Florida State Seminoles

[Tree]

These full-time workers were outnumbered by the 109,631,000 whom the Census Bureau says were getting benefits from means-tested federal programs

Pretty much agrees with what I wrote above. The only difference is you're not addressing the important question, why are so many Americans hurting?

This idea that our government turns a blind eye to the needy and focuses on benefiting those with their own lobbyists is absurd.

It's not absurd at all if you look at how much money is going where. And the rich pay most of the taxes because they have virtually all the disposable income. They're just paying a lot less than they used to when the US was a prosperous country post WW2. You need to be focusing on specific numbers rather than these more general talking points. Once the top tax rate dips below 50% or so things start to get dicey for the average American. If you want a system that creates the kinds of outrageous wealth disparities that we are seeing, you need a robust network of social programs and wealth redistribution through taxation of the billionaires to keep the folks at the bottom afloat, especially in tough times. That is unless you prefer a return trip to feudalism which is where all your free market rhetoric has been taking us the past 40 or so years.

The problem isn't that crooked businessmen wanted to have their say, its that crooked politicians listened

You denounced pay to play so I think we're on the same page there. What small gov't libertarian types frequently don't get is that downsizing government is only half the issue, and will only make things worse without also reeling in the mega corporations, some of which have become more powerful than government itself. The trick is not to elect responsible politicians (there's no such thing if you understand every dollar spent on the good of the people is a dollar not spent on preserving a politician's office and influence, which is a huge real time liability for anyone who likes money and power), but to put pressure on whoever is in office and make them realize they will be voted out if they continue to support policy that trickles wealth up to the top and pushes everyone else further and further down. FDR was not some feel good socialist. He was an oligarch who recognized that capitalism was going to die if changes for the betterment of the masses weren't made. Hell Nixon was a scumbag without a shred of decency but even he did things for the people because he had to. Nowadays we're so fragmented and divided/conquered by identity issues that establishment politicians on both sides are fine and dandy not getting anything done, blaming the other side, and continuing to draw a nice comfy paycheck.

The country is full of people like you who feel their vision of what the country should do for the less fortunate should be forced upon those who can afford it so you can feel good about it.

There should be a hypothetical point where you will wake up and smell the coffee and start giving a shit about the less fortunate. Maybe when 75% of the country is in poverty. I realize your faith in markets is based on tons and tons of propaganda, but in any hypothetical market left to its own devices, even when all players start with the same amount of assets, capitalism will result in about 80% of the participants either broke or bankrupt after a few business cycles. It's just maths. Not everyone can profit.

[eCat]

I do care about the less fortunate and the last thing I want is for them to be on a cycle of dependency for a government that can't provide for them down the road.

here is how I care about the less fortunate - stop illegal immigration so that the American worker is valued and will be in demand to the point that a guy making a sandwich working 40 hours a week will be paid a living wage. Stop free trade and focus on fair trade agreements - the basis of Adam Smith economics where countries will be buying goods and services from us at comparable or at least reasonable rates that we do from them, increasing our exports and the quantity of goods made in this country, and finally stop the government from creating bubbles in housing, education, health care, and wall street so that the price of these goods and services are more reflective of the American taxpayers ability to buy them. That's not propaganda. That's a reality and its a reality I've held to for decades while I remember Bill Clinton as president telling us we had to enter into a global economy. I'm seeing first hand the empty threat of automation to fight living wages, I saw kiosks in my local McDonalds last week but they're still hiring, and because there is a worker shortage at the moment they are offering an hourly rate of $11 an hour - and still can't get enough people in podunk small town America.

During the Obama presidency, service sector workers were demanding wages of $15 an hour in major cities - and guess what - in a strong economy where we aren't dumping illegals into the country, they can get it - without the government mandating an arbitrary wage.

