It's over... The balance has tipped and the welfare state has won... For now...

a reply to: Greven
social security and medicare are programs that working people pay into for their entire working lives and up till recently the programs have run a surplus! there'd be plenty of money to keep it going if only the gov't hadn't raided the funds and left IOUs in it's place probably with the idea that they would never pay that money back anyways.
so now that it isn't a cosh cow to fund wars and such well oh ya it's a problem!!

it's not social security that has the problem it's the gov't with their insane spending!
and, while we're arguing as to why those programs should be cut what's the latest propaganda being spewed from mainstream media in an attempt to get us to accept the next war that I am sure they will find the money to fund one way or another..... even if they have to raid your IRAs to do it!

a reply to: dawnstar

They want the programs cut so they don't have to pay back the IOUs.

It almost seems like they truly believe they can keep trying squeeze more out of the working class in the US. It' is almost like trying to get the last drops out of once soaking wet sponge. The middle class in the US was once the wealthiest group of people in the world. Now their wealth is declining yet they are being forced to work longer and harder for a smaller paycheck.

a reply to: jrod

to not pay back enough to keep the programs running would be a default plain and simple!!
if they are gonna default on that debt they might as well go all the way and just default on all of it! including those treasury notes that are sitting in people's investment portfolio!

originally posted by: bbracken677


The "since 2008.." comment, last paragraph, have any data to support that? I am truly curious since 95% of facts and figures are randomly made up 60% of the time.

In fact, I would tend to say that most of your assertions are anecdotal at best.

.......

So exactly where was I deceptive? Where did I post non-truths?

Source to back up my claim:


www.oxfam.org...

Page 2...

a reply to: jrod

Thanks for the link! I will consume that when I have time. Often when people quote numbers without sourcing them I have doubts, at least here on ATS.

At first glance, the "since 2008" paragraph in question was directed at our economy, or at least that was the context in which I took it. The paper you linked is geared towards what has happened globally. Nevertheless, it is close enough and I will peruse the paper in detail later.

Again, thanks!

a reply to: bbracken677

No problem. There is a lot deception and rabble rousing that goes on during election time, especially about the economy. I notice it more every election. It seems to be that many in the US have been deceived to vote against their own interests by clever campaigns that distort the facts.

While I think many in the US struggling have set themselves up for failure, I do feel like it is much tougher now to make good money than it was a generation ago.

Here are links to the 'raw' sources cited by the paper.

E. Saez (2013) ‘Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (updated with 2012
preliminary estimates), Berkeley: University of California, Department of Economics.
eml.berkeley.edu...

AND

The World Top Incomes Database

topincomes.g-mond.parisschoolofeconomics.eu...

a reply to: jrod

When you say they are voting against their own interests, I would say because no one is for their interests. Does not matter what party. Dems are supposed to be the party of the little guy, and yet 6 or 7 (forget which) of the richest members of congress are dems, and that is the case year in year out.

With all the lobbyists there is no way either party are for the little guy....they have no idea whats up with the little guy. They are so far removed it hurts.

a reply to: bbracken677

Democrats are probably the worst for voting against their interest from what I have seen. Many of my peers that lean that way refuse to accept that both parties serve the same lobbyists.

I do have to hand it to the Republicans for shifting the blame on the economy and health care on poor people using the claim they are too lazy to work or too entitled to pay for health insurance.

One of the biggest problems we have come election time is so many have been sold on the idea that they have to vote either Democrat or Republican otherwise they are wasting their vote. This so far has prevented a third party from rising up.

a reply to: Mirthful Me

Cloward and Piven.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Mirthful Me

Cloward and Piven.

News to me, thanks

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
en.wikipedia.org...

TPTB have had 100 years to think about how to play this.

There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party-then splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national "solution" to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national "solution" to poverty)
ibid

More collectivization.
Single party system.
If local governments don't pay, then local governments will have no remedies.

a reply to: jrod

Read through the paper, and did a little additional research...we are approaching the disparity seen in the late 19th, early 20th century.

I am not in favor of "redistribution" as it is normally presented. I am in favor of reward for hard work, reward for ingenuity, talent and other qualities that the successful possess. There must be entrepreneurs or the economy would not grow, would not survive.

So...how does one eliminate the "star factor" that is resulting in such disparity? People, in general, are enamored with stars whether music, hollywood, sports...whatever. It's perfectly fine for them to make bucket loads even though they are nothing but entertainers. I have no problem with them making plenty for in-demand talents, but honestly, who the hell can claim to be worth $20-30 million a year? CEOs often make more than that, but given the massive companies they run, how can one deny their income and be fine with the money entertainers are raking in?

The question is how does one eliminate this star syndrome along with the stupid amount of money they make without stealing the money? How does one create an equitable reward system that fosters talent, creativity, knowledge and at the same time does not short change the working masses?

I am a bit old fashioned: I feel one is due what one has earned. Those who do not work and choose not to work are due nothing. Those who contribute hugely to society, whether it be in business and job opportunities or with virtuoso skills with a guitar are due, in turn, larger sums than average. It is not the average joe who runs companies, creates works of musical art, or can throw a pinpoint pass at 30 yards. Those who contribute a middling amount to society through their skills and knowledge are due a middling income.

Again, the question is how to get there without penalizing talent, without just stealing the money? I rue the govt's role in any sort of "adjustment".



