2012 US Presidential Election.

[Sober_times]

Get rid of the fillibuster and make voting mandatory and things would be very different in this country and i agree. Especially where the fillibuster is concerned. It is used way too much these days.

I don't agree with getting rid of it. But limiting its usage needs to be done. There are ways you can reform it so it can still work. I like the idea of having an easy way for a minority party to stop legislation from going through, but there needs to be limits to how it can be used.

[tim_m]

Get rid of the fillibuster and make voting mandatory and things would be very different in this country and i agree. Especially where the fillibuster is concerned. It is used way too much these days.

I don't agree with getting rid of it. But limiting its usage needs to be done. There are ways you can reform it so it can still work. I like the idea of having an easy way for a minority party to stop legislation from going through, but there needs to be limits to how it can be used.

Agreed, cause what the minority party is doing now is just blocking legislation for the sake of just making the democrats and Obama look bad.

[pilferk]

Wow, that's a pretty generalized statement.

It's not generalized.  It's globalized. Because, largely, it's true.

You have about 20 years, total, where trickle down was tried.

Reagan pulled back when his economic policy (along with some Carter fuck ups) perpetuated and deepened a recession.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-recession/

Bush I tried them, while telling people to spend more money, and they didn't work. He ended up having to break his "no new taxes" campaign promise to try to pull us out.  Luckily, he only got one term and Clinton swooped in to right the ship (tech bubble and bank deregulation not withstanding).

Bush II tried them, along with continuing/extending more deregulation started during the Clinton era.  Look around.  Notice the mess?

Seriously, how much more evidence do you need?  I understand the "logic" behind the Republicans thought process.  We have 20 years, basically, of data showing us it doesn't work.  Reagan admitted it didn't work the way he thought it would. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

There are studies (one released yesterday) showing that the middle income earners are now earning LESS of the total income in the country than at any other point since WWII.  They typically account for around 60% of the total income earned.  Right now, they're earning less than 50%.  The TOP income brackets have now overtaken the middle class.

Have we seen much job growth?

  I agree with you if we are talking about the Obama job's czar, Jeff Immelt, and his corporation, but not everyone thinks the way you do.  This is why small business is so so important to the American economy.  But our boy in office thinks that those who make $250K are too rich and are taxing them even more.  Those are the small business owners.  If they want to compete they NEED to grow, they cannot rely on their reputation alone like a multinational corporation can.  That growth includes employee and capital investments.

No, they're not small business owners.  Not mostly.  That theory's been debunked.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/mccains-small-business-bunk/

And yes, I see the third paragraph of the summary...we've covered that, above, though.

I know FEW small business owners that are NETTING (not grossing) 250k a year.  Especially in this economy.  That means, after all expenses (except taxes), they're clearing and putting in their pockets 250k.  AND, if they are, the tax increase is ONLY on the money OVER 250k that they're making.  In other words, the tax they pay on dollar 1 thru dollar 250,000 is exactly the same.  ONLY the tax they pay on dollar 250,001 and beyond in NET INCOME is increased.

Another point that needs mentioning: NET means AFTER employment costs.  Hiring someone new means more tax write offs, and less net income.  In other words, if you're making 285k and dunk that 85k back into your business (in ANY way, not just employment), your NET income drops to 200k...meaning you're not paying a penny of increased taxes.

And studies (the most recent out of the CBO)  have shown, given the way the tax code works for small businesses, and the deductions they typically get for staffing, etc....the increases would actually effect them far less than the Repubs indicate.  Somewhere less than 600k businesses would be effected...maybe a LOT less (they have a hard time distinguishing between "employers" and single entity businesses so they take the largest number possible and say "less than" that number). That's of the approximately 15 MILLION small businesses in the US (about 6 million of which actually employ people). That's out of the approximately 300 MILLION people living in the US.  Basically...0.2% of the population (assuming those "small businesses" are contributing their total net income to one owner's pockets...but then, if they're not, that number goes DOWN, not up, since you'd have less people at the 250k threshold).

Now, keep in mind, Obama's actually pushing for a RETURN to CLINTON ERA tax levels.  In other words, tax levels that actually existed when Clinton pulled us out of the Bush I recession.  Tax levels that ushered in one of the largest economic booms since WWII.  Tax levels that, for all intents and purposes, balanced our budget AND left us with a surplus.

I don't see the problem with going back to them.

And one of the big reasons why job growth is so slow these days.... technology.  We have made incredible technological advances the last few decades.  The demand for unskilled labor has subsided.  People need a special skill set these days.  My advice to all young people aka middle school/high school age kids is to get into math, science or technology.  The days of social sciences, undergraduate business degrees, and physical education are long gone.  Those are all dead end careers.  Go back to school for the MBA later on. 

Great theory.  How do you propose they pay for their higher educations?  Or how do you propose the kids in inner city schools, who are not only dealing with violence, various socio-economic factors, AND inadequate facilities (things they largely have no control over)..but also are dealing with the fact their schools have a complete lack of funding for ANY access to technology or modern educational techniques/equipment (like science labs, computer labs, etc) because the fed isn't funding them AND the local tax roles are drastically reduced? Oh, and what limited funding they DO get is tied to an unfunded madate to teach to a very specific test.  A test, I might add, that does no favors for kids in an urban setting, in and of itself.

It's great to say "Get better education".  But not everyone has equal access to it.

Even if we fixed that problem today, and got equal access to resources at the HIGH SCHOOL level....not even addressing the access to higher education...studies say it would take about a decade for those changes to have quantifiable effect.  AND, of course, we'd have to find a way to pay for those fixes.

Every country in the world, that has a successful economy (which aren't many right now), "makes things".  Manufacturing jobs are the cornerstone of pretty much every country on the planet. 

Many of them have been outsourced to the far east, because labor cost is ridiculously low, and there are no incentives for companies to keep those jobs in the US.

Also...keep in mind..the tech sector/skilled labor/tradesmans market isn't booming, either.  It's not like there is an abundance of unfilled positions for skilled labor sitting there for people to take.  Not at all.  Which, if the problem was completely the fact that there was an unskilled labor pool who don't meet the criteria for "new age" jobs, there would be. 