So you tell me , in the end , whats more compassionate - creating an environment where an American born in this country can get a job with a basic high school education, get paid a wage where he/she is at least tax neutral and can then afford to purchase a home, a car or go to college without being completely dependent on the government for a handout or your approach where a politician creates a handout by taxing the wealthy and transferring his wealth to the poor and the handout process is administered by bureaucrats and policy is crafted by lobbyists ?

and which of the two approaches - mine or yours is sustainable for the next 3-5 generations of Americans without incurring crippling debt that threatens the stability and the security of this country? I notice in your post talking up the government's responsibility to be compassionate for the less fortunate you've yet to touch on the debt. The trillions of debt we now owe. I'm guessing your solution is to print and spend it, which goes back to the whole unsustainable approach of government dependency. My solution works toward creating more people who can then pay into the system or at least be tax neutral.

speaking of free trade versus fair trade, here is an example of something that happened recently

Trump threatened Bombardier with a crazy tariff unless Canada agreed to engage Boeing in aircraft sales in their country. Canada balked and the press had a field day with Trump and his failed economics on tarrifs, except what you don't hear is that Bombardier sold their C-Class airplane manufacturing to Airbus, who in turn announced they would build the planes in Mobile, Al employing American workers to get around Trumps tariff threat. No tariff is enacted and now there are high paying jobs coming to Mobile, Al that would have originally been slated to be created in wherever, Canada.

I'm not saying Trump is a genius. Tariffs are a risky proposition but the point is that at least someone is in office who appears to care about the American worker, the American manufacturing and raising the standard of living for people. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have done that - she would have balked at the idea of even raising a tariff concept, pushing for her globalism trade approach , telling us how its better for Americans in the long run to have Bombardier build the c-class airplanes in Canada while Boeing still has barriers to entry in the Canadian market.

Matter of fact every free trade globalist would have told you that threat of tariffs would be a horrible solution that would lead to a trade war. I've heard it on here for years. We've been hearing that for decades while refusing to acknowledge the value of our consumer market and leveraging the value of our consumer market to the rest of the world. At least on the surface it appears Trump understands that leverage.

[sardis]

“They're just paying a lot less than they used to when the US was a prosperous country post WW2. You need to be focusing on specific numbers rather than these more general talking points. Once the top tax rate dips below 50% or so things start to get dicey for the average American.”

Actually, in the high tax rate years right after WWII that you speak of, we collected less revenue, as a percentage of GDP, than we
have recently,

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statisti ... -share-gdp

[bluetick]

Russia Funded Facebook and Twitter Investments Through Kushner Associate
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/n ... -associate

Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Bring Charges Against Flynn and Son- NBCNews
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mu ... on-n817666

mmMMmm Hmmmm

[Professor Tiger]

Oh boy! THIS IS IT! The dozen other “THIS IS IT!”’s fizzled, but this will bring Trump down for sure.

What about that stop-the-presses blockbuster expose you posted about last week? You know, the one where a coffee boy was caught red handed colluding with a Maltese college professor? How’s that working out for you?

[crashcourse]

for trump being such a "dumb" mf he won a few debates and won the nomination

18 or so other repubs plus Hillary must be really dumb

[hedge]

One thing that isn't mentioned much is that those 100 million people who don't pay taxes or are getting some form of assistance (of, if you insist, welfare) are all still buying stuff. Whatever little money they have that they don't have to spend on food or housing or whatever is getting churned back into the economy. If those 100 million people are spending, say, $10,000 a year of stuff, that's a trillion dollars going back into the economy. They're buying stuff so that people like you can have a job making it. You may be disgruntled that you're working and they're not, but you're being rewarded for that, although evidently not nearly as much as you think you should be. As for the quote about "once the majority figures out they can vote largess to themselves, there's always the "let them eat cake" alternative, but we've seen how that one turns out time and time again in history. I suspect that the economic overlords have figured out that that is definitely not the alternative they prefer, and I would think the middle class would feel the same way...

[aTm]

I think what Hedge is saying is you should shut yo mouf and reap the benefits of that Trickle Up economics, fool.

