugs and various other illegal activities and they got rich that way. They took away so many good role models and we're surprised when the kids find bad ones?

My solution, set up a real sweetheart deal for companies who hire American workers and pay them a real living wage and decent benefits, I mean really make it worth their whiles, and tax the living sh!t out of companies like Verizon who made what $80B and paid ZERO taxes on it. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. Stop paying people, colleges, companies, etc. for doing research into finding answers, cures, etc. and pay them a king's ransom for actually finding those solutions. Set up a system for anyone who can create a REAL alternative fuel source and have the NSA keep an eye on those people and if any oil company or anyone who could benefit from keeping us depending on oil and if they catch anyone even approaching those people to try and acquire that technology or trying to keep it from getting out, give those people to me to punish, I'll bet you it wouldn't happen again. No more robber barons doing hostile takeovers, ala those good old Reagan 80's, no more big companies buying out, pushing out, or pulling any sort of shady bullsh!t to keep competition down, and don't even ask for a merger, period. Capitalism is supposed to be based on competition and to me anything that diminishes competition hurts capitalism, you know like those damn socialists.

I'm sick of the wealthy hurting Americans who are trying to do the right thing and work hard to make it, I'm sick of middle class Americans hurting Americans who are trying to do the right thing and work hard to make it,and I"m sick of poor Americans hurting Americans who are trying to work hard and do the right thing. That's MY base, though none of them even know who the hell I am.

Enough solutions? Probably not, but it's a start. So let me ask you a couple of questions and make you a proposal. First I believe you're very much against the ACA (correct me if I"m wrong). So, tell me why you hate it so much, I mean really. How would you seek to correct the wealth disparity in this country? Do you agree with weso, it's just one of those cyclical things and will correct itself, by itself or is it as I said a well conceived and even better carried out system that has changed the wealth ownership percentages? What would YOU do to correct it? Would you put any sort of onus on big business and the wealthy to change?

Finally, I believe that there is for lack of a better word, "political spirit" that blinds good people both sides of the political aisle in this country, they sweet talk their way into our ears, get us used to using their sort of thinking patterns and then when they get us used to that they just exchange their "facts" for the facts we would otherwise recognize when we saw and heard them. I know most on this board will no doubt chuckle or shake their heads in disbelief or disgust, but I'm asking you as a man of God, to do one simple thing, pray!! Ask God if I'm right or if I'm mental and then listen, I mean really listen for his answer. I will gladly abide by that answer as long as the answer comes from God, who most likely hates politics even more than I do.

[BedellBrave]

Sure, those are big numbers. But compare them to the 'dark money' numbers for the 2012 election cycle, BB. It's out there and easy to find. Post-Citizens United spending from the Kochs and Adelsons of the world dwarf the AFL-CIO/SEIU/AFSCMEs.


Please correct me if I'm way off base. Do you have figures post Citizens United comparing them?

Did the Koch brothers donate more than $400 million? Link (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292645/who-s-biggest-outside-group-2012-elections-big-labor-jonathan-collegio)


Link 2 (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/10/wsj-unions-contribute-four-times-what-fec-disclosures-show/) I would have give the WSJ link but the article is behind the pay wall.

[BedellBrave]

You guys just sit back like those trial lawyers you hate so much don't you?? How many times and how many things over the years have you totally ignored while you were searching for an opening you can use to try and discredit 99 facts by finding one weakness? Is that Repub honor? I never said unions weren't a problem, just that in my opinion they weren't the problem they once were. Do you deny how the past few years have gutted many unions? Of course the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters are still uber wealthy, they put aside so many millions/billions during the 60's and 70's they can influence American politics until strug is my age + your age put together, even if they never take in another dime.

Did you ignore the stuff I said about how the Dems would have to kick out Soros if they got CU eliminated? Yeah, the red glare from my mentioning the Koch brothers in a disparaging way probably caused that. My bad!!!

The next time somebody besmirches the honor of the wonderful Koch brothers, ask yourself, or better yet go to a nice reliable website (you know what kind I mean) and ask them how much they stand to gain on the Keystone pipeline Repubs call for every day.


Not ignoring it at all and am not trying to discredit "99 facts." I'm just looking at the tons of money being given by union after union after union and am not seeing why you didn't seem to think that was much of an issue. You were the one who threw my name in about some straw man argument. And so I responded. I've also already stated my opinion about the super rich. I am not defending the Koch brothers. I don't care for them. But you were defending unions (and I suppose all the money they pour into politics).

What do you mean that unions have been gutted? Have a bunch folded? Lost a bunch of existing membership? Members actually getting a say over dues? I don't know. it isn't anything I really follow. So, I don't think I can deny it or confirm it. If you want me to like unions though Hawk, I'm afraid my various personal experiences with them make that a mighty difficult task. Glad you've had a better experience.

[BedellBrave]

When W was a part owner in the Texas Rangers he and his group got a big government grant to go on the new stadium deal in Arlington, as well as the taxpayers footing the bill for the rest of the costs. Jerry Jones used every kind of propaganda BS when he wanted a new stadium, including hiring a real GM for the first time and last time ever (Bill Parcells). As soon as he got the deal passed, Bill decided to "go spend more time with his family". Why do you think the ultra wealthy think they're entitled (I actually enjoy using that word with them) to the rest of us paying for everything so they won't have to tap into their bazillions?? For the same reason our elected officials feel the same way, basically because we allow them to feel that way. They have us buffaloed and they know it.

My plan, which I have said plenty of other times, do away with corporate tax loopholes for any company that outsources jobs. See, I don't want to just "give the rich's money to the poor" I want to give the poor a chance to earn a real living, not minimum wage increase for working at Burger King, but real jobs that those greedy bastards sent overseas so they could make just a few more millions. You see to me, hurting American families, breaking up American families (because married couples argue and get divorced eventually) over money, or the lack of it more than anything else. What do you have then? More single parent families, more kids committing crimes because of no supervision because their single parent is out trying to make a living. You don't have as many positive role models because a single parent working 3 jobs just to make ends meet isn't sexy, but for some reason known only to God himself some ahole rapper talking about how all women are bitches or whores, (or maybe on a good day they might be able to do both) and how they made money by pimping, selling drugs and various other illegal activities and they got rich that way. They took away so many good role models and we're surprised when the kids find bad ones?