Look, I'm not going to sit here and say I agree with Obama's direction, either. I don't.  His economic policy has been a mess.  It's been far too scattered, and doesn't address some of the larger issues (like general, not just CAR, manufacturing....like inadequate trade agreements...like decent energy policy...and more).  We can certainly discuss those issues, too.

But it's got far more history behind it (starting with Eisenhower) than "trickle down" does.  The economy goes into recession.  The government spends to pull us out (going into significant debt to do it).  When the economy recovers, the citizens (who now all have jobs, so the tax roles are expanded) pay the government back.  THAT'S where, in the economic cycle, you worry about debt and balanced budgets.

The Tea Party has it backwards.  They want to address debt NOW...when the economy sucks.  That's backwards thinking, to some extent. At least historically.

[pilferk]

The Repubs in congress are a big part of the problem. Its hard to get anything done when they are playing obstructionists just cause they want to see Obama fail at all costs, even at the cost of making things better for the American people. Those who are responsible for these actions should be fired in November. Their job is to work with the other side and the president. Not obstruct simply cause they don't like him for whatever reason. A few months back i was watching an episode of Real Time with Bill Mahr. I thought he made an excellent point. Get rid of the fillibuster and make voting mandatory and things would be very different in this country and i agree. Especially where the fillibuster is concerned. It is used way too much these days.

It's funny.  I talked about this in the "old" politics thread.

The Repub party had a choice: To be the obstructionist party or to be the party of concientious dissent.  I didn't think they'd go the obstructionist route because, given the results of the election (2008), it didn't look like it would get them re-elected.

Then...Obama decided it was time to tackle health care.

Which gave the repubs exactly the issue that they needed to be ABLE to be obstructionist (something they are VERY good at...much better than the Dems are) and not lose ground.

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

So now we have gridlock that is actually WORSE than when Clinton had to work with the Repubs OR when Bush II had to work with the Dems.  It's awful.  They'd rather bicker with the Dems than actually solve problems.  And then they point to the fact there haven't been solutions.

Well...no shit...because you guys won't legislate.  You politic, instead.

[pilferk]

Get rid of the fillibuster and make voting mandatory and things would be very different in this country and i agree. Especially where the fillibuster is concerned. It is used way too much these days.

I don't agree with getting rid of it. But limiting its usage needs to be done. There are ways you can reform it so it can still work. I like the idea of having an easy way for a minority party to stop legislation from going through, but there needs to be limits to how it can be used.

When the "nuclear" option was proposed, before (when it was the Dems doing it constantly), I was against it.  It's a procedural neccessity.

But it's become an obstructionist tool, even more so than it was before.  Still, I'm against it's total removal.

I agree...they have to change the rules.  Harry Reid COULD have done that, when the last session of Congress convened 2 years ago...and he didn't.  A simple majority vote would have put in place significant restrictions/limits on it that would have helped.

BUT, you know the Repubs would have made them pay a significant political price for it...and, as per usual, that's all that mattered to the Dems.

[WAR41]

Seems like you keep up with current events.  I am serious when I say I am happy to see that.  While I will not respond in full like you have here, I will respond to what I can:

Now, keep in mind, Obama's actually pushing for a RETURN to CLINTON ERA tax levels.  In other words, tax levels that actually existed when Clinton pulled us out of the Bush I recession.  Tax levels that ushered in one of the largest economic booms since WWII.  Tax levels that, for all intents and purposes, balanced our budget AND left us with a surplus.

I don't see the problem with going back to them.

Besides supply and demand, the one thing that you always learn in economics is that the market will correct itself.  NO politician can fix a broken market.  One of my economics professors in school once said "if a politician promises they will fix the economy, don't vote for them".  Now I understand that both Romney and Obama have 'ideas' on how they will fix the economy, but the best way to fix it is to let it fall, and it will build back up.  People are more resilient than you are giving them credit for. 

Also, I am tired of Clinton getting soooooo much credit for the improved economy.  He had the benefit of the dot.com boom.  Since you are linking to articles, let me link to the wiki article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

There are studies (one released yesterday) showing that the middle income earners are now earning LESS of the total income in the country than at any other point since WWII.  They typically account for around 60% of the total income earned.  Right now, they're earning less than 50%.  The TOP income brackets have now overtaken the middle class.

Have we seen much job growth?

This goes back to the technological advancements we have made over the last few decades.  There much less need for factory workers because technology has allowed us to rely on machines and not people.  That is a single example and I can keep going with more.  Plus with the collapse of unions (which is much needed by the way) that faux middle class is being exposed.  And I truly believe that those "TOP income brackets" deserve their fortunes for the advancements they have made for us.  Gates, Jobs (RIP), and Zuckerberg are great examples... they have earned their status AND their money.  Another basic economic theory is "people respond to incentives".  If those incentives were not there we may not have had the advancements we have had. 

If you want examples of union workers making way too much money, here is an article from 2010 about that.  Again this is just a single example and thank goodness we are working on putting an end to unions:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/nj_police_salaries_rank_highes.html#incart_mce

Great theory.  How do you propose they pay for their higher educations?  Or how do you propose the kids in inner city schools, who are not only dealing with violence, various socio-economic factors, AND inadequate facilities (things they largely have no control over)..but also are dealing with the fact their schools have a complete lack of funding for ANY access to technology or modern educational techniques/equipment (like science labs, computer labs, etc) because the fed isn't funding them AND the local tax roles are drastically reduced? Oh, and what limited funding they DO get is tied to an unfunded madate to teach to a very specific test.  A test, I might add, that does no favors for kids in an urban setting, in and of itself.

It's great to say "Get better education".  But not everyone has equal access to it.

Another argument I despise.  EVERYONE has the opportunity to get a higher education.  There are grants, scholarships, financial aid, etc. for anyone who is willing to work for it.  No, not everyone has access to 'equal' educations.  But you know what?  That is why my parents worked hard.  To give me and my brothers the best shot at succeeding in life.  Not everyone is dealt pocket aces, but you still play the hand you are dealt and if you play it strategically enough you can win in the end. 

