on the "LITTLE PUSSY WHO USES AN ALIAS TO FLAME BUT OFFERS NOTHING TO THE DIALOGUE" scale. Congrats!
3 questions:
1. Do you believe that there is a growing disparity between the middle class and the wealthy?
2. If so, do you think this trend feeds on itself and as a result, the disparity will continue to grow?
3. If the answer to 1 is yes, do you believe this is good for the Country?
USA USA USA USA USA
For me, the answers are yes, yes and no.
The answer to the problem you see is very simple. Every body that has not already done so should grab their hat, sit on the curb, hold their hat in their hand, and wait for some benevolent libbie-pink to come along and fill it with cash that they have just stolen from your neighbor. OR. If you don't want to do that, just sit on your ass and wallow in self pity and greed because some one has more material things than you do, even though both of you have far more than reasonably necessary. Hoorah, for Osama-Obama Hussein BareAss, the new Bolshevik!!!!.
on the "LITTLE PUSSY WHO USES AN ALIAS TO FLAME BUT OFFERS NOTHING TO THE DIALOGUE" scale. Congrats!
When you muster up the courage to look in a mirror, what part of your pathetic self most urges you to cut your own throat? Is it your materialism? Your greed? Your laziness? Your intolerance? Your need to have someone run your sorry life? Your urge to run the lives of everyone else? Your urge to steal from your neighbors? Get a grip on your pathetic existence. Being a stinking libbie is a self imposed affliction that you can cure. Just find some honor, some self respect, some pride, a job would help too.
the last one died. We forgot to feed it.
America is a Capitalist country and that's how capitalism works.
At some point in the future, do you think that creates a permanent underclass? If so, doesn't that change America from the land of opportunity to an aristocracy? If that happens, doesn't capitalism collapse?
I don't doubt that there are adequate responses to these questions. I only ask because I have never heard them so I seek some enlightenment here.
Thanks again.
-- Modified on 9/17/2008 8:51:02 AM
That is correct. Every peasant gets the same thing regardless of their efforts or lack thereof and the sheep herder libbie pinks attend to their flock of permanent peasants. You dumb ass, "Red", communism rewards dead beats and is a chronic failure, it is totally at odds with individual liberty and individual responsibilty, the backbone of this country..
It seems to be working in China.
For a moment, I actually thought we might have a productive discussion.
What are you fishing for anyway?
Intelligent discourse on matters of important to me. Is it so foreign to actually seek discourse and learning? Does everyone here really know everything about politics, government and the economy?
I do believe there is a shrinking middle class. The actual problem is the very exact thing that Obama is offering as the cure. Higher taxes especially at the corporate level is the biggest culprit.
We don't make things anymore. For there to be a healthy middle class, we need good paying manufacturing jobs. High corporate taxes are a major cause of this and higher corporate taxes will serve to exacerbate the problem, not fix it.
What we need is not more oppresive taxes, we need incentives for investment. The tax code is one of the weapons to either stimulate or depress the economy. Obama in his wish to pander to voters and get elected offers to tax the rich and feed the poor. This is what will create a permanent underclass, without healthy businesses who is going to hire the "underclass"? This is the true threat to capitalism. Socialism has already been disproven as a economic panacea, why would we want to go down a road already marked by failure?
I totally agree that high paying manufacturing jobs would solve the problem. There is no a global job marketplace, so why would a manufacturer produce goods here if they can do so cheaper in other countries? Obama wants to penalize companies that send jobs overseas. Do you support this?
if not for the fact that he wants to punish these same companies for staying here as well. US corporate tax rates are already among the highest in the world, he proposes raising them even further.
The end result of Obama's proposals will not to just ship jobs out of the country, he will make US corporation seriously consider moving out of the US completely. It won't be the end of capitalism, just our dominance of it.
Corporations are global enterprises so it's hard to tell who dominates what, no?
First, the so-called good manufacturing jobs are not coming back. I remember the 1992 election. The 3 candidates railed against the loss of manufacturing jobs, including Ross Perot. What happened next was the next transformation phase in our country....hi-tech. Look at the growth of Silicon Valley. Companies that we could never envision were created from Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Cisco, Research in Motion, etc. Jobs were moving from manufacturing to new industries. The difference is that a high school diploma just doesn't cut it anymore.
Now you can say we are losing some hi-tech jobs to India, China and elsewhere. Those jobs tend to be somewhat repetitive, i.e. do not require critical thinking skills. Tom Friedman's book "The World is Flat" tells it all. Like it or not, we are in a global economy, and skills and competencies need to keep getting enhanced.
The Fortune 100 company I used to work for was always scrambling to find college graduates with degrees in math and science. We were constantly scrambling against other companies for a shrinking talent pool, and that includes the use of H1B visas, which were almost non-existent after 9/11.
The fact of the matter is the unemployment rate for those with at least an undergraduate degree is 2%. The unemployment for high school diploma or less is 8%. It's a fact that is not going to change.
Interesting response, GG.
My interpretation however is that we have lost manufacturing jobs not because of taxes, but because of significantly lower wages in other countries.
I don't know this for a fact, but I would guess that compared to salaries, taxes are insignificant when deciding whether to stay in the US or move. I bet a corporate tax rate of zero would not cause many companies to move back from Mexico, India, China, etc...
and taxes are far from the only factor, but raising taxes on US corporations that are already at a disadvantage is not the way to keep what we still have.
Taking a bigger piece of an ever shrinkig pie is not the cure, it is part of the problem.
I doubt that any of the jobs that have already left this country are coming back, as you said even a tax rate of zero would not lure a company that has already made the move, but forget about sa called third world countries, Europe seems to have got the message their corporate tax rates are on average around 10% lower than ours already, how much more of an advantage do we want to give them?