My solution, set up a real sweetheart deal for companies who hire American workers and pay them a real living wage and decent benefits, I mean really make it worth their whiles, and tax the living sh!t out of companies like Verizon who made what $80B and paid ZERO taxes on it. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. Stop paying people, colleges, companies, etc. for doing research into finding answers, cures, etc. and pay them a king's ransom for actually finding those solutions. Set up a system for anyone who can create a REAL alternative fuel source and have the NSA keep an eye on those people and if any oil company or anyone who could benefit from keeping us depending on oil and if they catch anyone even approaching those people to try and acquire that technology or trying to keep it from getting out, give those people to me to punish, I'll bet you it wouldn't happen again. No more robber barons doing hostile takeovers, ala those good old Reagan 80's, no more big companies buying out, pushing out, or pulling any sort of shady bullsh!t to keep competition down, and don't even ask for a merger, period. Capitalism is supposed to be based on competition and to me anything that diminishes competition hurts capitalism, you know like those damn socialists.

I'm sick of the wealthy hurting Americans who are trying to do the right thing and work hard to make it, I'm sick of middle class Americans hurting Americans who are trying to do the right thing and work hard to make it,and I"m sick of poor Americans hurting Americans who are trying to work hard and do the right thing. That's MY base, though none of them even know who the hell I am.

Enough solutions? Probably not, but it's a start. So let me ask you a couple of questions and make you a proposal. First I believe you're very much against the ACA (correct me if I"m wrong). So, tell me why you hate it so much, I mean really. How would you seek to correct the wealth disparity in this country? Do you agree with weso, it's just one of those cyclical things and will correct itself, by itself or is it as I said a well conceived and even better carried out system that has changed the wealth ownership percentages? What would YOU do to correct it? Would you put any sort of onus on big business and the wealthy to change?

Finally, I believe that there is for lack of a better word, "political spirit" that blinds good people both sides of the political aisle in this country, they sweet talk their way into our ears, get us used to using their sort of thinking patterns and then when they get us used to that they just exchange their "facts" for the facts we would otherwise recognize when we saw and heard them. I know most on this board will no doubt chuckle or shake their heads in disbelief or disgust, but I'm asking you as a man of God, to do one simple thing, pray!! Ask God if I'm right or if I'm mental and then listen, I mean really listen for his answer. I will gladly abide by that answer as long as the answer comes from God, who most likely hates politics even more than I do.


Hard to read all that Hawk. I'm going to have to break it down and pull out your bullet points from the rest. May take awhile.

[BedellBrave]

My plan, which I have said plenty of other times, do away with corporate tax loopholes for any company that outsources jobs.

My solution, set up a real sweetheart deal for companies who hire American workers and pay them a real living wage and decent benefits,

tax the living sh!t out of companies like Verizon who made what $80B and paid ZERO taxes on it.

Stop paying people, colleges, companies, etc. for doing research into finding answers, cures, etc. and pay them a king's ransom for actually finding those solutions.

Set up a system for anyone who can create a REAL alternative fuel source and have the NSA keep an eye on those people





I'll get to your questions, but are these your basic points to make the rich less rich?

[Oklahomahawk]

Not ignoring it at all and am not trying to discredit "99 facts." I'm just looking at the tons of money being given by union after union after union and am not seeing why you didn't seem to think that was much of an issue. You were the one who threw my name in about some straw man argument. And so I responded. I've also already stated my opinion about the super rich. I am not defending the Koch brothers. I don't care for them. But you were defending unions (and I suppose all the money they pour into politics).

What do you mean that unions have been gutted? Have a bunch folded? Lost a bunch of existing membership? Members actually getting a say over dues? I don't know. it isn't anything I really follow. So, I don't think I can deny it or confirm it. If you want me to like unions though Hawk, I'm afraid my various personal experiences with them make that a mighty difficult task. Glad you've had a better experience.

I haven't had a better experience with unions, but I see them as exactly what they are, a necessary evil. I was in a union when I taught in the public schools of OK for 5 of the 6 years I taught in them. Having union representation was the ONLY thing that made it possible to actually keep the parents and especially the administration off your backs to a point where you could actually get away with making little Johnny and little Mary sit the eff down and shut the eff up long enough to actually teach them something. The common misconception is that the administration stands for discipline and making sure the kids learn. Of course some are that way but it was my experience that the vast majority just wanted to keep their high paying jobs and wanted the teacher to maintain discipline, just as long as it didn't offend any kids/parents. Piss off little Johnny or Mary's parents by making them behave and see what happens.

The main MO of unions is the reward members according to time served rather than quality of work done during that time, which could not be more against my philosophies on the subject. With that said, I've worked for companies where management had all the power and there were no unions and it was MUCH worse. This is another generalization but conservatives "typically" give the benefit of the doubt to management/administration and suspect lazy workers for any problems with the work getting done (picture your average Gatom rant about how lazy his workers were/are). They also "typically" picture the job of upper management or CEO as something Hercules himself would have a hard time completing. I've never known a CEO from that group but I've worked for some pretty highly placed individuals in my life and they had assistants to do just about everything for them. Yeah I know "broad brush" but remember that works both ways too. As you rightly pointed out in another post recently, the whole "only the Sith deals in absolutes" really is just a talking point. There are very very very few absolutes in this world.

No offense to you or weso or any other conservative here but if unions block voted for Repubs would we really still be having any of these same conversations about them? Wouldn't all the stuff unions do that piss you off be seen in at least somewhat less threatening or irritating eyes?

Probably the worst (and MOST inaccurate) statement I've ever seen on this forum or anywhere else for that matter (and I don't recall you or weso EVER saying this so this is definitely not at you guys at all) is that maybe unions were necessary 100 years ago for the terrible and dangerous working conditions in factories, pitifully low pay, things lunch harassment of every kind in the workplace, lunch pail fathers, and so on) but they've really outlived their usefulness. They aren't necessary anymore. Of all the horribly wrong statements you have ever or will ever hear that's got to be my #1 worst/most wrong. The same spirit that caused owners and management to mistreat other human beings just so they could make a little bit more 100 years ago is still very much alive today. After all, it's a spirit, it isn't going anywhere until that glorious day when all of them get cast into the lake of fire.

[Oklahomahawk]

Hard to read all that Hawk. I'm going to have to break it down and pull out your bullet points from the rest. May take awhile.

You know, ironically I actually hear that more often than you might think. :icon_biggrin:

[Oklahomahawk]

I'll get to your questions, but are these your basic points to make the rich less rich?

I know this probably isn't fair because you can't really tell a person's "tone" or any other nuances of speech, intent, etc., from a post on a discussion forum, but to me it seems like while you at least somewhat agree with my description of at least some, and probably most of the rich, to actually do anything about it would be morally and ethically wrong (which since IMO they rigged the system first to get this way, rigging it to bring things back into balance would not be a sin) and probably impossible anyway (which while I don't like this part, in the real world that we all live in is most likely true). If I have misread you I apologize and please by all means straighten me out on this.