You sound like you are a big believer in the external locus of control while I am a firm believer in the internal locus of control. 

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

Also you mention socio-economic factors, facilities, etc... not one mention of genetics.  If a child is born to two tall parents, he will likely be tall.  If he is born to two smart parents, he will likely be smart.  You see where I'm going with this....



Anyways, I honestly do not have time to respond in full to you.  Its nothing disrespectful, just that I am at work and I need to do some things. 

[pilferk]

Besides supply and demand, the one thing that you always learn in economics is that the market will correct itself.  NO politician can fix a broken market.  One of my economics professors in school once said "if a politician promises they will fix the economy, don't vote for them".  Now I understand that both Romney and Obama have 'ideas' on how they will fix the economy, but the best way to fix it is to let it fall, and it will build back up.  People are more resilient than you are giving them credit for. 

Let the market rule.  In a vacume, it works well.  In real life, I really doubt anyone would want to see the fallout of a true market economy, or true market correction.  That's the difference between theorycrafting in a classroom and actual operations.

In the past, when that's occurred, it's been pretty much via violent revolt or civil chaos.

I don't think burning it ALL down really works. 

They can't "Fix" the economy.  But they can enact policy that has, historically, helped the economy.

There's a difference.

Also, I am tired of Clinton getting soooooo much credit for the improved economy.  He had the benefit of the dot.com boom.  Since you are linking to articles, let me link to the wiki article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

I'm aware of the dot com bubble (notice I mention the tech bubble in my original post)...I'm also aware that Wiki rarely tells the whole story.

Clinton wasn't the savior..but his policies certainly helped.  Especially his tax policy and ability to actually balance a federal budget (a former Repub talking point that has long been abandoned...because a Dem actually did it).  He definitely wasn't perfect, though.  Much of his deregulation can be seen as the progenitor of the housing bubble issues, and the near collapse of the banking industry. His attempt to placate the financial markets ended up leading to significantly higher interest rates. And lets not forget the atrocity that was NAFTA (and a preamble to the song of outsourcing).  Like most POTUS, there was good and bad.

Just like Bush II's policies REALLY hurt.

This goes back to the technological advancements we have made over the last few decades.  There much less need for factory workers because technology has allowed us to rely on machines and not people.  That is a single example and I can keep going with more.  Plus with the collapse of unions (which is much needed by the way) that faux middle class is being exposed.  And I truly believe that those "TOP income brackets" deserve their fortunes for the advancements they have made for us.  Gates, Jobs (RIP), and Zuckerberg are great examples... they have earned their status AND their money.  Another basic economic theory is "people respond to incentives".  If those incentives were not there we may not have had the advancements we have had. 

If you want examples of union workers making way too much money, here is an article from 2010 about that.  Again this is just a single example and thank goodness we are working on putting an end to unions:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/nj_police_salaries_rank_highes.html#incart_mce

No, actually, it doesn't have anything to do with tech advancement over the past decade.

Because those making at the top, by and large, have little to do with advancement, and lots to do with running soulless corporations with absolutely NO accountability to anyone but it's shareholders. Or they're the shareholders.  That's the truth.

For every Jobs and Zuckerberg, there are 300+ CEO's who's claim to fame is record profits and an MBA.

Spouting the republican talking points about just who makes up the upper tier doesn't actually make them true.

As for unions...they're a double edged sword.  The problem is, many of the unions have become just as souless, and just as much about profit and padding the pockets of their leadership as the corporations are.  They're not actually trying to make working conditions, wages, and benefits beter for their membership.  They're about raising dues. 

They USED to be one of the checks in controlling corporate greed.  Not so much, anymore.

And all that ignores the initial question:

With the upper tier growing in it's % of total income earned...have we seen much job growth?

Another argument I despise.  EVERYONE has the opportunity to get a higher education.  There are grants, scholarships, financial aid, etc. for anyone who is willing to work for it.  No, not everyone has access to 'equal' educations.  But you know what?  That is why my parents worked hard.  To give me and my brothers the best shot at succeeding in life.  Not everyone is dealt pocket aces, but you still play the hand you are dealt and if you play it strategically enough you can win in the end. 

Bullshit.

Pure, unadulterated, unproven, talking point bullshit.  I mean, there it is. I don't mean to offend you..but your post smacks of theory, rather than any practical experience.  It's very easy to say...but not close to reality.

Despise all you want....it's the truth.  Not a version of the truth..but the unwhitewashed, unvarrnished truth.  Not everyone CAN do it. Do the research..it's out there to easily find..about higher education and access. About urban school funding.  Everything you just said flies in the face of every legit,non-partisan piece of research released since 1980.

There are not enough funds available, certainly not enough grants/scholorships/financial aid, for ANYONE to go. Pell grants and fed student loans don't cover a full year of STATE school, anymore.  There isn't enough money. That's fact.  There's some (less in a down economy).  But not enough for everyone. 

How nice for you that you were set up for success. I'm happy for you.  I was, largely, too. Middle class family, suburban education, lots of access to materials and technology (both in school and at home).

Not everyone is.  So, until they are (never)...we have to build the economy that's going to support everyone..not just the elite. Just like every other nation in the world has.

You sound like you are a big believer in the external locus of control while I am a firm believer in the internal locus of control. 

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

Also you mention socio-economic factors, facilities, etc... not one mention of genetics.  If a child is born to two tall parents, he will likely be tall.  If he is born to two smart parents, he will likely be smart.  You see where I'm going with this....

I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility. When you can do things to actually effect the outcome, and there's something to take responsibility for.  I think people SHOULD have to work for what they get.  But I believe in creating an environment where upward mobility isn't hampered, needlessly.  Where there are actual opportunities to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.  I think there are both internal and external elements to most situations.  You do not have internal control over every situation.  Environment does not control every situation. Almost always...both are at work.

I also believe (because I see it) that not everyone has equal opportunity to do that. Not even close.  No matter how hard you work.  It's just true. 

So when you basically say "Get a better education", like it's some simple thing that everyone can do, I laugh.  Because it's not quite that easy.  I wish it was.

I don't mention genetics because I think nature is a factor (and one we can't really control), but, when it comes to education, nurture has been proven to be much more important (largely because you can control it).

