# Inequality is Ruining our Economy



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Since we've tried Reagonomics ad nauseum and it doesnt work,
lets go back and do what the economic advisor of the Clinton
Administration says we should be doing!

http://robertreich.org/post/9789891366


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Spoken like a true socialist.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

another brick in the wall.....


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Spoken like a true socialist.


 Very true. Those on the left always forget that under Reagan job growth grew for 85 months in a row.
But true facts are never told when the liberals talk about Reagan and how well the country did under him.
We need another Reagan incarnate for a candidate. Those were 8 great years. And the truth never gets into the left's posts either. As Reagan's policies are widely recognized as bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, surpassed in duration only by the 1990s expansion that began under George H. W. Bush in 1991.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

IMHO whining is ruining the economy, instead try work..


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

pcwerk said:


> Since we've tried Reagonomics ad nauseum and it doesnt work,
> lets go back and do what the economic advisor of the Clinton
> Administration says we should be doing!
> 
> http://robertreich.org/post/9789891366


Why not just pass a law that everybody is equal problem solved.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

don't think of it as socialism, think about it as refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. the fact is that since businesses exist to make as much profit, and since people are greedy, workers will always be paid less than they deserve unless they fight for it or have some mechanism in place to protect them. the sad thing is that the folks raking in the dough don't seem to realize that you actually have to take care of the garden plants that feed you or no one gets anything. trickle down reagan style will do nothing but create lots of mom and pop shop jobs. $8 an hour just doesn't cut it. 

you see...in nature, things like to exist in a state of balance, but balance is never achieved. in the flow from hot to cold, high pressure to low pressure and rich to poor...or vice versa in present times, you at least have movement. there is dynamic action. nothing happens when nothing happens. things get done when other things are in motion. unfortunately, there is not much left for the poor to send up, and the rich are not willing to send it back down. so here we sit doing nothing. so, much like john stewart said, we could take 50% of the entire wealth of the poorest...the lowest 50% that control 2.5% of the wealth, and that would send up @ $700+ billion. heck...take 100% and you only get @$1.5 trillion. the bottom of the pile have little left to give.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

MELOC said:


> don't think of it as socialism, think about it as refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. the fact is that since businesses exist to make as much profit, and since people are greedy, workers will always be paid less than they deserve unless they fight for it or have some mechanism in place to protect them. the sad thing is that the folks raking in the dough don't seem to realize that you actually have to take care of the garden plants that feed you or no one gets anything. trickle down reagan style will do nothing but create lots of mom and pop shop jobs. $8 an hour just doesn't cut it.
> 
> you see...in nature, things like to exist in a state of balance, but balance is never achieved. in the flow from hot to cold, high pressure to low pressure and rich to poor...or vice versa in present times, you at least have movement. there is dynamic action. nothing happens when nothing happens. things get done when other things are in motion. unfortunately, there is not much left for the poor to send up, and the rich are not willing to send it back down. so here we sit doing nothing. so, much like john stewart said, we could take 50% of the entire wealth of the poorest...the lowest 50% that control 2.5% of the wealth, and that would send up @ $700+ billion. heck...take 100% and you only get @$1.5 trillion. the bottom of the pile have little left to give.


Nonsense. You cannot mandate equality. Why not just set the minimum wage at $50.00 an hour and a maximum wage limit of $51.00 an hour? That would make everyone pretty equal,wouldn't it? What could go wrong?

If you want to go by nature's way, I could kill you for your new car or because I am hungry or just for the sport of killing.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> Very true. Those on the left always forget that under Reagan job growth grew for 85 months in a row.
> But true facts are never told when the liberals talk about Reagan and how well the country did under him.
> We need another Reagan incarnate for a candidate. Those were 8 great years. And the truth never gets into the left's posts either. As Reagan's policies are widely recognized as bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, surpassed in duration only by the 1990s expansion that began under George H. W. Bush in 1991.


Not everyone did so well under Reagan and many remember those times as being extremely rough. Understand that not everyone wants a return to the Reagan years.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

it's not about equality, it's about a baseline minimum. perhaps not regulated, but recognized. but by all means do what ever idealistic nonsense you need to do to amplify the divide. let's just see how well to do the well to do are when the majority of people make less than $10 per hour.

i guess we all have to take what we can though. it gets to be a little disturbing to realize i am working for $9 part time only with limited benefits while the people who nip away at my weekly hours, cutting them from 34 to 32 hours, from 32-30 hours and now down to 28 hours make $40-$50 grand in salary, without bonuses, and there bosses (4 of them in my store) make $60,000 without bonuses...and they are "led" by someone who makes $90,000 in salary with bonuses to match. my bonus this quarter will be $34. while we may not be equal in our abilities and importance, we are all vital links in the chain. there should not be that much of a difference in what is paid. it's a slap in the face to all who actually try their best and do what they are told. i can't afford to buy any of the stuff i sell. neither can my co-workers. i suspect it is the same for most of the people in my boat...and that is a large number of people nationwide. if you want to push the ideology that business and the wealthy need to be left alone, you will also need to address the ideology that diminishes the gap between the top and the bottom. that will be hard because you already see that people don't want to give up what they already have...especially when masses of them convince each other that they deserve to keep it.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Socialism huh?
That's funny, because the vast majority of the article was a discussion of capitalism and it's cycles throughout the 20th century, with a large dose of praising the middle class as the backbone of America.
It talked about how capitalism worked when done right and how it hasn't when done wrong.

I'm no fan of Robert Reich, he's one of the advocates that we spend our way out of this mess. But even he concedes that won't work this time. That was in the article, too.
He makes a few suggestions, perhaps that is what some meant by socialism? That is IF you read it.
1) Extending unemployment to part-time work - bad idea. That would probably make you rise on the "socialist" needle.
2) Having employers pay severance and job training for displaced workers - not as bad an idea. The hardcore would still see this as socialism. But at least it would place the burden on those making the profit, rather than the government. From the capitalist viewpoint, it's called "the cost of doing business."
But there's no point talking about "fairness" when it's so much easier to pull out the old "Better dead than Red flag", right?
3) *FAIR* trade agreements with foreign countries. You know, putting the old "Red, White and Blue" first.
An excellent idea. Hey! That's even constitutional!

Naaaahhhhhhhh...........it's easier to keep the mind closed and hand out a "Commie" label.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Trying to run a country on a mainly service sector is greatly hurting our economy. Selling fast food and insurance to one another does not build a strong economy.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

MELOC said:


> don't think of it as socialism, think about it as refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. the fact is that since businesses exist to make as much profit, and since people are greedy, workers will always be paid less than they deserve unless they fight for it or have some mechanism in place to protect them. the sad thing is that the folks raking in the dough don't seem to realize that you actually have to take care of the garden plants that feed you or no one gets anything. trickle down reagan style will do nothing but create lots of mom and pop shop jobs. $8 an hour just doesn't cut it.
> 
> you see...in nature, things like to exist in a state of balance, but balance is never achieved. in the flow from hot to cold, high pressure to low pressure and rich to poor...or vice versa in present times, you at least have movement. there is dynamic action. nothing happens when nothing happens. things get done when other things are in motion. unfortunately, there is not much left for the poor to send up, and the rich are not willing to send it back down. so here we sit doing nothing. so, much like john stewart said, we could take 50% of the entire wealth of the poorest...the lowest 50% that control 2.5% of the wealth, and that would send up @ $700+ billion. heck...take 100% and you only get @$1.5 trillion. the bottom of the pile have little left to give.





MELOC said:


> it's not about equality, it's about a baseline minimum. perhaps not regulated, but recognized. but by all means do what ever idealistic nonsense you need to do to amplify the divide. let's just see how well to do the well to do are when the majority of people make less than $10 per hour.
> 
> i guess we all have to take what we can though. it gets to be a little disturbing to realize i am working for $9 part time only with limited benefits while the people who nip away at my weekly hours, cutting them from 34 to 32 hours, from 32-30 hours and now down to 28 hours make $40-$50 grand in salary, without bonuses, and there bosses (4 of them in my store) make $60,000 without bonuses...and they are "led" by someone who makes $90,000 in salary with bonuses to match. my bonus this quarter will be $34. while we may not be equal in our abilities and importance, we are all vital links in the chain. there should not be that much of a difference in what is paid. it's a slap in the face to all who actually try their best and do what they are told. i can't afford to buy any of the stuff i sell. neither can my co-workers. i suspect it is the same for most of the people in my boat...and that is a large number of people nationwide. if you want to push the ideology that business and the wealthy need to be left alone, you will also need to address the ideology that diminishes the gap between the top and the bottom. that will be hard because you already see that people don't want to give up what they already have...especially when masses of them convince each other that they deserve to keep it.


Well said. :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

pcwerk said:


> Since we've tried Reagonomics ad nauseum and it doesnt work,
> lets go back and do what the economic advisor of the Clinton
> Administration says we should be doing!
> 
> http://robertreich.org/post/9789891366


Reich was always a doofus. Same solution as always. The rich are screwing you and only the government can do something about it. I'm always amazed at how many go for that scam hook, line and sinker. 

His article years ago begging companies not to lay off employees which are others customers showed his lack of even common sense. I don't like to see layoffs especially when some financial genius makes the case for out sourcing, but sometimes it is necessary for a company to survive.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Darren said:


> I don't like to see layoffs especially when some financial genius makes the case for out sourcing, but sometimes it is necessary for a company to survive.



Until they slit their own throat and DON'T survive anymore............


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Very true. Those on the left always forget that under Reagan job growth grew for 85 months in a row.


And what were the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans when all those jobs were created? Help me out here.

And how much of the nations wealth did the top 1% own during that time period? Wasn't it 9% compared to todays 24%?

And didn't people used to live relatively comfortably on a single wage during that time?


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

fishhead said:


> And what were the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans when all those jobs were created? Help me out here.
> 
> And how much of the nations wealth did the top 1% own during that time period? Wasn't it 9% compared to todays 24%?
> 
> And didn't people used to live relatively comfortably on a single wage during that time?