Among the very few things I like about Obama is that he rightly points out the BS wealth disparity in this country. Among the many things I don't like about him is that he can see it and point it out, but the only thing he thinks needs to be done about it is to raise minimum wage???? Seriously??? WTF????

[Julio3000]

Please correct me if I'm way off base. Do you have figures post Citizens United comparing them?

Did the Koch brothers donate more than $400 million? Link (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292645/who-s-biggest-outside-group-2012-elections-big-labor-jonathan-collegio)


Link 2 (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/10/wsj-unions-contribute-four-times-what-fec-disclosures-show/) I would have give the WSJ link but the article is behind the pay wall.

Well, I was specifically talking about some types of Super-PACs and so-called "dark money" spending, since their donors can remain secret and can contribute unlimited funds. In the 2012 cycle, the AFL-CIO and AFSCME SPACs spend about $6M each. Americans for Prosperity spent $20M, and American Crossroads spent $104M.

The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that Republican "dark money" outstripped Democratic "dark money" by about 8-1. About 75% of single-candidate Super-PACs active in congressional races were funding conservative candidates.

So, the $400M number . . . the AP article linked in the piece is no longer up, so I can't really comment on it. I know that union leaders expected to spend at least $400M in the 2012 cycle, on all activities, across federal, state, and local races. I'm not disputing the number per se, but I'm also not finding it in black and white. Unions that are NLRB-certified are subject to a higher level of transparency, so we should have a better idea of how their money is spent. Corporations are not subject to the same rules. That leads to a lot of disingenuous talk about how relatively little money the Koch brothers DIRECTLY spend in DISCLOSED spend. Someone will write a piece saying "Hey, the Kochs only donated a couple of million dollars, and Koch Industries only donated $4.9M, but the UNIONS . . ." when in fact, the Kochs have set up a network of shell corporations designed to shield themselves and their donor entities from scrutiny. The Koch network spent at least $412M during the 2012 cycle. Crossroads spent another $325M.

I could make partisan points about this all day. Believe me, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit out there. But the shameful way that the American elections are funded should not be a partisan issue. This has been a hobbyhorse of mine for years. It subverts democracy and is one of the clearest expressions of the truth of Warren Buffett's "my class is winning" statement.

[BedellBrave]

A professor friend of mine just posted this elsewhere. I pretty much agree:

"Congressional public policy and votes in America are buying brought to you buy labor unions and big business."

[BedellBrave]

Well, I was specifically talking about some types of Super-PACs and so-called "dark money" spending, since their donors can remain secret and can contribute unlimited funds. In the 2012 cycle, the AFL-CIO and AFSCME SPACs spend about $6M each. Americans for Prosperity spent $20M, and American Crossroads spent $104M.

The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that Republican "dark money" outstripped Democratic "dark money" by about 8-1. About 75% of single-candidate Super-PACs active in congressional races were funding conservative candidates.

So, the $400M number . . . the AP article linked in the piece is no longer up, so I can't really comment on it. I know that union leaders expected to spend at least $400M in the 2012 cycle, on all activities, across federal, state, and local races. I'm not disputing the number per se, but I'm also not finding it in black and white. Unions that are NLRB-certified are subject to a higher level of transparency, so we should have a better idea of how their money is spent. Corporations are not subject to the same rules. That leads to a lot of disingenuous talk about how relatively little money the Koch brothers DIRECTLY spend in DISCLOSED spend. Someone will write a piece saying "Hey, the Kochs only donated a couple of million dollars, and Koch Industries only donated $4.9M, but the UNIONS . . ." when in fact, the Kochs have set up a network of shell corporations designed to shield themselves and their donor entities from scrutiny. The Koch network spent at least $412M during the 2012 cycle. Crossroads spent another $325M.

I could make partisan points about this all day. Believe me, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit out there. But the shameful way that the American elections are funded should not be a partisan issue. This has been a hobbyhorse of mine for years. It subverts democracy and is one of the clearest expressions of the truth of Warren Buffett's "my class is winning" statement.


I suspect Julio, that we shouldn't expect unions or corporations or any group of sinners to be purely transparent with what they are doing. That's my overarching point here. We all tend to give certain folks a pass, or minimize their nefarious roles in our ugly political system while going on rants against our "foes."

[BedellBrave]

I know this probably isn't fair because you can't really tell a person's "tone" or any other nuances of speech, intent, etc., from a post on a discussion forum, but to me it seems like while you at least somewhat agree with my description of at least some, and probably most of the rich, to actually do anything about it would be morally and ethically wrong (which since IMO they rigged the system first to get this way, rigging it to bring things back into balance would not be a sin) and probably impossible anyway (which while I don't like this part, in the real world that we all live in is most likely true). If I have misread you I apologize and please by all means straighten me out on this.

Among the very few things I like about Obama is that he rightly points out the BS wealth disparity in this country. Among the many things I don't like about him is that he can see it and point it out, but the only thing he thinks needs to be done about it is to raise minimum wage???? Seriously??? WTF????


I do agree with you about the problem.

I think I expand the problem out more broadly than you (I think) to include the "noble" left-leaning filthy rich.

Riches aren't evil in themselves - love of mammon and all.

To do something about wealth disparity isn't of necessity wrong. I am not saying that it is.

Rather it is difficult. Exceedingly difficult.

Be very careful at the steps you take - there could be unintended consequences. And the cure could be worse than the disease. And other such clichés.

Of course, I don't think Jesus was wrong - we will always have the poor among us (and thus the rich). We shouldn't have any allusions that we won't or that there's some political-economic fix. That's the farce of communism in practice.

By that he doesn't suggest apathy - he is being realistic and it was an aside to his main concern at that moment anyway.

As far as I can tell, we can do all that you suggest and Bill Gates and George Soros and Koch brothers and Mark Zuckerberg and Warren Buffet will all still be filthy rich. And the Hollywood elites, the vermin like Miley Cyrus, the upper-level pro athletes, the big wigs in universities and in unions, Joel Osteen, John Hagee, Oprah Winfrey, and the CEOs with their golden parachutes and stock options will still be there sitting pretty.

It's depressing.

I also need to take heed of my own heart though here at this point. Why does it bother me? Is my anger righteous? Or is it the product of greed within my own heart. Nasty business sin.

[BedellBrave]

I haven't had a better experience with unions, but I see them as exactly what they are, a necessary evil. I was in a union when I taught in the public schools of OK for 5 of the 6 years I taught in them. Having union representation was the ONLY thing that made it possible to actually keep the parents and especially the administration off your backs to a point where you could actually get away with making little Johnny and little Mary sit the eff down and shut the eff up long enough to actually teach them something. The common misconception is that the administration stands for discipline and making sure the kids learn. Of course some are that way but it was my experience that the vast majority just wanted to keep their high paying jobs and wanted the teacher to maintain discipline, just as long as it didn't offend any kids/parents. Piss off little Johnny or Mary's parents by making them behave and see what happens.