Education has to be a priority, both in the house and in a childs environment, to make be effective.  Simply having 2 smart parents doesn't do it, on it's own.

I also leave it out because it often starts to go down a very "racial" path.

Anyways, I honestly do not have time to respond in full to you.  Its nothing disrespectful, just that I am at work and I need to do some things.

Not offended at all.

But I'd be interested to see anyone produce well researched counterpoints that aren't based simply on Repub talking points. I've heard them.  Just like I've heard the equally flawed Dem talking points.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[tim_m]

The Repubs in congress are a big part of the problem. Its hard to get anything done when they are playing obstructionists just cause they want to see Obama fail at all costs, even at the cost of making things better for the American people. Those who are responsible for these actions should be fired in November. Their job is to work with the other side and the president. Not obstruct simply cause they don't like him for whatever reason. A few months back i was watching an episode of Real Time with Bill Mahr. I thought he made an excellent point. Get rid of the fillibuster and make voting mandatory and things would be very different in this country and i agree. Especially where the fillibuster is concerned. It is used way too much these days.

It's funny.  I talked about this in the "old" politics thread.

The Repub party had a choice: To be the obstructionist party or to be the party of concientious dissent.  I didn't think they'd go the obstructionist route because, given the results of the election (2008), it didn't look like it would get them re-elected.

Then...Obama decided it was time to tackle health care.

Which gave the repubs exactly the issue that they needed to be ABLE to be obstructionist (something they are VERY good at...much better than the Dems are) and not lose ground.

Dumb, Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

So now we have gridlock that is actually WORSE than when Clinton had to work with the Repubs OR when Bush II had to work with the Dems.  It's awful.  They'd rather bicker with the Dems than actually solve problems.  And then they point to the fact there haven't been solutions.

Well...no shit...because you guys won't legislate.  You politic, instead.

And now that leads us to the questions will the obstructionists be fired in November. I'm not saying one party or the other needs to take control, but we need people in there interested in working together. Not people who will obstruct anything Obama wants to do simply cause they hate him cause of his policies or the fact that he's black. I hate to say this in 2012 but i know race plays some part in all this especially with tea party members. I mean hell just a few months back the house repubs blocked a bill that would've given even more women equal pay for equal work. What the hell is wrong with that?

[tim_m]

Seems like you keep up with current events.  I am serious when I say I am happy to see that.  While I will not respond in full like you have here, I will respond to what I can:

Now, keep in mind, Obama's actually pushing for a RETURN to CLINTON ERA tax levels.  In other words, tax levels that actually existed when Clinton pulled us out of the Bush I recession.  Tax levels that ushered in one of the largest economic booms since WWII.  Tax levels that, for all intents and purposes, balanced our budget AND left us with a surplus.

I don't see the problem with going back to them.

Besides supply and demand, the one thing that you always learn in economics is that the market will correct itself.  NO politician can fix a broken market.  One of my economics professors in school once said "if a politician promises they will fix the economy, don't vote for them".  Now I understand that both Romney and Obama have 'ideas' on how they will fix the economy, but the best way to fix it is to let it fall, and it will build back up.  People are more resilient than you are giving them credit for. 

Also, I am tired of Clinton getting soooooo much credit for the improved economy.  He had the benefit of the dot.com boom.  Since you are linking to articles, let me link to the wiki article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

There are studies (one released yesterday) showing that the middle income earners are now earning LESS of the total income in the country than at any other point since WWII.  They typically account for around 60% of the total income earned.  Right now, they're earning less than 50%.  The TOP income brackets have now overtaken the middle class.

Have we seen much job growth?

This goes back to the technological advancements we have made over the last few decades.  There much less need for factory workers because technology has allowed us to rely on machines and not people.  That is a single example and I can keep going with more.  Plus with the collapse of unions (which is much needed by the way) that faux middle class is being exposed.  And I truly believe that those "TOP income brackets" deserve their fortunes for the advancements they have made for us.  Gates, Jobs (RIP), and Zuckerberg are great examples... they have earned their status AND their money.  Another basic economic theory is "people respond to incentives".  If those incentives were not there we may not have had the advancements we have had. 

If you want examples of union workers making way too much money, here is an article from 2010 about that.  Again this is just a single example and thank goodness we are working on putting an end to unions:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/nj_police_salaries_rank_highes.html#incart_mce

Great theory.  How do you propose they pay for their higher educations?  Or how do you propose the kids in inner city schools, who are not only dealing with violence, various socio-economic factors, AND inadequate facilities (things they largely have no control over)..but also are dealing with the fact their schools have a complete lack of funding for ANY access to technology or modern educational techniques/equipment (like science labs, computer labs, etc) because the fed isn't funding them AND the local tax roles are drastically reduced? Oh, and what limited funding they DO get is tied to an unfunded madate to teach to a very specific test.  A test, I might add, that does no favors for kids in an urban setting, in and of itself.

It's great to say "Get better education".  But not everyone has equal access to it.

Another argument I despise.  EVERYONE has the opportunity to get a higher education.  There are grants, scholarships, financial aid, etc. for anyone who is willing to work for it.  No, not everyone has access to 'equal' educations.  But you know what?  That is why my parents worked hard.  To give me and my brothers the best shot at succeeding in life.  Not everyone is dealt pocket aces, but you still play the hand you are dealt and if you play it strategically enough you can win in the end. 

You sound like you are a big believer in the external locus of control while I am a firm believer in the internal locus of control. 

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

Also you mention socio-economic factors, facilities, etc... not one mention of genetics.  If a child is born to two tall parents, he will likely be tall.  If he is born to two smart parents, he will likely be smart.  You see where I'm going with this....



Anyways, I honestly do not have time to respond in full to you.  Its nothing disrespectful, just that I am at work and I need to do some things. 

You make a good point about something. Part of the problem with people being unable to find jobs these days is a lot of the people who lost them were factory jobs that are now computerized. I would be willing to bet a lot of the unemployment is these kinds of jobs. We need to train these people to do more technology related jobs. There is just so much done by computer these days. It was just a matter of time before people in these types of jobs were replaced by a computer. Factory work has always been such a huge part of our economy. What we really have to do is train these people for different jobs. When that happens you will see unemployment dip.