Shhhhhhhh..........your memory is not supposed to be THAT good.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

Energy Rebel said:


> Until they slit their own throat and DON'T survive anymore............


Gives a whole new meaning to "job cuts".:thumb:


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Clinton years were good because of the housing bubble. Yeah, lets return to that idea...

Reagan years were good because it was early into the massive government spending years. We got a larger return on our tax dollars then. We can't return to that and we shouldn't want to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

fishhead said:


> And what were the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans when all those jobs were created? *Help me out here*.
> 
> And how much of the nations wealth did the top 1% own during that time period? Wasn't it 9% compared to todays 24%?
> 
> And didn't people used to live relatively comfortably on a single wage during that time?


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



> Tax receipts
> 
> During the Reagan administration,* federal receipts grew *at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%.[30][31]
> 
> According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan's two terms, and through 1993, *the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of tax revenue *to the Federal government, while the *lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of the tax revenue*.[32]





> Shhhhhhhh..........your memory is not supposed to be THAT good.


Evidently "memory" has nothing to do with those claims
"Imagination" is the proper term


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Uhhhhhh.........since the "memory" matches your post about tax rates and revenue during the Reagan era, explain to me, please, how that is "imagination"?


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

You can only take so much money out of the pockets of the working American and give it to the wealthy before our economy grinds to a halt. 

That is what is happening right now.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

"and regardless of their sincerity,their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our Freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.- Ronald Regan


----------



## Parttimefarmer (May 5, 2011)

What is "wealthy"?


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Parttimefarmer said:


> What is "wealthy"?


Primarily perception. When I recieved myfirst promotion after I went to work in my sector I proclaimed to my coworkers that at a salary of under $20k a year that I was as wealthy as the multimillionaire we all worked for. When asked how I could think such "nonsense" I explained it this way.

The man we worked for made his fortune deciding what risks and ventures to take while overseeing 150000 employees. I made my small fortune at the time supervising 15 employees and the rich man and I both enjoyed our jobs.

The rich man we worked for added to his fortune by investing some of his fortune. I also invested a portion of my much smaller fortune and he and I both enjoyed our investment returns.

The rich man we worked for had his mansion, various cars and multiple vacation homes and was happy.

I had my apartment with free basic cable and HBO and the rent paid eight months ahead , a Camaro, Ford F150 and a 30 foot tag behind camper that I could take to any domestic vacation destination and was happy.

The rich man we worked for often hosted parties under the pavillion at his mansion and was happy. I often threw keg parties in the pool house rec room at my apartment and was happy.

The rich man we worked for had the finest wines in his celler and was happy. I made myself some of the finest homemade wines within my social group , always labeling and putting back a few bottles to age in my wine storage bin and was happy.

The rich man we worked for enjoyed 20 year old scotch from what I had heard and could easily afford to purchase it on his earnings and was happy.

I enjoyed eight year old Ten High bourbon and a long neck Bud chaser and could easily afford it on what I earned and was happy.

The rich man we worked for started a small company the same year I was born that had grown to a fortune 500 biz and was happy.

I worked for the rich man, ran our little 16 person production and development group as a small biz and had my weekend store biz to boot and was happy.

As I say wealthy is mostly perception. The less the money required for you to percieve it, usually the less stress associated with the experience so actually you would feel wealthier than a person with much more monetary wealth.


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

"You can only take so much money out of the pockets of the working American and give it to the wealthy before our economy grinds to a halt. "

And you can only take so much money from those that work and give it to those that don't before work grinds to a halt.

I want a t-shirt that reads:

(on the front):
I don't want to work...

(on the back):
...to pay for those that don't want to work.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Uhhhhhh.........since the "memory" matches your post about tax rates and revenue during the Reagan era, explain to me, please, how that is "imagination"?




Revenues went UP
Taxes on "the rich" went UP
Taxes on most peoole went DOWN
The economy grew

Fishhead was using his claims as an example the economy DIDN'T grow, and Reagan was to blame, and that the rich were better off



> Originally Posted by arabian knight
> Very true. Those on the left always forget that under Reagan *job growth grew *for 85 months in a row.





> And what were the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans when all those jobs were created? Help me out here.


It's not that hard to keep up


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I don't see how even the terminally confused don't understand that capitalism works. It is true that the rich get richer, but so does everyone else. For anyone over the age of 50 to say otherwise is foolish because we have lived to see the proof. I remember homes in my home town with dirt floors, most people living on beans and taters, no restaurants in town, people without phones, owning 1 old car if you were lucky, air conditioning unheard of, etc. Look around today and tell me people aren't better off. That is increased wealth.


----------



## Bluesgal (Jun 17, 2011)

MELOC said:


> it's not about equality, it's about a baseline minimum. perhaps not regulated, but recognized. but by all means do what ever idealistic nonsense you need to do to amplify the divide. let's just see how well to do the well to do are when the majority of people make less than $10 per hour.
> 
> i guess we all have to take what we can though. it gets to be a little disturbing to realize i am working for $9 part time only with limited benefits while the people who nip away at my weekly hours, cutting them from 34 to 32 hours, from 32-30 hours and now down to 28 hours make $40-$50 grand in salary, without bonuses, and there bosses (4 of them in my store) make $60,000 without bonuses...and they are "led" by someone who makes $90,000 in salary with bonuses to match. my bonus this quarter will be $34. while we may not be equal in our abilities and importance, we are all vital links in the chain. there should not be that much of a difference in what is paid. it's a slap in the face to all who actually try their best and do what they are told. i can't afford to buy any of the stuff i sell. neither can my co-workers. i suspect it is the same for most of the people in my boat...and that is a large number of people nationwide. if you want to push the ideology that business and the wealthy need to be left alone, you will also need to address the ideology that diminishes the gap between the top and the bottom. that will be hard because you already see that people don't want to give up what they already have...especially when masses of them convince each other that they deserve to keep it.


So what you are saying then is no matter what job you do, what your skill or talent level or education is you should all earn the same amount of money? NOT

Sounds more to me like you are jealous of what others have. They are running a business to make money. Not pay everyone enough to have 2 cars a big house, a 70" TV and a boat. Stocking grocery shelves just isn't going to pay $50K a year not unless food prices triple.

I understand that unemployment is very high and people are doing what they have to do to survive. However, that doesn't mean that everyone who earns more $$ than you is a bad guy and out to get you or that they should earn less so that you can earn more.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

Bluesgal said:


> So what you are saying then is no matter what job you do, what your skill or talent level or education is you should all earn the same amount of money? NOT
> 
> Sounds more to me like you are jealous of what others have. They are running a business to make money. Not pay everyone enough to have 2 cars a big house, a 70" TV and a boat. Stocking grocery shelves just isn't going to pay $50K a year not unless food prices triple.
> 
> I understand that unemployment is very high and people are doing what they have to do to survive. However, that doesn't mean that everyone who earns more $$ than you is a bad guy and out to get you or that they should earn less so that you can earn more.



i didn't say any of those things you accused me of. i certainly do think that skill, ability, talent and education should be recognized. they are important just like many other things that are undervalued. of course, if you support people joining together to be sure their talents are compensated at the proper level, then you are a union thug...but that is a topic for another discussion.

there seems to be a culture where not only do the shareholders forget that being selfish is ultimately destructive, but management seems to exist to not only maximize the overblown profit expectations of the shareholders, but to serve themselves as well. it is not jealousy i feel. i am happy for anyone who enjoys what they have. i get discouraged at the arrogance of those who overvalue their input and reap the benefits at the expense of others. if shareholders continue to have no consideration for labor, they will ultimately lose out, like in the present perhaps, where no one has a dang penny to support any kind of economy. if the culture of management is to serve themselves and treat employees like a light bulb that needs to be replaced with a more efficient model and tossed aside as garbage, things will only get worse.

i honestly sympathize with those who feel the government is to blame with regulation and taxation, but it is not the government's fault. greedy people are to blame and always have been. greedy people were responsible for sweat shops and company stores and that led to labor laws and unions. greedy people were responsible for running businesses irresponsibly causing pollution and making people sick and causing a burden on society and so environmental restrictions and bureaucracies were created. greedy people are now responsible for shipping our jobs overseas and for the economic aftermath of expecting too much return on investments, ultimately destroying the middle class...the backbone of the economy. 

if you hate whiny poor people, you better get some ear plugs because it isn't likely to get better any time soon.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

Bluesgal said:


> So what you are saying then is no matter what job you do, what your skill or talent level or education is you should all earn the same amount of money? NOT
> 
> Sounds more to me like you are jealous of what others have. They are running a business to make money. Not pay everyone enough to have 2 cars a big house, a 70" TV and a boat. Stocking grocery shelves just isn't going to pay $50K a year not unless food prices triple.
> 
> I understand that unemployment is very high and people are doing what they have to do to survive. However, that doesn't mean that everyone who earns more $$ than you is a bad guy and out to get you or that they should earn less so that you can earn more.


The thing is that as the income levels continue grow farther apart as a whole the number of people that have disposible income decreases. When you get to the point that only 25% of the population has enough of an income to spend you end up in a situation like we are headed to now. The employers (the 25% that can spend) cannot support the nation, the workers (lower and middle class) need to make enough to live, and to spend to support the nation. What happens when the only people that can afford a car, or a night out to dinner, or that trip to Disney World for the kids? You can call it jealously all you want, but the right says the left is killing the nation with help for the poor, but the right is doing just as much killing by downtalking the growing gap.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

How many are tied to a particular job with the same benefits? I worked my way up in the labor market. Started out at $5 per day with no benefits and finished with over $30 per hour with lots of benefits. Jobs were tough to find but I always found one. I can't see the ones that have a job and are not pleased with the outcome and stay with it. I would be out looking for a better paying job or training to find one. And yes I went to school when I was 40 and got a better paying job.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> When you get to the point that* only 25% of the population has enough of an income to spend* you end up in a situation like we are headed to now


You should at least TRY to be realistic.
Those figures are more like Somalia than the USA.