The U.S. may indeed have relatively high corporate tax rates but the actual tax burden is very low. Corporations pay a much smaller percentage of the total tax revenue than they have in a long while.
To keep the game going, it's necessary for workers to be able to buy the things they make and the real wages of labor in the U.S. have been flat or declining for years. At the same time, the income of those at the very top have skyrocketed.
In 1980 average CEO pay was about 50 times what the average worker earned. Today it's over 300 times what the average worker earns. Productivity is up substantially yet the gains of that accrue only to those at the top. Trickle down economics is what has been proven to be a sham, not socialism.
Socialism works very well in Denmark, doesn't it? Lower crime, better health care, better education, happier population, more stable families. How has socialism been disproved there or in any of the other nations which have adopted very successful socialist policies?
You and Doc Gonzo are the only honest libs I know. Both of you are admitted socialists, I am an evil, greedy capitalist pig. At least we are both honest about our postitions.
Back on topic, I believe socialism guarantees mediocrity, without lofty goals there can be no lofty accomplishments. Denmark is a good example, socialism at its best. I wouldn't consider trading places with a Dane for a single second.
There is one point that I will agree with you is executive pay. It is obscene that poor executive officers continue to rake in outrageous compensation while their underlying companies fail. Stockholders need to take a stand against this practice. They need to sell their stakes in companies that continue to reward their officers for failure. If more people would learn how to read an annual report, they might do something about it.
Democrats and Republicans. If you feel guilty about how much money you have, then give to the Blackbelt fund. Your money will be put to good use.
And your money will be spent in the USA. (Or maybe Canada)
-- Modified on 9/17/2008 9:27:31 AM
It may be true that the upper class is getting richer in comparison, in the sense that George Clooney has to villas is Lake Como, and Oprah has twice as many billions as she used to have.
However, the middle and "poor" are doing much better as well, even proportionalely. I drive around L.A. a lot and see miles and miles and miles of middle class homes and areas where teachers (I know, since I know a lot of them), city workers, and other middle class live. Those houses are not the ones in foreclosure. The foreclosed houses tend to be speculator's bad investments.)
The areas where these people live have scores of nice restaurants that are jammed. Their furnishings are improving all the time. Big screen and HD TV's are not owned only by Bill Gates and crew.
I also go into more "marginal" areas, like Pomona, Compton, and N. Hollywood, and see a similar situation. Row after row of nice, single family homes. Everyone has multiple telivisions, blackberries, microwaves.
Yes, the rich is getting richer, but the poor are doing better as well.
however, I think the numbers reflect a story in stark contrast to what you suggest.
It is not an anecdote, which is more of a story.
This is a factual observation that cannot be denied. If you start at the beach at Sunset Avenue and head east, all the way from the beach to Los Feliz - guessing 25 miles - is a huge middle class in nice houses. With the exception of a few pockets, this goes north, over the hill to Magnolia. It also goes South, down to Pico. My guess is a hundred square miles of nice homes. Some rich, the vast majority "middle class." Google the average price. That ain't an anecdote.
And this is just one huge swatch. It does not count other pockets of very nice large areas, even areas that are mostly black and/or other minorities, like Ladera Heights, large sections of the Washington Blvd Area, scattered areas like San Fernando (the city, not the valley). It goes on and on.
If you want disparity of wealth go places like Mexico City, where you have two or three nice enclaves surrounded by miles and miles of poor. Even London has a few nice areas, but the vast majority of apartments are dumps compared to single family houses in Compton or Inglewood, which are considered our impoverished area.
True "anecdote." When I was in college in the late 60's early 70's, there was an international youth conference in NYC. The American delegation was very radical and wanted to embarass the US by housing the other delegations in the "slums" of NYC. They told the other delegations that they would see the real underclass of America.
After they saw their housing, the other groups accused the US delegation of being CIA because they were not showing them the real poor of the US, they were showing them middle class in an attempt to cover up the truth.
This is very much like the time that Krushchev came to the US in the 50's, and they took him to a car factory. He got pissed that the US was trying to fool him and he wasn't stupid. The car factory had a huge parking lot with a lot of cars. He thought his hosts were lying when they said that the workers owned the cars. It was so foreign to him to even imagine that workers in a car factory could afford to own cars, he was offended when they told him that wopper.
Guess what. In the US workers own cars. And nice ones with GPS and satilite radio.
Just because the middle class and poor are doing better than they were in the past is in no way a measure of economic equity.
What is important to keeping the game working is sufficient distribution of wealth. I too much wealth is concentrated at the top then credit markets break down due to liquidity problems. Hmmmm. That sounds familiar. The solution is to try to make sure wealth is distributed reasonable well.
Keep in mind, too, that most of those homes and a large proportion of the gadgets were purchased with increased debt, not increased income and that the actual net wealth of many of those families is less than it would be if they had not bought those homes or gadgets.
If the rich are getting smarter and the poor are getting dumber why wouldn't the rich be getting richer and why shouldn't they??..
There has to be leaders so the followers will have a sense of direction..
I am not saying that there are not real problems. However, the left makes a living making things look worse.
During he last election, Kerry gave an address where he said we were in the worst economic situation since the Great Depression. I think at that time, the unemployment rate was about 5%, compared to the 35% of the Depression.
Hey, we aren't even in a real recession yet, which is two quarters of negative growth. Nonetheless, they have been bandying about "recession" for six months.
Likewise, Edwards said that 35 million people go to bed hungry each night. Even the extreme poor are not "hungry."
But if he can't make it worse, he has no story.
Just out of curiousity - how many people today even know what it means to "darn socks."