The main MO of unions is the reward members according to time served rather than quality of work done during that time, which could not be more against my philosophies on the subject. With that said, I've worked for companies where management had all the power and there were no unions and it was MUCH worse. This is another generalization but conservatives "typically" give the benefit of the doubt to management/administration and suspect lazy workers for any problems with the work getting done (picture your average Gatom rant about how lazy his workers were/are). They also "typically" picture the job of upper management or CEO as something Hercules himself would have a hard time completing. I've never known a CEO from that group but I've worked for some pretty highly placed individuals in my life and they had assistants to do just about everything for them. Yeah I know "broad brush" but remember that works both ways too. As you rightly pointed out in another post recently, the whole "only the Sith deals in absolutes" really is just a talking point. There are very very very few absolutes in this world.

No offense to you or weso or any other conservative here but if unions block voted for Repubs would we really still be having any of these same conversations about them? Wouldn't all the stuff unions do that piss you off be seen in at least somewhat less threatening or irritating eyes?

Probably the worst (and MOST inaccurate) statement I've ever seen on this forum or anywhere else for that matter (and I don't recall you or weso EVER saying this so this is definitely not at you guys at all) is that maybe unions were necessary 100 years ago for the terrible and dangerous working conditions in factories, pitifully low pay, things lunch harassment of every kind in the workplace, lunch pail fathers, and so on) but they've really outlived their usefulness. They aren't necessary anymore. Of all the horribly wrong statements you have ever or will ever hear that's got to be my #1 worst/most wrong. The same spirit that caused owners and management to mistreat other human beings just so they could make a little bit more 100 years ago is still very much alive today. After all, it's a spirit, it isn't going anywhere until that glorious day when all of them get cast into the lake of fire.


The point isn't unions per se Hawk, it is with not seeing unions as part of the money problem or in downplaying their role.

Yes, there is a place for unions - I just wish they were more noble and didn't have this "rent a mob," "thug," "entitled," sadly-well-earnd reputation. I have watched union employees milk their employers (and in this case the energy consumers of a particular state) dry. I have crossed a picket line and have been a scab as I tried to make ends meet. I have watched family members who have been in unions have battles of conscience over how forced dues were being spent, not for them, but for left-leaning politics that went against their very moral fabric. And so sorry - much of this is personal. Highly personal.

I am not inclined to give them a pass.

But not giving them a pass doesn't then mean that I give arsehole employers, CEOs, etc., a pass. I wasted a year of my life working under a most despicable, arrogant, misleading, bombastic excuse for a business owner. Then again, I've had some very fine people to work for both in the small business world and the corporate. I know scum and decent folks can be found in what ever group we want to discuss.

[Dalyn]

A professor friend of mine just posted this elsewhere. I pretty much agree:

"Congressional public policy and votes in America are buying brought to you buy labor unions and big business."

A professor wrote that sentence?

[Oklahomahawk]

A professor wrote that sentence?

Well not an English professor.

[BedellBrave]

A professor wrote that sentence?


:-) Yeah, one that types and writes like I often do.

Link (http://bradley.chattablogs.com/anthony-bradley.html)

[BedellBrave]

http://vimeo.com/30951250

[Oklahomahawk]

Bedell, I really liked your posts and I'm going to respond I just want to do them justice when I do so it may be tomorrow before this happens. I just wanted to let you know.

[BedellBrave]

Bedell, I really liked your posts and I'm going to respond I just want to do them justice when I do so it may be tomorrow before this happens. I just wanted to let you know.

No rush friend. But thank you.

[The Chosen One]

The notion that if we raise taxes on the rich, they'll stop being productive is ludicrous.

Whoever is getting taxed that much, will still be rich in the influence and power.

If the rich get taxed, they're going to figure out how to keep making money, and if they do stop there's always another person next in line waiting to take their spot. Because a millionaire would rather be bagging groceries at Publix.

[Tapate50]

The notion that if we raise taxes on the rich, they'll stop being productive is ludicrous.

Whoever is getting taxed that much, will still be rich in the influence and power.

If the rich get taxed, they're going to figure out how to keep making money, and if they do stop there's always another person next in line waiting to take their spot. Because a millionaire would rather be bagging groceries at Publix.

Still be rich in influence in power ? Is that serious? I'm assuming not because of the bagging groceries comment.

[The Chosen One]

Still be rich in influence in power ? Is that serious? I'm assuming not because of the bagging groceries comment.

My point was if they are going to whine about it, someone is hungry to take their spot so they can bag groceries.


They still would have influence, since they would still rich.

[Tapate50]

My point was if they are going to whine about it, someone is hungry to take their spot so they can bag groceries.


They still would have influence, since they would still rich.

I don't follow that at all and it frankly doesn't make any sense.

[Krgrecw]

The notion that if we raise taxes on the rich, they'll stop being productive is ludicrous.

Whoever is getting taxed that much, will still be rich in the influence and power.

If the rich get taxed, they're going to figure out how to keep making money, and if they do stop there's always another person next in line waiting to take their spot. Because a millionaire would rather be bagging groceries at Publix.



You think it's also safe to say that increasing the minimum wage won't make people that don't want to work, work? You think people will give up 'free goods and services' for a few extra dollars?

[AerchAngel]

Unfortunate you can't change the rates to suit your business needs.

Small businesses will get killed because they have to raise minimum raise 3 dollars and those who don't receive minimum wage will also get the same 3 dollars or more and if fair should be a lot more. A menial job at 3 dollars is around $7.00 for a professional job.


Grocer (didn't go to school or GED) 7.25 to 10.10 equals a 2.85 increase roughly 28%
Programmer (cheapest wage and have a 4 or 8 year degree) 22.50 to 29.25

So how can businesses afford this without raising the prices a lot?

Manufacturing big industries already pay their least skilled workers more than the minimum wage.

The restaurants and mom and pop stores and restaurants can't afford this without raising prices a lot so that money you receive is still not going to give you a higher purchasing power.

[Tapate50]

How much increased tax revenue would a 10.10 min wage create?

[Krgrecw]

How much increased tax revenue would a 10.10 min wage create?



Not enough to offset the loss of how many people will be laid off it that happens

[50PoundHead]

How much increased tax revenue would a 10.10 min wage create?

Very little, because even at that increased rate of pay, the worker will still be fairly close to the zero bracket amount. It would probably reduce tax revenue because the businesses paying the workers would have less profit.

But tax revenue isn't why the minimum wage should be discussed.