> trip to Disney World


If you think everyone in the world will *ever* be "equal" you're already on a trip to Disney World


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

It is possible the people in those lower paying jobs are the ones over valuing their input.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Is any of this not true?



> The middle class nonetheless continued to spend, at first enabled by the flow of women into the work force. (In the 1960s only 12 percent of married women with young children were working for pay; by the late 1990s, 55 percent were.) When that way of life stopped generating enough income, Americans went deeper into debt. From the late 1990s to 2007, the typical household debt grew by a third. As long as housing values continued to rise it seemed a painless way to get additional money.





> But starting in the late 1970s, and with increasing fervor over the next three decades, government did just the opposite. It deregulated and privatized. It cut spending on infrastructure as a percentage of the national economy and shifted more of the costs of public higher education to families. It shredded safety nets. (Only 27 percent of the unemployed are covered by unemployment insurance.) And it allowed companies to bust unions and threaten employees who tried to organize. Fewer than 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized





> Most telling of all, Washington deregulated Wall Street while insuring it against major losses. In so doing, it allowed finance â which until then had been the servant of American industry â to become its master, demanding short-term profits over long-term growth and raking in an ever larger portion of the nationâs profits. By 2007, financial companies accounted for over 40 percent of American corporate profits and almost as great a percentage of pay, up from 10 percent during the Great Prosperity


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Why do union workers have a problem with CEO's and not the rich union leaders?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Inequality is truely ruining our economy and nation. All those people that get money for nothing are leeching us dry. Whether they are rich welfare recipients or poor doesn't really matter.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

There was an interesting video clip recently, showing the Verizon workers protesting in front of the CEO's home. They were driving by in their cars (which all looked to be relatively new-ish), honking their horns and making remarks as they drove by.

One guy's comment typified the wrong mentality about this whole equality issue. Naturally, the CEO lives in a very nice home. This genius remarked as he drove by, (paraphrasing) 'I wish I could afford to live in a house like that'.

And that sentiment, right there, is the problem. Why should a lineman, who doesn't have the business skills to run a business the size of Verizon, be entitled to live by the same standards as the CEO? Would that lineman be willing to reduce _his_ standard of living so that some poor schmuck making minimum wage could have a better standard of living?

Yes, if we want to consider ourselves to be civilized creatures, we are obligated to take care of the elderly and infirmed....those that cannot take care of themselves. But are those who have plenty to eat, a decent car to drive and house to live in, really entitled to live beyond what they can provide for themselves????

And could somebody please point me in the direction of the religious text or political document that says life is guaranteed to be fair? Somehow, I missed it.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

MELOC said:


> don't think of it as socialism, think about it as refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. the fact is that since businesses exist to make as much profit, and since people are greedy, workers will always be paid less than they deserve unless they fight for it or have some mechanism in place to protect them. the sad thing is that the folks raking in the dough don't seem to realize that you actually have to take care of the garden plants that feed you or no one gets anything. trickle down reagan style will do nothing but create lots of mom and pop shop jobs. $8 an hour just doesn't cut it.


By your way of thinking, virtually every business ought to be going under due to the workers being screwed by the owners.

And tell me...who exactly is it that gets to decide what a worker is worth? Some bureaucrat in central planning? Great...


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

I think all these free trade agreements are what has killed us. It was great for business an other countrys but bad for the US.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> Spoken like a true socialist.


Reagan spent our way out of recession, creating a huge defecit, but for the most part it worked. 

Obama tried the exact same thing, but since "funny money", does not go as far now days, as it did 30 years ago, his results are much slower to fruition. 

Maybe the "numbers game". will no longer work at all.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

> don't think of it as socialism, think about it as refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. the fact is that since businesses exist to make as much profit, and since people are greedy, workers will always be paid less than they deserve unless they fight for it or have some mechanism in place to protect them. the sad thing is that the folks raking in the dough don't seem to realize that you actually have to take care of the garden plants that feed you or no one gets anything. trickle down reagan style will do nothing but create lots of mom and pop shop jobs. $8 an hour just doesn't cut it.


One of the main reasons the U.S. econpmy is in the toilet and the middle class is gone.

Everyone assumes that eveyone that starts a business, is "wealthy" and just plain "greedy", which is often never the case. Many are the "average Joes"', just like everybody else.

Busiiness owners, take _*all*_ of the financial, regulatory, etc. risks. They find the financing and insurance, wherever they can. They fight the tax nightmares. They put in the time to find (and pay) for buildings, equipment, etc.

They put up with all of the expense and hassles of having employees and pay them accordingly, to prevailing market rates for workers.

The employee, shows up for work and punches in, does what they are told (more or less), tries not to destory something, stares at the clock waiting for quitting time and burns rubber leaving the parking lot, to do the same thing over the next day, maybe for 30 years. If, in an emergency, the boss needed them to work an extra 15 minutes, but coulld not pay them, they would be outraged.

Now the employees are feeling "screwed", because they are not getting a bigger piece of the "action".

Why don't they start their own bussinesses and then they can be the "wealthy" ones?

Unemployment would be nearly non existant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the middle class is gone


LOL

That is simply false
Look around you

Do you only see "rich" and "poor", or is there not a LARGE portion of the population somewhere in between?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> That is simply false
> Look around you
> ...


Exactly. Anywhere I drive, I pass house after house where middle class people live. I rarely see a McMansion and I see a few rat holes the poor live in. How anyone who leaves home and sees the number of homes with 2 or more nice vehicles and a landscaped lawn could say the middle class is gone is beyond me.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> There was an interesting video clip recently, showing the Verizon workers protesting in front of the CEO's home. They were driving by in their cars (which all looked to be relatively new-ish), honking their horns and making remarks as they drove by.
> 
> One guy's comment typified the wrong mentality about this whole equality issue. Naturally, the CEO lives in a very nice home. This genius remarked as he drove by, (paraphrasing) 'I wish I could afford to live in a house like that'.
> 
> ...


Ah, but see the left does not think this way. In no way do they see that working for what you have is the way to go. ALL should be equal & ALL should live in the same type homes.

I wonder if they get the story about college students: when asked what their grade point is, they said 3.5; 4.0; 3.0; etc. They were then told that a lot of students only have 2.0s & even 1.5s. So, they were having to give some of their grade points to those students. 
Imagine the howls!


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

tarbe said:


> By your way of thinking, virtually every business ought to be going under due to the workers being screwed by the owners.
> 
> And tell me...who exactly is it that gets to decide what a worker is worth? Some bureaucrat in central planning? Great...



you, and many others are missing my point. it's not about equality and it's not about someone officially getting to set the value of a worker (although i would probably support increased minimum wage...perhaps a modified version), it's about paying enough so that folks can afford to support an economy. my earlier point about not being able to buy the stuff i sell was not me griping about that which i don't have, it's an example of what is wrong. there are too many people like me and not enough jobs that pay enough for everyone, or at least enough of everyone, to buy goods, create demand and create more jobs. you can blame it on the lack of talent or motivation for people in the lower pay grades as much as you want, but the fact is that there are not enough good paying jobs for everyone, less than before, and it's not enough to sustain us. 

here's a little business basic that people seem to forget about. folks seem to talk so much about the lack of investment because of the burden of regulation, the cost of labor...the tax burden that makes it unsavory to invest. cut taxes on the rich and they will magically invest, start businesses and the world will be happy and gay. FYI no one with any business sense will invest a dime if there is no market. there is no market when people have no money to spend. people need money to spend on crap first and that creates a demand. when you have a demand, then you have growth. so what needs to happen before anything else is that profit expectations need to change, pressure needs to be removed from the working class so that they can create demand. this means that they NEED MORE MONEY. 

the culture needs to change. it's a shame that times and situations like this arise and create the need or demand for government regulation. just like with child labor and negligent pollution, if the culture of greed were different, practices would change without the need for the burden of regulation...without the EPA or FDA or minimum wages. i would like to see things change without agencies becoming involved, wouldn't you?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

It's the housing bubble that caused people not to be able to make ends meet. Even if you didn't buy a home, the grocer, doctor and fast food resturant all had to pay more to set up shop. Add to that all the places that procced food, built medical equipment all paying more for land.
They passed that on to every one.
The idea that we could put every one in a home of their own is what did it, and the weakness of the dollar sure hasn't helped.
Now we are in the middle of a reset.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Common sense tells you that nothing is worth more than someone will pay for it. Employment is a mutual bargain between employer and employee. The fact that you are making less money than you feel you're worth tells me that you at one point valued your efforts to be what you are paid, but now are having "seller's remorse". There are a lot of people who made poor decisions in their past, leaving school, not learning a trade, taking the easy route with no long term thought to their future and instead of acknowledging their poor decisions they disparage others for making better ones. The boss didn't start out as the boss. He probably started out minimum wage while going to college, and when he graduated he didn't become the boss, he worked his rear end off to climb the ranks to where he is now. Don't begrudge someone else's success because you haven't succeeded, look at them as a model to follow to achieve your own.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

it's not about me, what about everyone else? there simply are not enough jobs for all who are properly trained, have college degrees or skill and ability from trade experience. it's not about gripping because i bemoan my position in life, it is about everyone being able to afford to keep the economy rolling.

i get confirmation of my point of view with every single post where someone tries to make this personal. try to think beyond yourselves for just a moment...


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

The pay difference between the average worker and the CEO of the same company in this country is obscene. Many times more than the same comparison in Japan or Europe. The concentration of wealth in the top 1% is obsene.
Celebrity worship in this country is obscene. Sports figure salaries, actor salaries, singer salaries------obscene.
The fact that retired people with savings can not get more than 3% interest and are actually looseing money every year due to inflation is obscene.
I read an article today a man who raises sweet corn in Colorado decided to apply for less migrant work permits and hire more local. He figured with the high unemployment that locals would want the jobs. $1o.48/hr Results: many applicants Comments: not paying enough, want paid under the table Average worker put in 6 hours and quit. He got 39 local employees out of and reapplyed for more migrant worker permits when allowed to. The man said if he had to rely on local labor he would not plant sweet corn next year.
The moral and ethical attributes of this country have changed. The social and economical situation we are in is the result. I do not think government can legislate the changes that will return this country to its former greatness.