[Professor Tiger]

[quote="bluetick"] Russia Funded Facebook and Twitter Investments Through Kushner Associate
[url]https://www.the%20guardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/russia-funded-facebook-twitter-investments-kushner-associate[/url]

That Guardian article you posted strained itself trying to connect the Russians to Trump. It was a veritable Rube Goldberg machine of logic, that failed to even connect the Russians to Kushner, much less to Trump. Reeks of desperation, and clearly demonstrates that the Trump Derangement Syndrome contingent realizes their dream of impeaching Trump is in its death throes.

^”This is it!” Epic Fail vol. 7.

[herge: I wish you were in your death throes.]

[hedge]

I think what Hedge is saying is you should shut yo mouf and reap the benefits of that Trickle Up economics, fool.

Pretty much...

[eCat]

One thing that isn't mentioned much is that those 100 million people who don't pay taxes or are getting some form of assistance (of, if you insist, welfare) are all still buying stuff. Whatever little money they have that they don't have to spend on food or housing or whatever is getting churned back into the economy. If those 100 million people are spending, say, $10,000 a year of stuff, that's a trillion dollars going back into the economy. They're buying stuff so that people like you can have a job making it. You may be disgruntled that you're working and they're not, but you're being rewarded for that, although evidently not nearly as much as you think you should be. As for the quote about "once the majority figures out they can vote largess to themselves, there's always the "let them eat cake" alternative, but we've seen how that one turns out time and time again in history. I suspect that the economic overlords have figured out that that is definitely not the alternative they prefer, and I would think the middle class would feel the same way...

yea, but the other 50% are buying $100K a year of stuff.

I'm not sure if you are talking to me or not about the disgruntled that you're working - but that isn't my concern, my concern is how its not sustainable, and using the federal government as a middleman to transfer wealth is asking the fox to guard the henhouse. Its all about becoming independent of government support, and the reality is that 60 million Americans aren't suddenly going to become college educated or a skilled tradesman, so you have to address how to take the skillset they have and make them valuable in this economy. The most obvious solution is to make fewer of them available to the market. The second solution is to create more competing jobs for them as individuals (essentially the same as the first but its about growing the jobs base as opposed to fewer people competing for the same jobs)

The approach by many is to say they are not valuable because they work "entry level" jobs and therefore they should get income stability, healthcare and other quality of life subsidies from the government . If we are talking 15% of the population, OK, maybe that can work , but 35, 40...50? its not only fiscally irresponsible , its socially irresponsible. If 40% of our population is working undervalued service sector jobs, then we need to address what we need to do to make those jobs valuable - not look to the 10% of people who have wealth to distribute it to the masses.

and someone might say but if these meaningless jobs that are intended for high school drop outs as stepping stones to a better job end up paying a living wage, those costs are going to be passed onto everyone, inflation will jump up and they are just going to be in the same position down the road. But the major difference in those issues and taxation is that its a participation on your part. You choose to pay $12 for a hamburger to cover the increased cost of labor in the market. You don't choose to pay higher taxes or take on additional debt on behalf of your government. A key differentiation in a market solution versus a government solution. The federal governments role in the market solution at that point is to enact fiscal measures to control inflation

[hedge]

I wasn't necessarily referring to you with the "disgruntled" remark, but you hear people complaining so much about anybody who is getting any kind of welfare that it applies almost universally. But the fact is, there are not enough jobs for everybody. We need people who are willing to live at the subsistence level without harboring revolutionary thoughts, much less fomenting revolution. These folks get branded as lazy and shiftless, but they are doing a great service by agreeing to live, relatively peacefully and contended, on the scraps of the richest economy in the history of the planet. It seems like the "solution" that many people have is to give them even less, or better yet, nothing, let them starve and live in the streets, etc, etc, why should these lazy do-nothings get anything?, etc, etc, but again I say, it is one of the genius moves in world history that we have figured out a way to keep this untold number of folks relatively content or at the very least not thinking whatsoever about revolution and as part of the bargain we have them contributing economically to society, however meagerly. These folks are basically spending 100% of their disposable income every month, certainly they aren't saving any (or enough worth mentioning). But meager or not, it adds up when you're talking about millions of folks. Just ask WalMart, and really, every other company.