[BedellBrave]

I am not opposed to a minimum wage increase. But again, our actions can have unintended consequences. While automation is coming no matter, I suspect such an increase will only hasten it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QwHfRNvy_4I/UmweHtBWl6I/AAAAAAAAAQU/y1oOA1NDN84/s1600/Panera+KC.jpg



https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/p403x403/970783_10101335124895928_912321113_n.jpg

[50PoundHead]

I am not opposed to a minimum wage increase. But again, our actions can have unintended consequences. While automation is coming no matter, I suspect such an increase will only hasten it.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QwHfRNvy_4I/UmweHtBWl6I/AAAAAAAAAQU/y1oOA1NDN84/s1600/Panera+KC.jpg



https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/p403x403/970783_10101335124895928_912321113_n.jpg

I don't think the minimum wage debate will have much to do with increasing automation. It might accelerate the trend, but most places are doing that right now. I don't eat much fast food anymore, but I can only imagine how crappy the service is going to be at these automated joints.

[BedellBrave]

It is happening and has been happening - gas stations, grocery stores, etc. We are going to lose more and more of these minimum wage jobs no doubt about it.

It will be cheaper at some price point for businesses to automate this way.

[Tapate50]

Very little, because even at that increased rate of pay, the worker will still be fairly close to the zero bracket amount. It would probably reduce tax revenue because the businesses paying the workers would have less profit.

But tax revenue isn't why the minimum wage should be discussed.

I completely understand why it should or shouldn't be, but in every decision there are other results and aftershocks to be considered ( or other reasons why it's being pushed )

[The Chosen One]

Going to be a sad day when people start physically revolting against the rich because there's no more jobs and the profits and income equality gets farther and farther. The looting, shooting, and killing...

Then we can all sit here and whine about taxing job creators.

[AerchAngel]

Going to be a sad day when people start physically revolting against the rich because there's no more jobs and the profits and income equality gets farther and farther. The looting, shooting, and killing...

Then we can all sit here and whine about taxing job creators.

That's been happening already.

So what else is new?

[The Chosen One]

That's been happening already.

So what else is new?

Hasn't been happening like on a scale in a third world country.

Think Katrina, without the hurricane.

[Tapate50]

Going to be a sad day when people start physically revolting against the rich because there's no more jobs and the profits and income equality gets farther and farther. The looting, shooting, and killing...

Then we can all sit here and whine about taxing job creators.

At least no one is trying to keep those people being attacked from being able to properly defend themselves from such a mass attack.

[50PoundHead]

I completely understand why it should or shouldn't be, but in every decision there are other results and aftershocks to be considered ( or other reasons why it's being pushed )

I'm just saying that tax effects shouldn't even be in the discussion. One would think that folks on top would support a living wage for workers because if that were the case, there would be less need for government programs to support the needs of low-income earners.

[Tapate50]

I'm just saying that tax effects shouldn't even be in the discussion. One would think that folks on top would support a living wage for workers because if that were the case, there would be less need for government programs to support the needs of low-income earners.

I know what you are saying completely. I am for anything that gets people off the government tit, but I doubt this is the solution seeing as it wouldn't increase purchasing power with the associated cost increase of goods and services.

[sturg33]

Let's see...

Federal reserve shovels $85B a month of new dollars into the economy. This of course causes inflation but folks defend it by saying "who cares, there's more dollars to offset it?" OK, that would be true if that $85B was being distributed equally. But it's not.

Fed gives $85B a month to banks.

The banks loan it out to rich people.

Rich people are able to invest it to become more rich.

Income inequality gets worse.

It's not a tax issue. It's a money printing issue. But until our government is willing to put the fed out of business, it will continue.

[50PoundHead]

I know what you are saying completely. I am for anything that gets people off the government tit, but I doubt this is the solution seeing as it wouldn't increase purchasing power with the associated cost increase of goods and services.

And that could be. I think this is where the argument surrounding guaranteed annual income instead of a network of public welfare benefits enters the discussion and that has support on the far left and the far right, but seemingly nowhere in between.

And the price for goods and services only goes up if the owner of the goods and/or services takes home less profit.

They get you coming or going here. You either pay the employees and that comes off your bottom line or you pay the government and that comes off your bottom line. Or we put people in camps or something. The whole lie of supply-side economics is its depiction that the economy is that there's this hunky dory universe at the end of the rainbow if we just let nature take its course.

[Tapate50]

And that could be. I think this is where the argument surrounding guaranteed annual income instead of a network of public welfare benefits enters the discussion and that has support on the far left and the far right, but seemingly nowhere in between.

And the price for goods and services only goes up if the owner of the goods and/or services takes home less profit.

They get you coming or going here. You either pay the employees and that comes off your bottom line or you pay the government and that comes off your bottom line. Or we put people in camps or something. The whole lie of supply-side economics is its depiction that the economy is that there's this hunky dory universe at the end of the rainbow if we just let nature take its course.

A huge sweeping assumption in bold.... I mean a whopper.

For most people running a business and their last name isn't Walton, Rockafeller, or Buffet (those families that can get drunk off their power and influence stock portfolio) that labor % increase is probably the difference in staying afloat or closing up shop. Necessities with narrow margins like milk, food, gas, etc... are all going to see increases. It gets tiring to keep pointing out the differences in ma and pop to WalMart, Chick Fil A, and Ford. Not many on here realize there is a difference or what its like trying to keep a small business afloat. Think this will benefit the lending industry? No chance.

[50PoundHead]

A huge sweeping assumption in bold.... I mean a whopper.

For most people running a business and their last name isn't Walton, Rockafeller, or Buffet (those families that can get drunk off their power and influence stock portfolio) that labor % increase is probably the difference in staying afloat or closing up shop. Necessities with narrow margins like milk, food, gas, etc... are all going to see increases. It gets tiring to keep pointing out the differences in ma and pop to WalMart, Chick Fil A, and Ford. Not many on here realize there is a difference or what its like trying to keep a small business afloat. Think this will benefit the lending industry? No chance.

It's not a whopper. It's simple math. I agree that raising the minimum wage could deep six a business because no one stays in business if they are taking a loss. Hence, prices may have to go up unless you ca absorb it. If you can't somehow accommodate it, you go out of business. I agree with your premise. It will vary from business to business and will depend on how many more units have to be produced or what the price per unit will have to be to accommodate any rise of the minimum wage. If you labor cost goes up a unit, your revenue has to go up a unit for revenue to stay in the same place. That is also simple math and microeconomics.