On a different note I would like to talk about the above mentioned GREED. If I have one vehicle and want another is that greedy? If I have 1 million dollars and want 2 million is that greedy? If a family of 4 has a 3000 sq ft house with 4 baths and the grandparent raised 3 kids in a 1500 sq ft house with one bath is the family greedy?


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i guess the greed part would only factor in if you make your gains unethically and at the expense of/on the backs of others.

one of the problems with your example of migrant workers is a problem with value. we don't value corn and other food as highly as we should compared to, say, cell phone service. you need food to survive everyday, a cell phone may save your life once in a blue moon. however, people cry about the price of food...not realizing it is the most important thing they buy. so to compete with imported food and other farmers who want greater profits and hire cheap, immigrant labor, the farmer hires cheap, migrant labor. however, looking back at the chicken and egg semantics of cheap labor vs. undervalued food, i would have to say that greed came first and the culture of filling those jobs with cheap or free labor grew over time. in the early days of our country, it was probably families working family farms. when the farms grew, indentured servitude probably filled the increased need for labor. then slaves filled the need. then immigrants filled the need. never was it favorable for farmers to actually hire well compensated workers, so the culture of cheap labor persisted. the value of the food remained low. people got used to it and here we are.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You should at least TRY to be realistic.
> Those figures are more like Somalia than the USA.
> 
> 
> If you think everyone in the world will *ever* be "equal" you're already on a trip to Disney World


Why can't you get it through your head, it isn't about being equal, never has been. The gap is widening, and has been since the "good ole days". Now the widening gap is compounded by unemployment. The economy is held up by the lower/middle class, they are the majority, they spend the majority of the money. Which will cause more spending, 2 billion people spending $100, or 50K people spending $200. (I know they are not exact numbers) There are charts after charts showing the changes. The employer and employee need each other, the difference is that the employee's wages have not increased(and in many cases have decreased) with inflation, and the employer's wages have been trippling inflation. Good for the company in the short term, but not in the long term when they will wonder why nobody will buy their product/service, and the reason for it will be that their customers (someone elses employee, or theirs) can no longer afford it. When nobody buys their product/service they will have to close, and lay off, further setting back the economy.


----------



## Parttimefarmer (May 5, 2011)

I am thinking people who do not own a business have some inflated ideas of what owning and running a business is like. I encourage you to try it yourselves and support yourselves with it. 

"When nobody buys their product/service they will have to close, and lay off, further setting back the economy."

or the government will step in and bail them out...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Whats this business of knocking CEO's.
Sure they make lots of money. If the company didn't didn't think the person was earning their pay, they get rid of him and or her.
For Pete's Sake a CEO is just ONE person in a company. ONE PERSON here. So what if they have a high rate of rate, as long as he/she makes the business a success and a success for the stock holders. When in the WORLD has this country made being rich a bad thing????
If it wasn't for the rich most huge companies would not be around. They employ MILLIONS. Is jealousy that prevalent in AMerica. IF you want to get up the ladle STUDY, go to school get a few degrees and YOU also can get up there.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

Parttimefarmer said:


> "When nobody buys their product/service they will have to close, and lay off, further setting back the economy."
> 
> or the government will step in and bail them out...


Only if they are "too big to fail"


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

Curtis B said:


> Why can't you get it through your head, it isn't about being equal, never has been.


Your not going to win that argument on a thread titled "I*nequality is Ruining our Economy*"


----------



## Parttimefarmer (May 5, 2011)

Curtis B said:


> Only if they are "too big to fail"


I was joking! Failure is natural. If I fail it's my fault and no one better bail me out.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Whats this business of knocking CEO's.
> Sure they make lots of money. If the company didn't didn't think the person was earning their pay, they get rid of him and or her.
> For Pete's Sake a CEO is just ONE person in a company. ONE PERSON here. So what if they have a high rate of rate, as long as he/she makes the business a success and a success for the stock holders. When in the WORLD has this country made being rich a bad thing????
> If it wasn't for the rich most huge companies would not be around. They employ MILLIONS. Is jealousy that prevalent in AMerica. IF you want to get up the ladle STUDY, go to school get a few degrees and YOU also can get up there.


Yup, people have become Socialist, and Communist, this is how one gets there-envy,hate.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

RebelCowboySnB said:


> Your not going to win that argument on a thread titled "I*nequality is Ruining our Economy*"


I'm not the OP, so I don't have to win. I was responding to BBF's response to me saying I said something I didn't






Parttimefarmer said:


> I was joking! Failure is natural. If I fail it's my fault and no one better bail me out.


I was joking too, just forgot the :happy2:


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Every one want's to be the cheif.
They want the big corporations to provide jobs, pensions, day care, unemplyoment, uniforms, health care ect for their workers. Buy the raw goods, ship the product, sell it wholesale, And now they want them to pay taxes that pay the welfare for people who don't even work for them, let alone work at all.
Then they wonder why the corporations give up. If it wasn't for investers in the companies the companies wouldn't even exist. and when those investers give up the workers cry because they made a little on their investment.
The American union workers may have been on the right side at one time, but they have shot them selves in their own foot with their greed.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

I am confused. So the CEO of a company, who makes $X and is paid BY the company, with no outside help from YOU PERSONALLY, offends you...umm....how?? I am willing to bet if YOU were the CEO, you wouldn't be thinking "Gosh, I make too much money." Once again, it is sheer jealousy of those who have made better/different decisions or just simply have good luck. Envy, and there is no other word for it. You think YOU have the right to earn as much as they do, simply by drawing breath. You want to make your happiness by tearing down others who are more fortunate than you, and it doesn't matter that the fact that you might succeed and tear them down will do NOTHING for you personally, it just matters that someone else isn't better off than you are, whether they worked for it or not. Simply astounding.


----------



## Bluesgal (Jun 17, 2011)

OK, using BROAD strokes... yes, the middle class is disappearing. I agree with that. I also agree that wages are not keeping up for some that have jobs. 

HOWEVER - the question is why? well, labor costs and free trade have made it more profitable for a company to make things elsewhere. Why pay someone here $7.50 an hour to make a widget when you can pay someone $5 a day to make the same widget. Which translates into the manufacturer selling it to you for $10 instead of you paying $30 for the widget. 

Yes, there are many "skilled" workers out of work. Why? because we don't make anything here anymore. Why? cost to much.. the days of cradle to grave jobs are gone, pensions are gone. A company has to stay profitable to stay in business. Workers for 30 years or more got a decent wage and high retirement benefits. Do you realize how much of GM's budget goes to paying retirees? Yes, they have to pay it, it's in the union contract. Nobody likes "giving back" or giving up things but isn't it better to have a job at $20/hour and less benefits then no job at all? (and yes some CEO salaries are so high they could be considered criminal).


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Curtis B said:


> The thing is that as the income levels continue grow farther apart as a whole the number of people that have disposible income decreases. When you get to the point that only 25% of the population has enough of an income to spend you end up in a situation like we are headed to now. The employers (the 25% that can spend) cannot support the nation, the workers (lower and middle class) need to make enough to live, and to spend to support the nation. What happens when the only people that can afford a car, or a night out to dinner, or that trip to Disney World for the kids? You can call it jealously all you want, but the right says the left is killing the nation with help for the poor, but the right is doing just as much killing by downtalking the growing gap.


Seems to me the nation did ok many years ago when the difference between the "poor" and the "rich" was even greater.

You kill an economy by making it harder for those with the drive to make money to make and/or keep the money they make. Nations which the communist took over discovered this quite quickly. It sounds nice to say "from those according to their means, to those according to their needs" but when you try to put it into action you ALWAYS find more and more people are needy and fewer and fewer are willing to work any more than necessary to meet *THEIR* means. 

Think of this. I come by and see you have a huge garden which is producing more then I think you need. I tell you I'm going to take your extra and give to your neighbors and give you nothing in return. Next year are you going to put in the effort to raise as large of a garden or are you going to size it so you just have enough for you and yours?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Reagan spent our way out of recession, creating a huge defecit, but for the most part it worked.
> 
> Obama tried the exact same thing, but since "funny money", does not go as far now days, as it did 30 years ago, his results are much slower to fruition.
> 
> Maybe the "numbers game". will no longer work at all.


You might want to check your history. Reagan allowed us to spend our *own* way out of a recession by cutting taxes which gave people incentive to go out and make more money. His tax cuts resulted in *MORE* money coming into the US Treasury department. He did fail to hold the dem controlled (note that fact) congress' feet to the fire and stop them from spending all that extra money plus more and more and more.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

bruce2288 said:


> The pay difference between the average worker and the CEO of the same company in this country is obscene. Many times more than the same comparison in Japan or Europe. The concentration of wealth in the top 1% is obsene.
> 
> Not just obscene but immoral as well.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

watcher said:


> You might want to check your history. Reagan allowed us to spend our *own* way out of a recession by cutting taxes which gave people incentive to go out and make more money. His tax cuts resulted in *MORE* money coming into the US Treasury department. He did fail to hold the dem controlled (note that fact) congress' feet to the fire and stop them from spending all that extra money plus more and more and more.


so are you saying there wasnt a federal defecit after Reagan's term of office?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

pcwerk said:


> bruce2288 said:
> 
> 
> > The pay difference between the average worker and the CEO of the same company in this country is obscene. Many times more than the same comparison in Japan or Europe. The concentration of wealth in the top 1% is obsene.
> ...