[eCat]

Wal-Mart is part of the problem

I'm sure they along with many other business who rely on cheap labor are dumping millions into the pockets of congressmen to push for open borders while at the same time making government assistance part of their overall "benefit" package in considering how much (or little) to pay their employees.

Over the years they've been publicly shamed to the point they'd have to move away from that to some degree, but there is no question that in a labor shortage market, Wal-Mart would increase wages to compete for workers and they have been fighting to prevent that from happening.

The last thing Wal-Mart wants is to have a market where a high school educated employee must be paid a few thousand about the poverty line to the extent they can afford to live independently without government assistance in some form. But with immigration controls and a strong economy they are being pushed to do just that. And the sad part is there is an active stigma attached to it - where other Americans vocally and actively attempt to do what they can in making sure this high school graduate working a simple 40 hour a week job never gets a decent wage. We have to move away from that.

Still I find it disgusting to read about Wal-Mart touting the high percentage of their employees who have health insurance only to find if you dig down deeper, its because they are on a spouses or parents plan and not one that has been provided by the company.

And keep in mind, what I'm touting is a completely market driven approach with no government influence - other than expecting the government to live up to their end of the bargain in enforcing immigration laws and discourage a glut of workers entering the low paying labor market from other countries - and demand that countries who we have a lopsided trade deficit with agree to purchase more American goods or to manufacture more goods within the United States as the price to enter our markets.

In other words, put Americans first. Which candidate ran on that platform again?

[hedge]

Well, if your view is that Walmart is part of the problem, you're fucked. B/c if it comes down to Walmart vs. people who think Walmart is part of the problem, I'm putting my money on Walmart (and again, I am referring to Walmart specifically and Walmart as a metaphor for American business in general)...

[eCat]

Well, if your view is that Walmart is part of the problem, you're fucked. B/c if it comes down to Walmart vs. people who think Walmart is part of the problem, I'm putting my money on Walmart (and again, I am referring to Walmart specifically and Walmart as a metaphor for American business in general)...

maybe, I've railed multiple times on here about the changeover that occurred in the late 60's/early 70's where corporations got away from social responsibility and focused more and now almost solely on shareholder value - to that extent a Wal-Mart doesn't give a shit what happens to the American worker or community - and cares solely on how to maximize shareholder profits in a global economy. Wal-Mart as an entity doesn't care if the road is paved, the school is built or the police are hired in the community it sells to - until those things effect shareholder value.

And that's where you have to start looking at issues that our government and business have combined together to shut down in the past- like unions and trade controls.

[bluetick]

maybe, I've railed multiple times on here about the changeover that occurred in the late 60's/early 70's where corporations got away from social responsibility and focused more and now almost solely on shareholder value - to that extent a Wal-Mart doesn't give a shit what happens to the American worker or community - and cares solely on how to maximize shareholder profits in a global economy. Wal-Mart as an entity doesn't care if the road is paved, the school is built or the police are hired in the community it sells to - until those things effect shareholder value.

And that's where you have to start looking at issues that our government and business have combined together to shut down in the past- like unions and trade controls.

well goddam

Are you one of those red-assed Bernie supporters who went all-in for Trump after Hillary stole the nomination?

[aTm]

Yeah, what the fuck, e? Dont you know theres only two fucking sides you can be on in this game? Are you team red or team blue, motherfucker!?

[aTm]

Also, for bluetick, since I know he's kinda newish around here. Ecat hates jews. I think there was some big story, like a guy named Floatstein or something jammed peanut butter in eCat's CD-ROM drive or something. But anyway, the point is that e has been down for the Trump Reich from day 1.

[bluetick]

That was my next guess. A victim of domestic jewry.

[DooKSucks]

This country was doomed when ignorance was disguised as being “the common man” and deemed a virtue all the while fostering contempt for intelligence, advanced learning, being well read and having an open mind. The tea partiers are just the yang to the left’s ying, the rank and file who refuse to accept some social welfare programs are not working as well as was envisioned.

The Republican Party courted segregationists in the wake of civil rights reform, and now, the courtship’s progeny has taken control.