[tim_m]

Pillf, you make a good point about unions too. A prime example of what you mean is the unions for the post office. My dad has worked for the post office for over 30 years now and their union has turned into just total crap.

[WAR41]

Let the market rule.  In a vacume, it works well.  In real life, I really doubt anyone would want to see the fallout of a true market economy, or true market correction.  That's the difference between theorycrafting in a classroom and actual operations.

In the past, when that's occurred, it's been pretty much via violent revolt or civil chaos.

I don't think burning it ALL down really works. 

They can't "Fix" the economy.  But they can enact policy that has, historically, helped the economy.

What is the key word in your sentence.  I bolded it above.  You are accusing me of spitting theory back at you and you do the same thing.  Look, I don't think the economy has ever actually been left alone before to say for sure that it won't work.  The economy is cyclical, and government involvement only hampers those cycles.  Let smart people (those smarter than our politicians) figure out how to fix it.  Remember, people respond to incentives. 

If it makes you feel better, I had bailouts whether they come from Republicans or Democrats or the Green Party.  They all suck.  All it does is worsen things in the long run and delay the inevitable collapse of our economy. 

Clinton wasn't the savior..but his policies certainly helped.  Especially his tax policy and ability to actually balance a federal budget (a former Repub talking point that has long been abandoned...because a Dem actually did it). 

His policies certainly helped?  How do you even begin to quantify that?  I look forward to hearing the explanation for your theory. 

I will always give Clinton credit for balancing the budget, which is exactly what the responsibility of the federal government in the first place!  Will this make you feel better?  Fuck George Bush for the huge deficit.  You think I am a Republican... I am most certainly not. 

No, actually, it doesn't have anything to do with tech advancement over the past decade.

Because those making at the top, by and large, have little to do with advancement, and lots to do with running soulless corporations with absolutely NO accountability to anyone but it's shareholders. Or they're the shareholders.  That's the truth.

For every Jobs and Zuckerberg, there are 300+ CEO's who's claim to fame is record profits and an MBA.

And all that ignores the initial question:

With the upper tier growing in it's % of total income earned...have we seen much job growth?

My response did not ignore the initial question, it actually answers it.  As we have more technological advancements there is no more need for factory workers, toll booth collectors, carpenters, typewriter repairmen, whatever!  And since just today I saw that the middle class is defined (finally a definition of the middle class!) as those households making between $39,000-$118,000 a year I am sure plenty of those affected by technological advancements fit into that middle class.  Also with the much needed destruction of unions those with inflated salaries and insane pensions at the taxpayer expense are vanishing as well.  So where are these people going?  They are unemployed or they are underemployed.  No, I am not going to pull the stats on that one, but I am pretty sure you realize what the unemployment rate is right now and that does not include the underemployed.  So when people in that 'middle class' are unemployed or underemployed it makes sense that the top tier are inheriting a higher percentage of the overall wealth. 
On a side note, how hilarious is that range?  A household making 202% more than another household is considered middle class along with them.  Unbelievable. 

Bullshit.
Pure, unadulterated, unproven, talking point bullshit.  I mean, there it is. I don't mean to offend you..but your post smacks of theory, rather than any practical experience.  It's very easy to say...but not close to reality.

Despise all you want....it's the truth.  Not a version of the truth..but the unwhitewashed, unvarrnished truth.  Not everyone CAN do it. Do the research..it's out there to easily find..about higher education and access. About urban school funding.  Everything you just said flies in the face of every legit,non-partisan piece of research released since 1980.

There are not enough funds available, certainly not enough grants/scholorships/financial aid, for ANYONE to go. Pell grants and fed student loans don't cover a full year of STATE school, anymore.  There isn't enough money. That's fact.  There's some (less in a down economy).  But not enough for everyone. 

How nice for you that you were set up for success. I'm happy for you.  I was, largely, too. Middle class family, suburban education, lots of access to materials and technology (both in school and at home).
 

What do you want me to say?  Do you want me to say that a student should be able to go anywhere they want to and not have to pay anything at all?  No I don't believe that at all.  I was wait listed at Duke when I was applying to schools.  My parents and I talked about it and they told me I could go there if I wanted to, but I would need to apply for a loan, get a job, etc.  I never had to decide because I was denied (fuck Duke), but I understood that if I wanted an education there I would have to pay for it. 

And because you want some 'research' here is some on how much money has helped inner city schools in New Jersey.  The Abbott school districts.  Here is an article about that:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/education_law_center_asks_nj_s.html

I know you hate Chris Christie (I can already tell), but here is a little preview of the article with a quote from him:

"This has been an experiment that's been going on for 20-plus years now, and yet we don't see much, if any, improvement in our urban schools," Christie said in Robbinsville. "So the Supreme Court's theory that if you put more money in it, it's going to just by magic get better, has proven to be wrong.?

How much more money does New Jersey have to spend on the Abbott school districts until we accept that throwing money at a problem won't fix it?

I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility. When you can do things to actually effect the outcome, and there's something to take responsibility for.  I think people SHOULD have to work for what they get.  But I believe in creating an environment where upward mobility isn't hampered, needlessly.  Where there are actual opportunities to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.  I think there are both internal and external elements to most situations.  You do not have internal control over every situation.  Environment does not control every situation. Almost always...both are at work.

I also believe (because I see it) that not everyone has equal opportunity to do that. Not even close.  No matter how hard you work.  It's just true. 

So when you basically say "Get a better education", like it's some simple thing that everyone can do, I laugh.  Because it's not quite that easy.  I wish it was.

I don't mention genetics because I think nature is a factor (and one we can't really control), but, when it comes to education, nurture has been proven to be much more important (largely because you can control it).

Education has to be a priority, both in the house and in a childs environment, to make be effective.  Simply having 2 smart parents doesn't do it, on it's own.