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Win07_351 said:


> Trying to run a country on a mainly service sector is greatly hurting our economy. Selling fast food and insurance to one another does not build a strong economy.


correct. but the current paradigm isnt about building a strong economy but about creating
profits to a few large transnationals...


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

Old Vet said:


> How many are tied to a particular job with the same benefits? I worked my way up in the labor market. Started out at $5 per day with no benefits and finished with over $30 per hour with lots of benefits. Jobs were tough to find but I always found one. I can't see the ones that have a job and are not pleased with the outcome and stay with it. I would be out looking for a better paying job or training to find one. And yes I went to school when I was 40 and got a better paying job.


good for you OV but it doesnt work out that way for others with just as much talent, drive,
education, etc. i'd say it doesnt work out for most these days, particularly those over 40...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MELOC said:


> you, and many others are missing my point. it's not about equality and it's not about someone officially getting to set the value of a worker (although i would probably support increased minimum wage...perhaps a modified version), it's about paying enough so that folks can afford to support an economy. my earlier point about not being able to buy the stuff i sell was not me griping about that which i don't have, it's an example of what is wrong. there are too many people like me and not enough jobs that pay enough for everyone, or at least enough of everyone, to buy goods, create demand and create more jobs. you can blame it on the lack of talent or motivation for people in the lower pay grades as much as you want, but the fact is that there are not enough good paying jobs for everyone, less than before, and it's not enough to sustain us.
> 
> here's a little business basic that people seem to forget about. folks seem to talk so much about the lack of investment because of the burden of regulation, the cost of labor...the tax burden that makes it unsavory to invest. cut taxes on the rich and they will magically invest, start businesses and the world will be happy and gay. FYI no one with any business sense will invest a dime if there is no market. there is no market when people have no money to spend. people need money to spend on crap first and that creates a demand. when you have a demand, then you have growth. so what needs to happen before anything else is that profit expectations need to change, pressure needs to be removed from the working class so that they can create demand. this means that they NEED MORE MONEY.
> 
> the culture needs to change. it's a shame that times and situations like this arise and create the need or demand for government regulation. just like with child labor and negligent pollution, if the culture of greed were different, practices would change without the need for the burden of regulation...without the EPA or FDA or minimum wages. i would like to see things change without agencies becoming involved, wouldn't you?



One of the things I have the hardest time getting people to understand is labor is nothing more than a commodity to be bought and sold, just like apples. When there are more workers than jobs the value of those workers falls which means they are going to get paid less. When there are more jobs than workers their value goes up and therefore get paid more. When you start screwing with this basic system things go bad quickly. 

I have used this example over and over but here goes again.

Say you need a 100 foot ditch dug. You offer to pay $100 to anyone willing to dig it for you. Now if you can't get anyone to do it for that price you have two options, raise your price or not have a ditch. Which you choose depends on how much you think that ditch is worth.

But let us say that there are people who think $100 for digging the ditch is worth it and are willing to do it but. . . What do you think would happen if you think the ditch is only worth $100 but the government tells you that if you want your ditch MUST pay $500. Are you going to pay the extra $400 which you don't think the ditch is worth or are you just going to skip having a ditch dug? I think most of us would just skip the ditch which means some worker who would have had $100 to spend gets nothing.

Or on the other hand you can find anyone willing to dig your ditch even at the $500 price because the government has skewed the labor market by making it easy for a worker to not work and still be able to buy what he wants/needs.

For the most part the government needs to keep its hands off the markets. Its job is to protect you from being damaged/harmed by another. It is not supposed to protect you from being damaged/harmed by your own actions.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

Becca. I did not see anywhere in my post that I tore down any ceo or anyone for that matter. I did not advocate takeing their money or raiseing their taxes. I made a personal judgement about the situation. Most Ceo's of large companies had nothing to do with the start up or investment in the company they head.
RE the sweet corn. Farmer tried to supply some local employment. Many local looking for jobs refused to work for $3 over minimum wage or want it off books( I suppose to avoid taxes or keep recieving gov benefits like food stamps and unemployment). I believe this says a lot about work ethic,entitlement mindset in this country. This was not a put down of the employer.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

pcwerk said:


> so are you saying there wasnt a federal defecit after Reagan's term of office?



Shhhhhhhhh............you're not supposed to remember the the nat'l debt tripled from 1 to 3 trillion dollars.
If you do remember it, it wasn't his fault.
It was the Democratic controlled congress..............and I couldn't find my veto pen.
Yeah, I faced down the Red Horde, but that Tip O'Neill guy scared the bejeebers outta me.


And whatever you do, don't mention the sign on Harry Truman's desk.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Whats this business of knocking CEO's.
> Sure they make lots of money. If the company didn't didn't think the person was earning their pay, they get rid of him and or her.
> For Pete's Sake a CEO is just ONE person in a company. ONE PERSON here. So what if they have a high rate of rate, as long as he/she makes the business a success and a success for the stock holders. When in the WORLD has this country made being rich a bad thing????
> If it wasn't for the rich most huge companies would not be around. They employ MILLIONS. Is jealousy that prevalent in AMerica. IF you want to get up the ladle STUDY, go to school get a few degrees and YOU also can get up there.


You mean like CEO and founder Angello Mozillo, earning a $18 Million dollar salary and earning over $30 million in bonuses the last year Countrywide existed? and we won't even talk about his stock options when BoA bought the remains of the company


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Curtis B said:


> Why can't you get it through your head, it isn't about being equal, never has been. The gap is widening, and has been since the "good ole days". Now the widening gap is compounded by unemployment. The economy is held up by the lower/middle class, they are the majority, they spend the majority of the money. Which will cause more spending, 2 billion people spending $100, or 50K people spending $200. (I know they are not exact numbers) There are charts after charts showing the changes. The employer and employee need each other, the difference is that the employee's wages have not increased(and in many cases have decreased) with inflation, and the employer's wages have been trippling inflation. Good for the company in the short term, but not in the long term when they will wonder why nobody will buy their product/service, and the reason for it will be that their customers (someone elses employee, or theirs) can no longer afford it. When nobody buys their product/service they will have to close, and lay off, further setting back the economy.


Both will have the same effect as long as the money is spent for goods produced in the economy. When one guy goes out and buys a $100,000 boat his money goes to people who take the money and spend and/or invest it to be spent by others. When 10 guys go out and each buy a $10,000 boat their money goes to people who take the money and spend and/or invest it to be spent by others. 

Think about it. You work in a place that sells $100K boats where are you more likely to take your family out to eat, McDees or a 'fancy' restaurant? Say now you are work at a 'fancy' restaurant aren't you more likely, because you are making more money, to take your family out to eat than the guy at McDees? So the $100K spent for the one boat is spread out just as much as the 10 $10K boats.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I was a big fan of Ronald Reagan - the last President I respected. Looking back, I can see so very many things I didn't pick up on at the time.

Ronald Reagan championed NAFTA and Free Trade. It didn't start with him and it didn't become much of reality with him, but he was the cheerleader for it.

He gave amnesty to the illegals, which signaled to the entire world, we were not going to protect our borders, our country or it's people.

If you really give it a hard look, with an open mind, you will see these things are not just one administration or the other. It is a steady progression of policies and actions that have brought us to the sad state we now have. Each seems to either push the agenda along, or be very careful not to impede it - while adding a little something more.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pcwerk said:


> bruce2288 said:
> 
> 
> > The pay difference between the average worker and the CEO of the same company in this country is obscene. Many times more than the same comparison in Japan or Europe. The concentration of wealth in the top 1% is obsene.
> ...


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

watcher said:


> Seems to me the nation did ok many years ago when the difference between the "poor" and the "rich" was even greater.
> 
> You kill an economy by making it harder for those with the drive to make money to make and/or keep the money they make. Nations which the communist took over discovered this quite quickly. It sounds nice to say "from those according to their means, to those according to their needs" but when you try to put it into action you ALWAYS find more and more people are needy and fewer and fewer are willing to work any more than necessary to meet *THEIR* means.
> 
> Think of this. I come by and see you have a huge garden which is producing more then I think you need. I tell you I'm going to take your extra and give to your neighbors and give you nothing in return. Next year are you going to put in the effort to raise as large of a garden or are you going to size it so you just have enough for you and yours?


Here are some charts. 

http://http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php

I never said take from the person with more. I said it is unsustainable, and eventually there will be so many poor, the wealthy will have nobody to buy their produce. Without someone buying produce the wealthy will no longer have income either.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pcwerk said:


> so are you saying there wasnt a federal defecit after Reagan's term of office?


I'm saying Reagan's polices, i.e. tax cuts, increased the amount of money the federal government had coming in due to the fact there was more money generated in the economy. That they spent even more than the increase has nothing to do with the fact if we were to cut taxes and fees, specifically on businesses, the economy would increase for the same reason.


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

watcher. Where did I advocate takeing anyones money and giving it to others?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

fishhead said:


> You can only take so much money out of the pockets of the working American and give it to the wealthy before our economy grinds to a halt.
> 
> That is what is happening right now.


Precisely. Very well stated. The rich and powerful run our economic world.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

For all you folks who hate (envy) the rich so much, go ask a poor man for a job. Good Luck!


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

watcher said:


> Both will have the same effect as long as the money is spent for goods produced in the economy. When one guy goes out and buys a $100,000 boat his money goes to people who take the money and spend and/or invest it to be spent by others. When 10 guys go out and each buy a $10,000 boat their money goes to people who take the money and spend and/or invest it to be spent by others.
> 
> Think about it. You work in a place that sells $100K boats where are you more likely to take your family out to eat, McDees or a 'fancy' restaurant? Say now you are work at a 'fancy' restaurant aren't you more likely, because you are making more money, to take your family out to eat than the guy at McDees? So the $100K spent for the one boat is spread out just as much as the 10 $10K boats.


It makes a big difference. What happens when the factory making the 10K boats only sells five. They lay off half the workforce. So now you have a total of 6 boats sold, not 11. Do you really think that if it took 1 person to build a 10K boat it would take 10 people to build a 100K boat. 