I don't necessarily agree with your examples, especially with food commodity prices where they are and production costs relatively low. Big ag is making out big time these days. I think it may be headed for a crash in the next couple of years, but those effects go far beyond the minimum wage debate.

sturg33, inequality has been getting worse since the 1970s. There have been myriad demographic changes over that period that have contributed to that, most notably that people with only a high school education used to be able to make a decent living because of the availability of stable, unskilled jobs. Some were union jobs, but I don't necessarily believe that a strong union presence would have helped. It's about greater use of technology and the flat-out elimination of a whole class of jobs. Add to that the collapse of small farming due to rising marginal costs and you can see the evaporation of jobs from there. We've had eras of tight and easy money over the past four decades and the rich have continued to separate themselves from the rest of us. It sounds snide and simplistic, but the house always wins.

[The Chosen One]

It's not a whopper. It's simple math. I agree that raising the minimum wage could deep six a business because no one stays in business if they are taking a loss. Hence, prices may have to go up unless you ca absorb it. If you can't somehow accommodate it, you go out of business. I agree with your premise. It will vary from business to business and will depend on how many more units have to be produced or what the price per unit will have to be to accommodate any rise of the minimum wage. If you labor cost goes up a unit, your revenue has to go up a unit for revenue to stay in the same place. That is also simple math and microeconomics.

I don't necessarily agree with your examples, especially with food commodity prices where they are and production costs relatively low. Big ag is making out big time these days. I think it may be headed for a crash in the next couple of years, but those effects go far beyond the minimum wage debate.

sturg33, inequality has been getting worse since the 1970s. There have been myriad demographic changes over that period that have contributed to that, most notably that people with only a high school education used to be able to make a decent living because of the availability of stable, unskilled jobs. Some were union jobs, but I don't necessarily believe that a strong union presence would have helped. It's about greater use of technology and the flat-out elimination of a whole class of jobs. Add to that the collapse of small farming due to rising marginal costs and you can see the evaporation of jobs from there. We've had eras of tight and easy money over the past four decades and the rich have continued to separate themselves from the rest of us. It sounds snide and simplistic, but the house always wins.


FREE MARKET

[sturg33]

I love that KL hates the income inequality, then makes fun of me when I say we should switch to a free market. Clearly our current corporatism economy isn't working.

[The Chosen One]

I love that KL hates the income inequality, then makes fun of me when I say we should switch to a free market. Clearly our current corporatism economy isn't working.

A free market in this country would still be a corporatism economy.

The entire point of government having intervention in certain aspects economy like progressive taxation and social programs, is to make sure that middle class and poor people don't get completely shafted to where there's civil unrest everywhere.

[sturg33]

Capitalism and corporatism are two very different things

[Krgrecw]

A free market in this country would still be a corporatism economy.

The entire point of government having intervention in certain aspects economy like progressive taxation and social programs, is to make sure that middle class and poor people don't get completely shafted to where there's civil unrest everywhere.



Curious Sav, how are you getting shafted? What's your degree?

Do you think that people should be guaranteed good jobs that pay well?




The people that are getting shafted are the small local businesse owners that can't hire people or pay more due to all this government crap like Obamacare and not needed taxes.

[sturg33]

A free market in this country would still be a corporatism economy.

The entire point of government having intervention in certain aspects economy like progressive taxation and social programs, is to make sure that middle class and poor people don't get completely shafted to where there's civil unrest everywhere.

Looks to me like the entire point of government intervention is ensure the rich keep getting richer… Do you disagree? How's Wall Street doing under Mr. Fair Obama?

[Tapate50]

Looks to me like the entire point of government intervention is ensure the rich keep getting richer… Do you disagree? How's Wall Street doing under Mr. Fair Obama?

Change! Yes we can!

[50PoundHead]

Looks to me like the entire point of government intervention is ensure the rich keep getting richer… Do you disagree? How's Wall Street doing under Mr. Fair Obama?

But Wall Street has always done well and continues to do well. I think the issue now is that while they continue to do well, a lot of folks are doing worse than they did in previous generations. And although I'm left-of-center, I think the problem has as much to do with changes in the structure of the economy as opposed to anything else. We've gone from an agricultural/manufacturing economy to a service economy. People with little or no training beyond high school used to be able to compete and have some measure of success due to the strength of local economies. In an economy that has become increasingly tilted toward service and increasingly concentrated in urban/suburban areas as opposed to rural areas, low-end workers are sentenced to a number of disadvantages that it may take a generation to overcome.

And I don't know if raising the minimum wage helps or not. I honestly don't. I think it's value/detriment is overstated by both sides of the argument.

[AerchAngel]

Curious Sav, how are you getting shafted? What's your degree?

Do you think that people should be guaranteed good jobs that pay well?




The people that are getting shafted are the small local businesse owners that can't hire people or pay more due to all this government crap like Obamacare and not needed taxes.

Wife is prime example. We have a small business which Okie, Bedell and Dalyn knows what it is by my Facebook account and they know what my job is so we aren't rich nor poor, barely in the middle class range. She complains she needs help but we can't really afford a person with taxes going up. She had some help before but it was too expensive. I told her when our son is in school everyday, she can take on more work and add an intern.

[Julio3000]

Curious Sav, how are you getting shafted? What's your degree?

Do you think that people should be guaranteed good jobs that pay well?




The people that are getting shafted are the small local businesse owners that can't hire people or pay more due to all this government crap like Obamacare and not needed taxes.

I realize that "small business" is a pretty big umbrella, and one can't necessarily generalize about them as easily as we're wont to, but . . .

Obamacare isn't particularly hard on small business. If you're under 50 employees, there's no employer mandate to provide insurance. In fact, if you DO provide insurance, there's a nice tax credit (35%, soon to rise to 50%) that covers a portion of what you pay in premiums. I'm sure someone can provide something, but I'm struggling to come up with a specific way that O has been hard on small business. Of course, in a sluggish recovery of an economy built on consumer spending, many businesses are suffering from demand issues, but that's another kettle of fish.

I second 50s point above about the structural changes in our economy. Much of it is now in the service sector, and a large portion of those jobs are easily sent offshore, or automated. The price of entry to the middle and upper-middle class has increased—school tuition, child care, housing—and household incomes have stayed pretty flat. For a couple of decades the slack was taken up by single-income households becoming two-income households, but that has pretty much run its course. There's not an ideological silver bullet for the structural shifts 50 describes. Those of us on either side of the divide have our favored ideas, but I'd be skeptical of anyone who offers an easy fix.

[sturg33]

I realize that "small business" is a pretty big umbrella, and one can't necessarily generalize about them as easily as we're wont to, but . . .

Obamacare isn't particularly hard on small business. If you're under 50 employees, there's no employer mandate to provide insurance. In fact, if you DO provide insurance, there's a nice tax credit (35%, soon to rise to 50%) that covers a portion of what you pay in premiums. I'm sure someone can provide something, but I'm struggling to come up with a specific way that O has been hard on small business. Of course, in a sluggish recovery of an economy built on consumer spending, many businesses are suffering from demand issues, but that's another kettle of fish.