Oh, and thanks again for the link, man!

a reply to: bbracken677

you seem to be stuck on this "star factor" thing.

let me explain it to you. the "star" is the product. for example, the three stars of the big bang theory held out for a million an episode, plus residuals from syndication. each will make around 30 mill a year. why? cause the show creates much more money than that and it couldnt happen without them. they are the product. also, in show business, everyone is union and gets a decent shake. a background extra makes 125 a day, which is more than many in this country.

a great athlete makes big bucks cause they are the product. by them playing, they create much more for the owners, arena owners, concessions, down the line to the valet parkers.

a ceo, not so much. they are easily replaced. just promote a vice president, which the ceo was once, and there you go.

the point of high taxes on the rich is not to punish success, but to penalize excess. even thomas jefferson realized this: "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise." www.let.rug.nl...

from the end of wwii till raygun, the top tax rate was over 50%. it averaged 70%. the middle class was never bigger. the share of income for the 1% decreased from 30% to 10% national income. the average family had a decent car, decent house, and a stay at home parent. you had benefits from your job and a nice gold watch after 20 yrs.

when tax rates were so high, the people at the top had a choice. pay themselves more and give to uncle sam. or take less, freeing up money to give raises and benefits. 50% of 10 mill is still enough to retire on. not to mention that by taxing heavily those that have the most, the debt decreased.

then raygun and supply side came along and up ended the whole thing. since raygun, look it up, the debt has increased, middle america has shrank, middle american incomes have stagnated, and the share of income for the rich has skyrocketed! the numbers dont lie. do you mean to tell me that giving the rich more money doesnt effect the middle or the poor?

watch "inequality for all" and then get back to me.

a reply to: stormson

let me explain it to you.

Yes, because you are so much smarter than I am. Do you, for one second, think the I believe the full cause of inequity is the "star factor" as you put it? lol

You totally missed the point I made. *whoosh*

Besides which, I have forgotten more about economics than you apparently know, based on your wall of uncapitalized text.

You blame it on "Raygun", but seem unable to be able to verbalize any reasoning besides "supply side".

lol try terms such as "strong dollar policy", "trade imbalance", "monetary supply growth" and "manufacturing jobs going overseas" and you will just begin the scratch the surface.

"Get back to you"? Yeah, let's do lunch.

a reply to: bbracken677

why no counter to the arguments i put forth?

while you probably do think the full cause of inequity is more than the "star factor", you do seem to focus on it, just as i focus on ceos. you mentioned it several times trying to compare apples and oranges. the stars dont hire or fire anyone, but are the product. a ceo does hire and fire and effects many lives by their greed.

a "wall of text" is usually unbroken, just one big paragraph. while i dont capitalize (a form of informal internet speech, much like formal and informal spoken language), i do separate paragraphs, thus preventing a wall of text.

the guy that proof read hitlers speeches, was he a grammar nazi?

i do blame raygun, as he was at the helm and got things pushed thru. i use supply side as an umbrella term to cover those issues you mentioned, since it was supply side that started it all. for example, manufacturing went overseas because ceos were incentivized by lower taxes to find cheap labor. then they could pocket the savings made. the rich got richer and the poor were left behind.

as for lunch, have your people call my people and see if it can be penciled in.

a reply to: stormson

I focused on it because it boggles my mind that people do not seem to mind or care that professional sports figures or hollywood types are raking in such money while contributing virtually nothing to society. They are like the gladiators of Ancient Rome. They are to provide us with distraction and entertainment. By all means let's waste bandwidth, newsprint and air time discussing the Kardashians lol.

And yet, with all that we turn right around and take huge offense at what CEO's make. Makes no sense to me. None. Either both are fine, or they are not....but then, whoever said the human race was logical, eh? '

I blame Reagan for the strong dollar. That set up, as much as or more than anything since. It made our products manufactured here more expensive overseas and made products made overseas cheaper to buy here. That set up the eventual fleeing of manufacturing jobs from the US and the massive amounts of imported goods from China and Asia in general. Yeah, Clinton played his part as well with trade agreements, but in my book the strong dollar policy was the core of our demise. It aint over yet. We have lost 15 trillion dollars in trade deficit over the last 20 years. That is 15 TRILLION dollars of our nation's wealth that is no longer ours.

We went from a manufacturing powerhouse of a nation, accumulating wealth, during the 60s and early 70s to a pitiful has been nation bleeding wealth like blood, sweat and tears. In the 60s the US produced 25% of the world's manufactured goods. Today we produce something around 5% and the vast majority of that does not get exported. Without exports we are just going to continue to hemorrhage money.

So many people talk about the disparity of wealth etc. .. well, take all the money from the 1%ers and divvy it up and see how much that helps the 99%... not as much as you might think. We need manufacturing, we need exports.

Machiavelli had it right with a very simple theorem: The nation that exports more than it imports gets rich. The nation that imports more than it exports gets poor. If you think our economy is bad now, just wait a few years lol

And what have our political leaders done? Is this part of the discourse? Hell no... think about that for about 3 seconds.

Don't even get me started on what the Feds have been doing. I think they learned money management at Enron R' Us University.

a reply to: stormson

a "wall of text" is usually unbroken, just one big paragraph. while i dont capitalize (a form of informal internet speech, much like formal and informal spoken language), i do separate paragraphs, thus preventing a wall of text.

One problem...that is not what I said, nor what I meant. The reference was to the lack of capitalization anywhere. A minor critique that you are spending more time on than I did lol. I think you missed the point of the sentence in focusing on that.