Lets use cars (I don't know much about boats). Which would pump more money into the economy. 

100 F150's

1 Ferrari


----------



## bruce2288 (Jul 10, 2009)

It seems some took my original post as a call to enact laws to cap salaries or redistribute wealth. Not so. Simply observatiions.
Another observation. TV shows have evolved and reflect our society, some almost to sleaze standard. ie Two and a half men. I find this show very funny and pretty raunchy. I enjoy it but would dread having to answer and explain questions from a six year old daughter who sat to watch with me. that does not mean I think it should be banned or sensored. It is simply a statement.


----------



## FunnyRiverFarm (May 25, 2010)

I don't think anyone hates the rich...they were just commenting on how much wage disparity there is between the ultra rich and middle class people. Why do top executives require 20 million dollars salaries and even larger bonuses?? I don't think anyone's time and skills are THAT valuable. What the heck do they do that makes them worth so much money, realistically? Wouldn't they still be rich if they made one million dollars??


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Go work somewhere else?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ozarks Tom said:


> For all you folks who hate (envy) the rich so much, go ask a poor man for a job. Good Luck!


You make an assumption, based on blindness and rudeness.


----------



## Parttimefarmer (May 5, 2011)

Curtis B said:


> It makes a big difference. What happens when the factory making the 10K boats only sells five. They lay off half the workforce. So now you have a total of 6 boats sold, not 11. Do you really think that if it took 1 person to build a 10K boat it would take 10 people to build a 100K boat.
> 
> Lets use cars (I don't know much about boats). Which would pump more money into the economy.
> 
> ...


100 f150's because the value is greater than 1 Ferrari by about 10x.

However, the guy with the Ferrari no doubt paid a gas guzzler tax, sales tax, and built a custom garage to hold it. He also pays for it's service and detailing, the valet, and the shipping to the US, all creating or keeping jobs. Don't forget he helped employ the skilled labor that built it, and in the end, Italy needs the money as bad as we do.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

pcwerk said:


> good for you OV but it doesnt work out that way for others with just as much talent, drive,
> education, etc. i'd say it doesnt work out for most these days, particularly those over 40...


I guess times are as tough as it can get. During the Cartier years was when I went to school and when the economy picked up I was able to find a job that had more to offer. There is nothing that a person of 40 today can do but gripe and complain about the economy and draw unemployment. If you think that you are as dumb as a bag of rocks. You can find a lot of jobs if you want to the only thing your basket weaving degree will not qualify you for it. Find something that you are qualified for and then move to another job even if it is in another place and if good as you think if is you will be at least in the upper middle class by the time you are 50. Any body younger needs to find a real good job and stick with it until something better comes along. Employers are not in the business of just providing a job for the heck of it and care less whether you do it or somebody else does it. You have to look out for your self all along the way because no body else will. Some times you may have to work for minimum wage to get the job you are working for I did that and came out ahead. But I always worked hard at what ever I was supposed to do no matter of the wage.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Energy Rebel said:


> Shhhhhhhhh............you're not supposed to remember the the nat'l debt tripled from 1 to 3 trillion dollars.
> If you do remember it, it wasn't his fault.
> It was the Democratic controlled congress..............and I couldn't find my veto pen.
> Yeah, I faced down the Red Horde, but that Tip O'Neill guy scared the bejeebers outta me.
> ...


As I remember it was the Democratic congress that spent the money not Ronald Reagan.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

bruce2288 said:


> Becca. I did not see anywhere in my post that I tore down any ceo or anyone for that matter. I did not advocate takeing their money or raiseing their taxes. I made a personal judgement about the situation. Most Ceo's of large companies had nothing to do with the start up or investment in the company they head.
> RE the sweet corn. Farmer tried to supply some local employment. Many local looking for jobs refused to work for $3 over minimum wage or want it off books( I suppose to avoid taxes or keep recieving gov benefits like food stamps and unemployment). I believe this says a lot about work ethic,entitlement mindset in this country. This was not a put down of the employer.


Sorry, Bruce, that wasn't directed at you personally! This theme of CEO's and the wealthy not deserving to have the fruits of their labors is a recurring one here, as is evidenced by the existence of this thread itself . I didn't mean to make you think I was dogging you, personally.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

pcwerk said:


> so are you saying there wasnt a federal defecit after Reagan's term of office?


Nope, thats not what they said at all, and if you had read their post you would have noticed they put it in there that Reagan could not keep the dems from spending more and more.... It makes little difference how much revenue you add to the top of the pile if someone is shoveling it out faster than you add.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Curtis B said:


> Here are some charts.
> 
> http://http://advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php
> 
> I never said take from the person with more. I said it is unsustainable, and eventually there will be so many poor, the wealthy will have nobody to buy their produce. Without someone buying produce the wealthy will no longer have income either.


They wont need any income... they will already have all the product.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> They wont need any income... they will already have all the product.


Yep, at one time I thought about buying laamas, but then I realized I didn't have anyone to buy them from me, so what good would they be?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Curtis B said:


> It makes a big difference. What happens when the factory making the 10K boats only sells five. They lay off half the workforce. So now you have a total of 6 boats sold, not 11. Do you really think that if it took 1 person to build a 10K boat it would take 10 people to build a 100K boat.
> 
> Lets use cars (I don't know much about boats). Which would pump more money into the economy.
> 
> ...


Assuming the same value and money from both going into the same economy its a basic wash. The money still goes into the economy and is spent. Its not like the Ferrari dealer buries the money in the back yard.


----------



## Curtis B (Aug 15, 2008)

watcher said:


> Assuming the same value and money from both going into the same economy its a basic wash. The money still goes into the economy and is spent. Its not like the Ferrari dealer buries the money in the back yard.


You can't consider same value. A wealthy person will not spend the same as a lower incomed worker. Just because the top 20% brings in a greater amount per person, that doesn't mean they spend the same as the other 80%. The wealthy aren't wealthy due to spending 95-100% of the money they earn. The vast majority of the wealthy save a much greater percentage for one thing and saving money, while a good thing, doesn't help the economy. Even if you consider 1-1 you would have the 80% buying 80%, compared to the upper 20 buying 20. Just because they are wealthy doesn't mean they will all suddenly buy 4 times the number of cars, even though some do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> A wealthy person will not spend the same as a lower incomed worker.


That's correct.

They will spend MORE because they can afford it.

The idea that "the rich don't spend" is a silly fabrication



> Just because they are wealthy doesn't mean they will all suddenly buy 4 times the number of cars, even though some do


The "rich" buy *new* cars that keep the factories in business.
They buy them more often rather than keeping them for many years

The "poor" buy used cars that do nothing to keep the factories going


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

No matter who spends or how much it will never help as long as free trade is there to pump it all into the economy of poorer countrys.

Free trade flows money from the rich economy to the poor economy till they are equal.

We are building the world economy at the price of our own.


----------



## pcwerk (Sep 2, 2003)

RebelCowboySnB said:


> No matter who spends or how much it will never help as long as free trade is there to pump it all into the economy of poorer countrys.
> 
> Free trade flows money from the rich economy to the poor economy till they are equal.
> 
> We are building the world economy at the price of our own.


Amen Rebel Cowboy!


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Isn't hiring all those people spending money? Like I said they hire, pay health insurance, day care, ect for their workers. isn't that spending money?


----------



## YuccaFlatsRanch (May 3, 2004)

Oh the Socialists have new talking points. Heaven help Us.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

RebelCowboySnB said:


> No matter who spends or how much it will never help as long as free trade is there to pump it all into the economy of poorer countrys.
> 
> Free trade flows money from the rich economy to the poor economy till they are equal.
> 
> We are building the world economy at the price of our own.



Oh yeah, let's go the protectionist route since it has failed every time it has been implemented. More union drivel.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

RebelCowboySnB said:


> No matter who spends or how much it will never help as long as free trade is there to pump it all into the economy of poorer countrys.
> 
> Free trade flows money from the rich economy to the poor economy till they are equal.
> 
> We are building the world economy at the price of our own.


But then, what should we do? We can have varying degreeds of socialism, but we cannot become socialists because that daosn't work. I am also fully in favor of stomping on cheap imports; however, that would mean allowing many more factory jobs in the economy. That would also be better to have more factories in our economy, since we have some very good EPA regulations on them, they would have far less impact than lassiez-fairz (or whatever) free-market China factories. Not that I have anything against the free market, but unscrupulous people exist.


----------



## farmerpat (Jan 1, 2008)

RebelCowboySnB said:


> *We are building the world economy at the price of our own*.


:clap: I have a serious problem with the fact that there is such inequality in the trade agreements between foreign countries and our own. It's been this way for quite a few years now, and I think it greatly diminishes our ability to have EQUAL trade between countries -- we're supposed to buy all of their products, yet they can thumb their nose at ours and often prevent them from being sold in their countries. It seems like the deck is always stacked against us when it comes to "free" trade. jmho

OT - Great links in your tag line!


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

Free trade is not a bad thing. Its a noble thing but was not something we should have jumped in to so fast. 

Import taxes are not a bad thing ether.

We have had import taxes from the beginning. An we have had free trade from the beginning. We have had free trade between the states an import taxes for thing coming in from outside the U S. So we know both can work.

Think of the economy of each state as a swimming pool. We have free trade so there is a pipe connecting each pool. As we fill our pools(build the economy) the pipes(free trade) keep them all nice an even.

Other countrys pools are not connected to ours so they fill at a different rate. The ones way lower than ours have much cheaper products. Import taxes are the act of taking there cheaper products raising them up in price to fit on our pool(economy). It costs the builders nothing. The consumer is paying it. This keep the cost of imported products somewhere around the same as made in the USA. It also kept the profits about the same for both. It also feeds the government tax money. But the main thing is it keeps our pool filling up at its normal rate an there pool filling up at its normal rate.

This is the system that we have worked with from day 1. Its what has made it where we could build our economy so much faster than the rest of the world. All the states stayed together though cause of free trade.