I second 50s point above about the structural changes in our economy. Much of it is now in the service sector, and a large portion of those jobs are easily sent offshore, or automated. The price of entry to the middle and upper-middle class has increased—school tuition, child care, housing—and household incomes have stayed pretty flat. For a couple of decades the slack was taken up by single-income households becoming two-income households, but that has pretty much run its course. There's not an ideological silver bullet for the structural shifts 50 describes. Those of us on either side of the divide have our favored ideas, but I'd be skeptical of anyone who offers an easy fix.

I think the increased regulation burden has really hurt small businesses. I can't tell you how many people I work with who had once started their own business who tell me that they would no longer be willing to do it today because of the regulations

[Julio3000]

I think the increased regulation burden has really hurt small businesses. I can't tell you how many people I work with who had once started their own business who tell me that they would no longer be willing to do it today because of the regulations

You're talking about new federal regulations?

[57Brave]

I agree with Sturg in that I know a number of the same people. Good, honest innovative people that were strangled by regulation.
On the other hand, I too know a number of people that found a way to navigate the waters of regulation.
In the end isn't that the difference between a "good" business man and one not so much? One that recognizes obstacles and sees/ creates a way through

This isn't in any way a value judgement but some people are chiefs and some people are indians.

[AerchAngel]

I think the increased regulation burden has really hurt small businesses. I can't tell you how many people I work with who had once started their own business who tell me that they would no longer be willing to do it today because of the regulations

We are fortunate not to be stymied by it because we do not have products but service base. The only requirement is updating of licensing and that increases every year.

[zitothebrave]

I realize that "small business" is a pretty big umbrella, and one can't necessarily generalize about them as easily as we're wont to, but . . .

Obamacare isn't particularly hard on small business. If you're under 50 employees, there's no employer mandate to provide insurance. In fact, if you DO provide insurance, there's a nice tax credit (35%, soon to rise to 50%) that covers a portion of what you pay in premiums. I'm sure someone can provide something, but I'm struggling to come up with a specific way that O has been hard on small business. Of course, in a sluggish recovery of an economy built on consumer spending, many businesses are suffering from demand issues, but that's another kettle of fish.

I second 50s point above about the structural changes in our economy. Much of it is now in the service sector, and a large portion of those jobs are easily sent offshore, or automated. The price of entry to the middle and upper-middle class has increased—school tuition, child care, housing—and household incomes have stayed pretty flat. For a couple of decades the slack was taken up by single-income households becoming two-income households, but that has pretty much run its course. There's not an ideological silver bullet for the structural shifts 50 describes. Those of us on either side of the divide have our favored ideas, but I'd be skeptical of anyone who offers an easy fix.

Traditionally 50 employees or less is a small business, thoughthe governmentn definition is convoluted. As per usual.

[50PoundHead]

I think the increased regulation burden has really hurt small businesses. I can't tell you how many people I work with who had once started their own business who tell me that they would no longer be willing to do it today because of the regulations

I think this is pretty much true. I think there needs to be some broad regulations on environment and general labor practices, but it really does go too far these days and this is coming from someone left-of-center.

[zitothebrave]

I think this is pretty much true. I think there needs to be some broad regulations on environment and general labor practices, but it really does go to far these days and this is coming from someone left-of-center.

In reality I think the biggest problem is that the government has the same rules and regulations for mega corporations as they do for smaller businesses. Home Depot and local home repair store shouldn't have the same regulations. Nasty dirty factory farms and small farms shouldn't have the same regulation.

[AerchAngel]

In reality I think the biggest problem is that the government has the same rules and regulations for mega corporations as they do for smaller businesses. Home Depot and local home repair store shouldn't have the same regulations. Nasty dirty factory farms and small farms shouldn't have the same regulation.

While true and I agree with you, but you are going to factor in increase in minimum wage if it happens.

Say a mom and pop store pays like 8 an hour but they take in as a family 80k after all expenses. Mandated they pay 2 more an hour and you have six employees, that would take another 18 to 24k from their expenses and put them at 50 to 56k which is not much.

So how can a small business offset the pay increase? Raise prices when looking at the big boys who are gobbling you up like Walmart and others or let people go and can keep their prices the same.

Those are real world issues that ma an pops have to contend with.

[The Chosen One]

While true and I agree with you, but you are going to factor in increase in minimum wage if it happens.

Say a mom and pop store pays like 8 an hour but they take in as a family 80k after all expenses. Mandated they pay 2 more an hour and you have six employees, that would take another 18 to 24k from their expenses and put them at 50 to 56k which is not much.

So how can a small business offset the pay increase? Raise prices when looking at the big boys who are gobbling you up like Walmart and others or let people go and can keep their prices the same.

Those are real world issues that ma an pops have to contend with.

Which is exactly why liberals fought for small business, and exactly why progressives despise Wal Mart.

Mainstream Republicans have only wanted to cut taxes using small business as a martyr, when it's the corporate change in their pockets.

Wal Mart is evil when it comes to destroying good paying jobs, but people like sturg are cool with it though in the name of the free market.

I remember when I was younger there were no Wal Mart supercenters, and they were merely a department store. Then they started putting groceries in their stores and opened supercenters with full tire service and some auto repairs paying their employees low wages continuously for years. I think Savannah is reduced to 1 independent/mom and pop grocer. There's 5 Wal Mart Supercenters within a 7 mile radius.

[sturg33]

Which is exactly why liberals fought for small business, and exactly why progressives despise Wal Mart.

Mainstream Republicans have only wanted to cut taxes using small business as a martyr, when it's the corporate change in their pockets.

Wal Mart is evil when it comes to destroying good paying jobs, but people like sturg are cool with it though in the name of the free market.

I remember when I was younger there were no Wal Mart supercenters, and they were merely a department store. Then they started putting groceries in their stores and opened supercenters with full tire service and some auto repairs paying their employees low wages continuously for years. I think Savannah is reduced to 1 independent/mom and pop grocer. There's 5 Wal Mart Supercenters within a 7 mile radius.

Walmart is the number one employer in the US. You can argue that they kill "good paying jobs" (I would argue that - what is the difference in what a mom and pop is paying per hour vs WM, maybe a couple bucks per hour? Maybe??). At the same time, they give millions of uneducated people work and pay checks. Also, they provide goods at a much cheaper price than most stores. If you don't think that matters - especially to low income families - then I don't know what to tell you.