You want to know what I see?  I live in NYC on the Lower East Side.  Home to part of the GNR rhythm section Richard Fortus and Frank Ferrer.  I have to see my property values lower than they should be because affordable and public housing units are everywhere you turn in this area.  People getting free apartments with more space than mine or at the very least extremely cheap.  And what happens?  There is crime CONSTANTLY in those public housing units.  I have a friend who is a PHA police officer.  He tells me first hand stories every month about people throwing BOWLING BALLS out their window at him and his partner.  This is not a one-time thing.  This summer has seen huge surge in illegal gun violence all over this city and guess what?  Its not happening in my building.  For some reason it always comes out of public housing units.  A police officer was shot at the public housing about 8 blocks from me. 

I am not going to get racial here, because I don't believe that race determines who you are.  I do however, blame the culture that encourages that violence.  The culture who encourages throwing bowling balls at police officers, or shooting children while they play, or throwing an empty 40 oz. out a window while some one walks by which happened to me last summer.  Luckily I wasn't hit.  The culture whose motto is "snitches get stitches".  Its absolutely disgraceful.  So before we start throwing MORE money at this nonsense so that everyone has 'equal opportunity', let's just tell it like it is and blame the culture that encourages this bullshit.  Its disgusting and its extremely frustrating knowing that my tax dollars go toward funding these "people's" lives. 

So anyways, that's all I got right now.  It may come off like I was attacking you, but that is just the nature of politics.  I am sure if we cracked open a few beers together at a GNR show I'd have nothing negative to say about you haha. 

[Axl4Prez2004]

War41, I think we all share in your frustration over the scumbags of our society, no matter what race (because as you know, scumbags come in all colors/races/etc.)
The question is, how do you deal with the problem?

Is the "cut off social services from these people" strategy really going to be cost-effective?
Logic tells me no.
Would crime rise?  Yup.
Would we have to invest more money in the prison system?  Yup.

Personally, I'd be happy with establishing stiffer sentences...increased use of police cameras on the streets in densely populated areas...and strict requirements for reduced-cost public housing.
Food stamps?  Fuck no.  Surplus foods and basic staples?  Yes.
Anyone found guilty of cheating the food stamps system? (because it's rampant in my opinion) serious jail time with limited meals.

I know those are just small actions, but I think they'd send a message.

[Smoking Guns]

One big issue with me is immigration. I am all about the hardworking Mexicans and South Americans/Cental Americans getting visas and being able to stay here. Let's get tax off them vs running them out. They are the only cheap labor force we have left. They run our service industry, construction, etc. I work with them daily. They do the shit the whites and blacks won't do for $10 per hour.  I am ready for them maybe not to be citizens, but be allowed to pay taxes as long as they don't start trouble, which most of them don't.

[pilferk]

And now that leads us to the questions will the obstructionists be fired in November. I'm not saying one party or the other needs to take control, but we need people in there interested in working together. Not people who will obstruct anything Obama wants to do simply cause they hate him cause of his policies or the fact that he's black. I hate to say this in 2012 but i know race plays some part in all this especially with tea party members. I mean hell just a few months back the house repubs blocked a bill that would've given even more women equal pay for equal work. What the hell is wrong with that?

Almost certainly not.  If anything, they'll likely gain more control.

Because the economy sucks and Repubs are much better at "message" than the Dems are, at this point.  They're also better politicians and strategists.

Neither side has been particularly good at governing.....

[Smoking Guns]

I have zero confidence in Barack. ZERO. Most of you write off Romney, but don't you also find people like Biden, Janet Nopalitano, and Eric Holder to be less than stellar as well?  This Holder guy has been controversial since day one. And what is up with Fast and Furious?  Also, Binden makes Palin look like a rocket scientist.

[pilferk]

You make a good point about something. Part of the problem with people being unable to find jobs these days is a lot of the people who lost them were factory jobs that are now computerized. I would be willing to bet a lot of the unemployment is these kinds of jobs. We need to train these people to do more technology related jobs. There is just so much done by computer these days. It was just a matter of time before people in these types of jobs were replaced by a computer. Factory work has always been such a huge part of our economy. What we really have to do is train these people for different jobs. When that happens you will see unemployment dip.

If you look at the GDP numbers, while it seems logical, it's not actually true.

We're just making less stuff here in the US.  It's not that there is another form of manufacturing that's supplanted "people".  It's that there's actually not as many products coming off the lines.

There's a reason why countries like China don't automate.

[pilferk]

One big issue with me is immigration. I am all about the hardworking Mexicans and South Americans/Cental Americans getting visas and being able to stay here. Let's get tax off them vs running them out. They are the only cheap labor force we have left. They run our service industry, construction, etc. I work with them daily. They do the shit the whites and blacks won't do for $10 per hour.  I am ready for them maybe not to be citizens, but be allowed to pay taxes as long as they don't start trouble, which most of them don't.

Here's where I side a bit more with the conservatives.

I'm OK with general amnesty for those in the country...for a limited time. Not for those COMING in, after the amnesty is announced.  Only for those already here.

After the amnesty period is up, if they don't apply for it...deport them all.  Close the borders in Texas and California (and yes, I'm aware of the expense) and make Mexico take care of their own people.

The problem is this: It's a form of international well fare to Mexico.  They continue to pay shit labor prices, undercut us on international trade (which means, really, we're competitors and they win on price), and generally shit all over us in every way they can.

And the discontents just come here, rather than staying and, possibly, effecting changes.

It's lose/lose for us...other than that we get a "cheaper" labor pool to pull from.  The problem is that the cost (lost taxes, increased infrastructure support) don't really get outweighed by they effect on the overall economy.

I don't think you can make them pay taxes (unless on a work visa...which they won't do because a) they're afraid they'll end up getting deported, eventually and b) they're afraid their country might come looking for them) unless they're citizens.

[pilferk]

What is the key word in your sentence.  I bolded it above.  You are accusing me of spitting theory back at you and you do the same thing.  Look, I don't think the economy has ever actually been left alone before to say for sure that it won't work.  The economy is cyclical, and government involvement only hampers those cycles.  Let smart people (those smarter than our politicians) figure out how to fix it.  Remember, people respond to incentives. 

If it makes you feel better, I had bailouts whether they come from Republicans or Democrats or the Green Party.  They all suck.  All it does is worsen things in the long run and delay the inevitable collapse of our economy. 