Now we have decided to try free trade. Companys still have 2 options. Make products in the US or import. But now without import taxes they can still produce cheep an import an sell at US prices making there normal profits + difference in manufacturing costs or import tax costs, how ever you want to look at it. We made it way more profitable to import than make here.

We hooked a free flowing pipe from our pool(economy) to theirs only unlike the states, the water line is not the same. Our water line is several feet above theres so the flow is all going out filling theirs an emptying ours. This in effect is a boom to there economy with thousands of new jobs an climbing pay. On our end we see a recession with way less jobs an falling pay.

I'm all for free trade but we have been using the other system for way to long an have to great of a difference in the water lines to just change like we did. Free trade should have been goal achieved by years slowly dropping our import tax as there economy came up to us. We opened up the flow to far to fast for us to maintain our economy too.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Wanderer0101 said:


> Oh yeah, let's go the protectionist route since it has failed every time it has been implemented. More union drivel.


REALLY?

That's EXACTLY the way this gov't financed itself for the first 130 years.
A failure?
I don't think so.
Then came the 16th amendment, the income tax, so it could be used to finance the Federal Reserve, international banking interests AND the gov't.
Incidentally, every president who closed or attempted to close this financial institution (Jackson, Lincoln and Kennedy) was either assassinated or an attempt was made.
Coincidence? Most probably, but an interesting one.
And before you claim that Jackson and Lincoln were dead before 1913, read the history of the U.S. National bank, first.


So WHO is the real subversive here?
Unions?
Protectionists?



I'm reminded of a magician with a bright red handkerchief in one hand waving it around while he slips something in his pocket with the other.


----------



## Wanderer0101 (Jul 18, 2007)

Energy Rebel said:


> REALLY?
> 
> That's EXACTLY the way this gov't financed itself for the first 130 years.
> A failure?
> ...


Oh my, a conspiracry theorist! Enough said.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> Very true. Those on the left always forget that under Reagan job growth grew for 85 months in a row.
> But true facts are never told when the liberals talk about Reagan and how well the country did under him.
> We need another Reagan incarnate for a candidate. Those were 8 great years. And the truth never gets into the left's posts either. As Reagan's policies are widely recognized as bringing about the second longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, surpassed in duration only by the 1990s expansion that began under George H. W. Bush in 1991.


Carter made me feel bad. :badmood:

Reagan made me feel good. :thumb:

Bush I was a tax and spender. :flame:
Clinton was a surfer and rode the wave. :rock: 
Bush II was a bigger taxer and spenderer. :flame::flame:
Obama is a waste of space or worse, he is a destroyer. Obama the Destroyer! :strongbad:


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Wanderer0101 said:


> Oh my, a conspiracry theorist! Enough said.



So pointing out historical facts qualifies as a conspiracy theorist?
Even when I said it was a coincidence on the assassinations?
You do realize that I made the coincidence statement as a way of avoiding such accusations, don't you?

Or instead, is it because you embrace the whole idea of the Federal Reserve and it's origin on Jekyll Island?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

The OP was about "inequality". So which do you want? Equal wealth - everybody rolling in dough? Can't happen. or Equal wealth - everybody miserable? Very likely in a socialist society, just ask almost any Cuban.

"The vice of capitalism is it's unequal sharing of blessings. The Virtue of Socialism is it's equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> The OP was about "inequality". So which do you want? Equal wealth - everybody rolling in dough? Can't happen. or Equal wealth - everybody miserable? Very likely in a socialist society, just ask almost any Cuban.
> 
> "The vice of capitalism is it's unequal sharing of blessings. The Virtue of Socialism is it's equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


Good one. 
I also like this one: "When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have the support of Paul."


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's correct.
> 
> They will spend MORE because they can afford it.
> 
> The idea that "the rich don't spend" is a silly fabrication


The fact is that the rich DO spend more. It's also a fact that they spend a smaller percentage of their disposable income than a working class Americans. More of their money gets put into investments like Chinese stocks or off shore tax shelters.

Therefore they have a less stimulative effect on our economy because our economy for better or worse depends on consumption.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

The year before the Great Depression the top 1% of Americans owned 23.5% of our economy.

The year before the Great Recession the top 1% of Americans owned 24% of our economy.

Coincidence? I don't think so because you can only take so much money out of the pocket of the working class before the economy grinds to a halt.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Energy Rebel said:


> Or instead, is it because you embrace the whole idea of the Federal Reserve and it's origin on Jekyll Island?


I stand for the abolishing of the FRS; that is one liberal stance that I will not swallow at all.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> I stand for the abolishing of the FRS; that is one liberal stance that I will not swallow at all.


That is for sure. Now if the poster had said the IRS instead then I bet both you and I would be for that.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

So the rich paying out all that money to pay wages isn't spending?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

There are some points in the article that I have to agree with. The middle class American who bought the Datsun in the 70's rather than buying a more expensive Ford gave himself the small cut that slowly bled himself to death. His own greed stood in the way of seeing what he did to himself. 

Saying that I will use my middle class pay to get cheap goods, even if it destroys middle class jobs is being a traitor to ones self in the long run.

I agree in trade practices that demand some measure of parity in regards to foreign wages, benefits and worker protection. We already do this in regards to the safety of the products we import, insisting that cars or food measure up to American legal standards but we throw American workers under the bus when it comes to looking out for them (us).

We still import products produced by slave labor. Does anyone agree that this is right?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> The fact is that the rich DO spend more. It's also a fact that they spend a smaller percentage of their disposable income than a working class Americans. More of their money gets put into investments like Chinese stocks or off shore tax shelters.


You have failed to ask a *VERY* important question. Why do this?

Its because they want to keep as much of their money as possible, just like you. If our tax rates were lower they wouldn't need to send their money off shore to save it.

Move from international to interstate. I have posted articles showing how 'rich' people and business are pouring out of states like New York and California and into Texas and Florida. Why is this happening? Its very simple, *TAXES*. If you make $250K and are being taxed yearly at an effective rate of 50% in NY and discover in TX your rate would be 25% what would you do? Just sit in NY and say; "Well I need to pay 'my fair share'." Or are you going to say; "Pack up everybody we're moving!"

Heck, move it from a state level to a personal one. You need gas and you see two stations. One is charging 2 cents less per gallon than the other are you going to goto the more expensive one?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> The year before the Great Depression the top 1% of Americans owned 23.5% of our economy.
> 
> The year before the Great Recession the top 1% of Americans owned 24% of our economy.
> 
> Coincidence? I don't think so because you can only take so much money out of the pocket of the working class before the economy grinds to a halt.


I think if you keep looking you will find that percentage to be fairly constant throughout our history.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

tinknal said:


> There are some points in the article that I have to agree with. The middle class American who bought the Datsun in the 70's rather than buying a more expensive Ford gave himself the small cut that slowly bled himself to death. His own greed stood in the way of seeing what he did to himself.
> 
> Saying that I will use my middle class pay to get cheap goods, even if it destroys middle class jobs is being a traitor to ones self in the long run.
> 
> ...


I've said it before and I'll say it again and again and again. The government's job is NOT to protect us from ourselves. If we want to buy cheaper imported products rather than more expensive American made ones the government should not interfere with that.

Now if those products are less inexpensive due to the other nation doing something "unfair", e.g. forcing political prisoners to work for no pay, then it had the duty to step in.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

watcher said:


> I think if you keep looking you will find that percentage to be fairly constant throughout our history.


That's not true.

When Reagan started the war on the middle class the top 1% owned 9% of the nations wealth. That was about the time that the middle class started to slide downward to the point that a single wage earner wasn't bringing home enough to support a family. 

Now the top 1% own 24% and they want the rest.

Many of the top 1% don't run businesses so they don't pay any wages. They make their money by birth and playing the stock market.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

So what?
Where is it written that equality MUST take place in the US?
This IS and always has been The Land Of Milk And Honey.
And so a few have done just that. Go out and get a higher ed. and you too can be on the upper crust of things. Nothing in this great country is stopping anybody from doing just that.
But there is no reason, no season at all to diss the rich in this country. They HAVE paid their dues, oh sure SOME have inherited it. but not that many. And besides those that have, STILL their parents paid the dues.
And there are a bunch of those rich that DO start companies and hire thousands if not millions of workers.
When I was working I was moving up the ladder, I was about to start school for a supervising position, and then move up to a Lead Supervisor. 
And a much higher rate of pay.
Anybody IF they want to study and go on to further studies can do the same dern thing in this country. But some would just like to sit back and have The Nanny Government and The Nanny union thugs take care of them.


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

SquashNut said:


> So the rich paying out all that money to pay wages isn't spending?


I wouldent call it spending in the same way as when people buy products with there paycheck. Both help the economy but they have to be looked at differently because there opposite sides of the economic coin an there effects are different.

Now starting a new business or expanding is spending.


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

watcher said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again and again and again. The government's job is NOT to protect us from ourselves. * If we want to buy cheaper imported products rather than more expensive American made ones the government should not interfere with that.*
> 
> Now if those products are less inexpensive due to the other nation doing something "unfair", e.g. forcing political prisoners to work for no pay, then it had the duty to step in.


But the problem is that they have been using import taxes to interfere from day one. Thats what has pushed our economy so far above the rest of the world. We pay more but get payed more. Free trade killed all that an now our economy can only go down untill we drop to where we are even with others. 

Our economy as we have known in is not sestanable without import taxes. Because that's what actually built it.

Now we have created deflation. Without import taxes some products become very cheap makeng our home made products an paycheecks have to drop with them. The problem is no one wast to sell there stuff cheaper an no one wants a pay cut. 

Just like inflation everything has to go up or down together. Untill manufacturers understand that they can no longer get $10 for there trinket an will have to take $3, an untill workers understand that they can no longer expect $20 an our an will have to take $5 we are going to stay in trouble.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

watcher said:


> Now if those products are less inexpensive due to the other nation doing something "unfair", e.g. forcing political prisoners to work for no pay, then it had the duty to step in.