[zitothebrave]

Walmart is the number one employer in the US. You can argue that they kill "good paying jobs" (I would argue that - what is the difference in what a mom and pop is paying per hour vs WM, maybe a couple bucks per hour? Maybe??). At the same time, they give millions of uneducated people work and pay checks. Also, they provide goods at a much cheaper price than most stores. If you don't think that matters - especially to low income families - then I don't know what to tell you.

Cause low income and middle class families have it so much better than they used to. Hahahaha.

[thethe]

Walmart just contributes to the consolidation of wealth and that I can't stand. I know it goes against my belief of capitalism but I just don't believe that consolidation of wealth is a precursor to anything positive.

[zitothebrave]

While true and I agree with you, but you are going to factor in increase in minimum wage if it happens.

Say a mom and pop store pays like 8 an hour but they take in as a family 80k after all expenses. Mandated they pay 2 more an hour and you have six employees, that would take another 18 to 24k from their expenses and put them at 50 to 56k which is not much.

So how can a small business offset the pay increase? Raise prices when looking at the big boys who are gobbling you up like Walmart and others or let people go and can keep their prices the same.

Those are real world issues that ma an pops have to contend with.

I agree with you, I think that minimum wage hikes hurt small businesses.

[The Chosen One]

Walmart is the number one employer in the US. You can argue that they kill "good paying jobs" (I would argue that - what is the difference in what a mom and pop is paying per hour vs WM, maybe a couple bucks per hour? Maybe??). At the same time, they give millions of uneducated people work and pay checks. Also, they provide goods at a much cheaper price than most stores. If you don't think that matters - especially to low income families - then I don't know what to tell you.

Wal Mart gives poor and uneducated people work, then encourages them to go on welfare programs like food stamps because they can't get an honest wage, and then where do the employees put that money right back?

The difference between a mom and pop paying someone $13 an hour compared to $8 an hour... that's 200 dollars a week more, 800 a month more, and 9,600 more. A specialty tire guy at Savannah Tire gets paid around $13 an hour, the guy at Sam's/Wal-Mart gets paid less than $9. You don't think that makes a difference? Rotation of tires costs $12 bucks at Sams, it costs $39 at Savannah Tire. Do the math, that money isn't going to stockholders or CEO's bonus. It's going to the workers.

[sturg33]

Wal Mart gives poor and uneducated people work, then encourages them to go on welfare programs like food stamps because they can't get an honest wage, and then where do the employees put that money right back?

The difference between a mom and pop paying someone $13 an hour compared to $8 an hour... that's 200 dollars a week more, 800 a month more, and 9,600 more. A specialty tire guy at Savannah Tire gets paid around $13 an hour, the guy at Sam's/Wal-Mart gets paid less than $9. You don't think that makes a difference? Rotation of tires costs $12 bucks at Sams, it costs $39 at Savannah Tire. Do the math, that money isn't going to stockholders or CEO's bonus. It's going to the workers.

Sure, but then the guy maaking $9/hr can get his tires from Walmart $40/tire cheaper. In addition to all of his grocery and personal care living... Is he saving $10K a year? Probably not. But again, if Wlamrt went out of business tomorrow, that would be very very bad news for our economy, do you not agree?

[sturg33]

Cause low income and middle class families have it so much better than they used to. Hahahaha.

LOL, that has nothing to do with Walmart. It has to do with out federal government intervening more and more.

[thethe]

Sure, but then the guy maaking $9/hr can get his tires from Walmart $40/tire cheaper. In addition to all of his grocery and personal care living... Is he saving $10K a year? Probably not. But again, if Wlamrt went out of business tomorrow, that would be very very bad news for our economy, do you not agree?

I don't think that translates that Walmart is good for the economy though. It just means Walmart has grown so big the shock of it going out of business in the short term would be disastrous. But in the long term you could argue it would be better for the economy.

[The Chosen One]

Sure, but then the guy maaking $9/hr can get his tires from Walmart $40/tire cheaper. In addition to all of his grocery and personal care living... Is he saving $10K a year? Probably not. But again, if Wlamrt went out of business tomorrow, that would be very very bad news for our economy, do you not agree?

Like you guys argued about letting the too big to fail banks fail, other companies would consolidate, and new businesses would emerge.

The difference is, Wal Mart may be the biggest employer, but it wouldn't bring down the likes of Target, Costco, and other retailers down the drain. Their business would increase, and in turn potentially hire more employees.

During the housing crisis, every major bank was either being sold, merged, or going out of business.

Wal Mart caused many small town's mom and pop shops to collapse, who's to say if wal mart collapsed they wouldn't re-emerge?

[zitothebrave]

LOL, that has nothing to do with Walmart. It has to do with out federal government intervening more and more.

So it has nothing to do with corporations who have outsourced their purchasing power to China/India/Indonesia/etc. to get lower costs, who support factor farms, etc. taking jobs from people in the name of driving down costs, isn't part of the problem?

[The Chosen One]

So it has nothing to do with corporations who have outsourced their purchasing power to China/India/Indonesia/etc. to get lower costs, who support factor farms, etc. taking jobs from people in the name of driving down costs, isn't part of the problem?

That's called the free market.

[zitothebrave]

That's called the free market.

But it's not the free market, because countries like China create an unfair marketplace where they devalue their currency which makes exporting cheap and imports expensive. Only positive is because of the attention brought to the horrid working conditions in china, now companies are realizing they can handle certain aspects of production in the states (Motorola building the Moto X in the US, Apple building Mac Pro in US, etc.) if China had been actual participants in the freemarket this shift would have happened years ago.

The problem with the free market is the same as the problem with outlawing guns, you're only stopping the people who play by the rules. Countries/corporations who don't play by the rules will manipulate the market and i'ts not free. Free market is an idealism like COmmunism that sounds great on paper but cannot exist in reality.

[Krgrecw]

Like you guys argued about letting the too big to fail banks fail, other companies would consolidate, and new businesses would emerge.

The difference is, Wal Mart may be the biggest employer, but it wouldn't bring down the likes of Target, Costco, and other retailers down the drain. Their business would increase, and in turn potentially hire more employees.

During the housing crisis, every major bank was either being sold, merged, or going out of business.

Wal Mart caused many small town's mom and pop shops to collapse, who's to say if wal mart collapsed they wouldn't re-emerge?




Walmart is having serious financial issues. They'd be crippled if they had to up everyone's pay 2 dollars.


People need to quit talking about the jobs that went overseas . They are gone and they aren't coming back. All we can do today is try to keep as many jobs as we have now in this country.

[sturg33]

Walmart is having serious financial issues. They'd be crippled if they had to up everyone's pay 2 dollars.


People need to quit talking about the jobs that went overseas . They are gone and they aren't coming back. All we can do today is try to keep as many jobs as we have now in this country.

One way to do that is to raise the minimum wage!