I hasn't happened here (The Depression era run on the banks would be the closest thing).

It has happened in other countries.

Violent overthrow, civil unrest, and the like was the fallout.

That's not theory, it's fact.

My OPINION is that I don't think most people would REALLY like that outcome (and I think that's a pretty safe bet, unless you're a doomsday prepper).  That's the difference.  You espoused a theory, and based your entire argument on it.  I gave you a fact, and then my opinion on that fact.

Oh, and I hate bailouts, too.  I understand why they happened this time (and, in this case, we actually have gotten most of our money back, so far..and might turn a very small profit...go figure) but I still hate them on principal.  I do believe in the market.  Just not a PURE market.  I think there are institutions that you have to try to save (though not at ALL costs).  But then..I don't think you let those institutions continue to operate as they did before...which is exactly what we've done.

His policies certainly helped?  How do you even begin to quantify that?  I look forward to hearing the explanation for your theory. 

You quantify it by outcomes..just like you quantify any data analysis.

Again, it's not theory.  It's established fact.  You might not like it..but you can't really ignore it.

The country was heading into (actually was in) recession coming out of Bush I.  Clinton made a bunch of moves (some good, some bad), but the sum total effect was an aid to economic recovery. It wasn't a solution.  He enacted policy that aided job growth and put more money in the pockets of those likely to spend it.  I mean...he did. I don't know how you argue otherwise without specific examples.

There is a happy medium between "too much credit" and "no credit whatsoever".

I hate to use a plant example, but: Clinton provided good top soil.  The watering, feeding, and actual growth was done by others (mostly the middle class..who went on a spending spree..which also helped us get to where we are now).

That fact is supported by pretty much every major economist who's analyzed that time frame. I'm not an economist, but I take them at their word(s). There's a good article on the Dissent web site.  Go find it.  They give a pretty balanced account of the Clinton economic policy (how it helped, how it hurt, and it's long term effects).

If you're going to turn a blind eye toward history...I think we've reached a disconnect in the discussion.

I will always give Clinton credit for balancing the budget, which is exactly what the responsibility of the federal government in the first place!  Will this make you feel better?  Fuck George Bush for the huge deficit.  You think I am a Republican... I am most certainly not. 

And I'm not a Dem.

But you were spouting Repub talking points, which, quite frankly, are boring.

You mention the current spending deficit...one thing to point out (though it's not pertinent to our discussion, really):  People are killing Obama for the level of debt during his presidency.  What they fail to point out (or realize) is that much of that debt is actually on Bush II's shoulders.  Bush II financed the wars in Iran and Afghanistan OFF the books.  That spending wasn't part of any budget, so is never counted in the totals during his presidency.

One of the first thing Obama did was put that spending ON the books.  It's not the sum total of his debt spending...but it's a decent sized portion of it.  If you cut off the Iran/Afghan spending...Obama hasn't spent more than (adjusting for inflation) Reagan did when trying to kickstart the economy in the 80's.

My response did not ignore the initial question, it actually answers it.  As we have more technological advancements there is no more need for factory workers, toll booth collectors, carpenters, typewriter repairmen, whatever!  And since just today I saw that the middle class is defined (finally a definition of the middle class!) as those households making between $39,000-$118,000 a year I am sure plenty of those affected by technological advancements fit into that middle class.  Also with the much needed destruction of unions those with inflated salaries and insane pensions at the taxpayer expense are vanishing as well.  So where are these people going?  They are unemployed or they are underemployed.  No, I am not going to pull the stats on that one, but I am pretty sure you realize what the unemployment rate is right now and that does not include the underemployed.  So when people in that 'middle class' are unemployed or underemployed it makes sense that the top tier are inheriting a higher percentage of the overall wealth. 
On a side note, how hilarious is that range?  A household making 202% more than another household is considered middle class along with them.  Unbelievable. 

The question was:

Has there been more job growth, with the higher tier now earning a higher % of income?

You've explained why you THINK they are in the higher% (which I'm not sure is, in fact, the reason).

Not why they're not re-investing their wealth.  You espoused trickle down.  The wealthy are still wealthy...and have a more disproportianate share (whatever the reasoning) of income now than ever before.

Has there been job growth?

It's a simple question.

On the range...it's always been that way. They've actually expanded it a bit (it used to be 48k-ish to 110k ish.  The way it was explained to me is that it accounts for  (or is meant to account for) household income, and varying number of members in the household.  So a family of 2 making 38k is middle income, A family of 5 making 110k is middle income.  The thing is...it doesn't ACTUALLY count the members of the household...so for their purposes a family of 5 making 38k still analyzes as middle income.  

What do you want me to say?  Do you want me to say that a student should be able to go anywhere they want to and not have to pay anything at all?  No I don't believe that at all.  I was wait listed at Duke when I was applying to schools.  My parents and I talked about it and they told me I could go there if I wanted to, but I would need to apply for a loan, get a job, etc.  I never had to decide because I was denied (fuck Duke), but I understood that if I wanted an education there I would have to pay for it. 

No...because I didn't say everyone should just go out and get a higher education. I didn't say  that they should be able to attend any school they want to, simply on merit.  I absolutely believe you should have to work to get it.  I have no problem with folks having to pay for higher education.  I wouldn't mind seeing an easier path to SOME form of higher education (affprdable state schools, maybe?), but I can live without it.

See...you're sidetracking the discussion off the point.

YOU said, basically, everyone should go out and get a higher education to improve their lot in life. 

I said: Since people DON'T have access, and can't really do that, you have to build your economy to take that into account.  Somehow.

Manufacturing is (and has always been), largely, that solution.  It continues to be that solution in, basically, every industrialized nation in the world.

[pilferk]

And because you want some 'research' here is some on how much money has helped inner city schools in New Jersey.  The Abbott school districts.  Here is an article about that:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/education_law_center_asks_nj_s.html

I know you hate Chris Christie (I can already tell), but here is a little preview of the article with a quote from him:

"This has been an experiment that's been going on for 20-plus years now, and yet we don't see much, if any, improvement in our urban schools," Christie said in Robbinsville. "So the Supreme Court's theory that if you put more money in it, it's going to just by magic get better, has proven to be wrong.?