Seems to me that the concept of "fair" is subjective.


What do you think of cocoa plantations using child slave labor?

Blood diamonds?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again and again and again. The government's job is NOT to protect us from ourselves. If we want to buy cheaper imported products rather than more expensive American made ones the government should not interfere with that.
> 
> Now if those products are less inexpensive due to the other nation doing something "unfair", e.g. forcing political prisoners to work for no pay, then it had the duty to step in.


All right, so then let's stand back and let Monsanto start dumping PCBs in streams again, let's let dioxin and DDT run rampant, and let's remove the filters from factory stacks and let the sulphur run rampant, causing acid rain and ruining people's crops. 
What an ideal world, all so your pocketbook gets a little fatter.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> That's not true.
> 
> When Reagan started the war on the middle class the top 1% owned 9% of the nations wealth.


I'd have to see the raw data on that before I'd buy it. Things I'd have to know, how do they define "wealth". Is it based on what they actually own or the precieved value of it. Example. If you own a company out right you have a lot of wealth because of the value of the equipment. You also have a lot of wealth because of the value of the potentional of your business/sales. But if the product you make suddenly stops selling you still have the "wealth" based on the value of the equipment but your overall wealth drops becasue of the loss of value in your sales. 

I use the example of the Tickle Me Elmo doll. Back years ago if you had 1000 of them you were "worth" close to $75,000. In a few month your "worth" would have dropped quite a bit even though you still had the very same dolls. Now change dolls for houses and you can see how the worth of the middle class has dropped.




fishhead said:


> That was about the time that the middle class started to slide downward to the point that a single wage earner wasn't bringing home enough to support a family.


Bull feces!! I know plenty of families who have a single wage earner and are raising families. The problem is just like the government's problem. Its not how much they earn its how much they spend. I talk to people all the time who gripe about how they couldn't "make it" without both parents working. After a while I discover they are making two car payment, usually have a boat and/or an AVT or two, each kid has a cell phone, each kid has their own room with a TV, at least one 'gaming system' and computer in it. 





fishhead said:


> Many of the top 1% don't run businesses so they don't pay any wages. They make their money by birth and playing the stock market.


Yeah, people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett. All born with with millions in the bank and never had to do anything but sail on their yachts and order servants to peel grapes for them. Oh, and don't forget about Michel Jordan and Tiger Woods, after all if their families hadn't had all those billions in the bank they never would have had the free time to learn to play so well.

You'll find most "rich" people are rich because of the type of people they are, not because someone dropped millions of dollars into their laps.

At the same time you'll find most "poor" people are poor because of the type of people they are.

Don't believe me? Research the number of lottery winners, former sports greats and entertainers who had millions at one time but now are broke.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

tinknal said:


> Seems to me that the concept of "fair" is subjective.
> 
> 
> What do you think of cocoa plantations using child slave labor?
> ...


When people are forced by the threat of violence to work its unfair. When the government sets the value of labor, that's unfair. Of course liberals disagree with that last statement so I guess it is subjective.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> All right, so then let's stand back and let Monsanto start dumping PCBs in streams again, let's let dioxin and DDT run rampant, and let's remove the filters from factory stacks and let the sulphur run rampant, causing acid rain and ruining people's crops.
> What an ideal world, all so your pocketbook gets a little fatter.


What part about the government protecting us from ourselves don't you get. In your examples someone is doing something which damages another. This in within the government's purview. But if you are doing something which harms you the government should have no say in the matter. 

Take smoking for example. If you don't know smoking is bad for you, you should probably be locked up in a mental institute because you are too stupid to be roaming free. Now do you think the government should be able to tell you that you can not smoke because its bad for you? Or do you think you should have the freedom to smoke if you wish?


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

RebelCowboySnB said:


> I wouldent call it spending in the same way as when people buy products with there paycheck. Both help the economy but they have to be looked at differently because there opposite sides of the economic coin an there effects are different.
> 
> Now starting a new business or expanding is spending.


Yes, but look at how many more can spend because the corporations pay wages. When that stops as in like it is now, look what happens to our economy.

every one has a part to play in a society. The corporations and small businesses make the jobs. laborers labor. parents parent. Kids need to be kids. When people demand to be some thing different than what they were meant to be with out going through the changes that they need to go through then the balance gets messed up.
Like a kid trying to take over the house before his time.
The real problem here is their isn't enough good quality consumable goods. people would rather keep their money than waste their life buying junk that breaks in only a few days.


----------



## Parttimefarmer (May 5, 2011)

SquashNut said:


> The real problem here is their isn't enough good quality consumable goods. people would rather keep their money than waste their life buying junk that breaks in only a few days.


I would say the problem is a lack of US made quality goods.


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

Parttimefarmer said:


> I would say the problem is a lack of US made quality goods.


Nether is the problem. Its all symptoms of the real problem. of the real problem. The US economy is set up where production in the US costs are so close an sometimes more than the worth of the finished product in the global market.

If we want to be part of the global economy we have to drop production costs in the US which means dropping pay. 

If we want to keep our economy like we are use to an not drop pay we have to have import taxes.

Right now we are trying to ride the fence, to have our cake an eat it too. We are trying to be part of the gloable economy while trying to figure out how to maintain our local over inflated economy. We cant have both. We have to chose.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

RebelCowboySnB said:


> Nether is the problem. Its all symptoms of the real problem. of the real problem. The US economy is set up where production in the US costs are so close an sometimes more than the worth of the finished product in the global market.
> 
> If we want to be part of the global economy we have to drop production costs in the US which means dropping pay.
> 
> ...


That's not going to happen, people here think they diserve to much pay for this Idea.
It still goes back to the housing, which is what over inflated our economy. Till we get hat straightened up we cann't drop wages.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

watcher said:


> Take smoking for example. If you don't know smoking is bad for you, you should probably be locked up in a mental institute because you are too stupid to be roaming free. Now do you think the government should be able to tell you that you can not smoke because its bad for you? Or do you think you should have the freedom to smoke if you wish?


Careful there old buddy, yer starting to sound like a Libertarian there. 

Dr. Ron Paul 2012.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> ...............and DDT run rampant,.


Sometimes we throw out the baby with the bath water. DDT saved millions of lives worldwide, and could again with minimal damage to the environment if it were used judiciously.


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

SquashNut said:


> That's not going to happen, people here think they diserve to much pay for this Idea.
> It still goes back to the housing, which is what over inflated our economy. Till we get hat straightened up we cann't drop wages.



I really don't think housing is a cause, its a symptom. It just so happens to be the the most expensive thing most ever buy so its talked about more. But its not over inflated everywhere in the US. Land value average for all of the US is about $2000 to $2500 an acre. Large parts of the US still have many homes under $50K.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

RebelCowboySnB said:


> I really don't think housing is a cause, its a symptom. It just so happens to be the the most expensive thing most ever buy so its talked about more. But its not over inflated everywhere in the US. Land value average for all of the US is about $2000 to $2500 an acre. Large parts of the US still have many homes under $50K.


Is that why every one is under water on their morgages?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

SquashNut said:


> Is that why every one is under water on their morgages?


They are under water because they thought their house was an investment to make money .

I bought mine because i don't like paying rent and the payments were cheaper than rent .Then i bought what i could afford and is now paid off.:clap:

I don't care if the neighbors house is newer or fancier that is either his good luck or bad as the case may be :run:


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

Everyone?

What do you mean by under water? As in owe more than its worth? Or not able to pay the mortgage each month?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

RebelCowboySnB said:


> Everyone?
> 
> What do you mean by under water? As in owe more than its worth? Or not able to pay the mortgage each month?


Owes more than it will bring today :sing: Some owe $125,000 on a house now worth $75,000 so lots of folks just :runforhills:


----------



## RebelCowboySnB (Apr 1, 2011)

Ain't that what happens when you barrow money to buy every other thing on the planet?

People dont freak out because there $40K new car is only worth $20K 6 payments later. 

People dont freak out cause there new $10K Rolex they they just put on the credit card would only pawn for $3K.

How much you owe has nothing to do your houses worth.

You bought a house for X amount of money because thats what it was worth to you an you wanted it.

You needed X amount of money so you borrowed it an promised to pay it back.

Two different transactions that have nothing to do with each other.
You cant be under water cause you owe exactly what you agreed to.
You also have the house you wanted an for exactly what you agreed it was worth to you.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> I stand for the abolishing of the FRS; that is one liberal stance that I will not swallow at all.



I'm a little confused by what you mean.
Are you saying that the Federal Reserve is a "liberal" institution?
And by implication, someone who supports it would be a "liberal"?

I think that's what you said, but not 100% sure.
Just in case, the Fed is the prime example of an ultra-conservative organization created by the a small group of men seeking to conserve their power by controlling the country's money supply.

They would be adamantly against "liberating" the control into the hands of many smaller and regional banks. 



arabian knight said:


> That is for sure. Now if the poster had said the IRS instead then I bet both you and I would be for that.


Me too.
The whole point in creating the IRS and the income tax (16th amendment) was to finance the FRS and IRS and take control of financing the gov't from the hands of the people.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Chasing a false 'equality' is what is ruining things. People gotta want to be better than they are, better than others - then the ecconomy works. 'Equality' is the bad thing, not something an individual should chase. One should chase 'better'.

The subject line alone sums up the problem, not a solution!

On the management side, mergers is ruining things there. As with individuals, businesses need to innovate & improve their way out of poor times. The currnt model of simply buying out all competition & no longer competeing for buisness is what is also runing this ecconomy. Both LEft & Right administrations and congresses have turned a blind eye to this problem, and actually continue to pass legislation that makes it even easier to merger your way to greatness, rather than manag/ develop/ innovate your way to the top.

Both individuals and businesses need to get off their duff and stop trying to be equal to anyone else - you got to try to be better, not as bad as!

That should just be simple obvious to anyone?

--->Paul


----------