How much more money does New Jersey have to spend on the Abbott school districts until we accept that throwing money at a problem won't fix it?

Remember, this is YOUR tangent, not mine.  I'm simply pointing out that a disparity exists to access and quality of education...I'm not suggesting how to fix it. I don't know if you CAN fix it. Which is the point, really.

That being said...money isn't the only solution.  You have to entice better teachers to teach there. You have to improve teacher to student ratios.  You have to jettison the ridiculous "No Child Left Behind" standards...and their god awful testing as a quantifiable metric. You have to convince the community at large (including the students, themselves) that education is a priority, and that it matters more than, say, their 16 yo kid bringing home an extra paycheck.  You have to find a way to turn the schools into something other than day cares and prisons.  You have to try to make sure the students are concentrating on studying, and not on whether they're going to get shot going to and from (or in or after) school.

It's interesting that, with the Abbot systems, they were able to 1/2 performance differences in the lower grades (pre-school - 5th) and then lost them once they get to high school.  It may be that dicotomy of socio-economic factors that hit once you enter high school really have an effect...both on internal commitment and on external pressures.  I also wonder if it has to do with the fact that those younger minds are less concerned with violence, and more pre-disposed to respect and listen to their teachers than the adolecents are.  THAT, to be clear, is most definitely theory/speculation.  I'm just riffing, not trying to explain.

Money helps with (if it's spent right) materials and technology IN the school.  It's not a cure all.

And that kind of spending also isn't the norm...it's basically an experiment.

Oh, and I don't hate Christie, at all.  I'm a fan of some of his policy, actually.

You want to know what I see?  I live in NYC on the Lower East Side.  Home to part of the GNR rhythm section Richard Fortus and Frank Ferrer.  I have to see my property values lower than they should be because affordable and public housing units are everywhere you turn in this area.  People getting free apartments with more space than mine or at the very least extremely cheap.  And what happens?  There is crime CONSTANTLY in those public housing units.  I have a friend who is a PHA police officer.  He tells me first hand stories every month about people throwing BOWLING BALLS out their window at him and his partner.  This is not a one-time thing.  This summer has seen huge surge in illegal gun violence all over this city and guess what?  Its not happening in my building.  For some reason it always comes out of public housing units.  A police officer was shot at the public housing about 8 blocks from me. 

Agree.  I mean..you'll get no argument from me that the culture of violence, in urban settings especially. is a problem.  I LITERALLY see it's aftermath on a daily basis.  And that's not meant to excuse the criminals deciding to perpetuate violence, and completely blame their environment.  I don't mean it like that.  It's just a name for what's going on: A community where violence (and dealing with the aftermath or danger of it) is a daily consideration.

But the question is: How do you fix it?  CAN it be fixed?  NOT "how do  you punish them (and by them, I'm not talking about the criminals..but that whole commnity).

There isn't much of a correlation between the economy (meaning it's state at any given time) and crime.  There IS a correlation between poverty and crime...but the causals are debatable (chicken vs egg).   

Finally...lets face it..the "bad", in the situation above, are not the norm.  They're just the representation (because they're the most obvious).  Not EVERYONE (and I'd argue not even the majority) of those living in low income/affordable housing are criminals. Not everyone living in a high-crime neighborhood is "in on it".  Many of them are just ducking their heads, trying to avoid the crossfire, and get through the day (FYI: There's a good tangent on this riff related to education..specifically education when you're in a virtual war zone).  And it's not fair to apply guilt by association.  That community is not worthless simply because there are more obvious violent offenders in it.

They ARE all stuck in that culture, though. Because they can't afford to leave it, in most cases.

As an aside:  There are assholes everywhere, and your tax dollars (and your elected officials) are supporting them in a variety of ways.  This isn't even the most eggregious.

So anyways, that's all I got right now.  It may come off like I was attacking you, but that is just the nature of politics.  I am sure if we cracked open a few beers together at a GNR show I'd have nothing negative to say about you haha. 

I don't feel attacked.  But I'm going to keep you honest in any discussion and know there will be blow back from that.  I'm simply not interested in rehashing the repub or dem talking points.  They're boring and, quite frankly, they've usually a tenuous basis in fact, at best.

[pilferk]

War41, I think we all share in your frustration over the scumbags of our society, no matter what race (because as you know, scumbags come in all colors/races/etc.)
The question is, how do you deal with the problem?

Is the "cut off social services from these people" strategy really going to be cost-effective?
Logic tells me no.
Would crime rise?  Yup.
Would we have to invest more money in the prison system?  Yup.

Personally, I'd be happy with establishing stiffer sentences...increased use of police cameras on the streets in densely populated areas...and strict requirements for reduced-cost public housing.
Food stamps?  Fuck no.  Surplus foods and basic staples?  Yes.
Anyone found guilty of cheating the food stamps system? (because it's rampant in my opinion) serious jail time with limited meals.

I know those are just small actions, but I think they'd send a message.

I agree across the board, even though SOME of it (stiffer sentences) hasn't proven to be overly effective as being a deterrent.  The other thing I'd add is that we have to figure out a way to actually KEEP them in prison for their full sentences (which is tough with overcrowding AND the fact nobody...for obvious reasons..wants a prison in their back yard...sometimes I think Escape from New York had it right).

I get food stamps (because, logistically, distribution of staples and food would be killer), but think the program has issues.  I don't think EVERYONE defrauds the program, and don't lump all users of the program into one group, but I think it's too EASY to defraud the program.

I get unemployment, though would be a bit stricter on what constitutes "looking for work".

I'm not a big fan of direct cash wellfare, as a social program.  My opinion (and only mine) is that if you're unemployed and on direct cash wellfare....you are at the beck and call for (non-military) service to your government.  That means providing labor when called upon...with the only "out" being that you have paid work to do, or a job interview (verifiable, like with unemployment). It would be sort of like jury duty.  But that's just me.

Housing vouchers, affordable housing, all that stuff...no problem with that, again, for the underemployed making below a certain wage or the unemployed willing to lend cheap labor when called upon.