# Trump proposes massive one time tax on the rich



## min0 lee (Apr 27, 2011)

NEW YORK CNN Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has a plan to pay off the national debt, grant a middle class a tax cut, and keep Social Security afloat tax rich people like himself.

Trump, a prospective candidate for the Reform Party presidential nomination, is proposing a onetime net worth tax on individuals and trusts worth 10 million or more.

By Trumps calculations, his proposed 14.25 percent levy on such net worth would raise 5.7 trillion and wipe out the debt in one full swoop.

The U.S. national debt decreased by 9.7 billion in September but remains at 5.66 trillion, according to the latest U.S. Treasury figures.

The net worth tax is the cornerstone of Trumps economic plan released Tuesday morning.

No one has put forward a plan to make this country entirely debt free as we enter the next millenium, Trump said in a written statement.

The plan I am proposing today does not involve smoke and mirrors, phony numbers, financial gimmicks, or the usual economic chicanery you usually find in DisneylandonthePotomac, Trump said.

Trump would exempt the value of an individuals principal home from the net worth total.

By my calculations, 1 percent of Americans, who control 90 percent of the wealth in this country, would be affected by my plan, Trump said.

The other 99 percent of the people would get deep reductions in their federal income taxes, he said.

Eliminating the national debt would save the federal government 200 billion a year in interest payments, Trump said. He proposes to earmark half the savings for middle class tax cuts, and the other half for Social Security.

Trump said depositing 100 billion annually in the Social Security trust fund would generate 3 trillion over the next 30years, when the trust fund is scheduled to go broke and instead keep the fund solvent through the next century.

The tax also would lead to the repeal the current federal inheritance tax which really hurts farmers and small businessman and women more than anything else, Trump said.

Trump, whose own net worth is an estimated 5 billion, says the wealthy would not suffer if his economic plan were enacted.

Personally this plan would cost me hundreds of millions of dollars, but in all honesty, its worth it, Trump said.

Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40 percent boost in economic activity, with more business startups, more jobs, and more prosperity.

It is a winwin for the American people, an idea no conventional politician would have the guts to put forward, Trump said.

Last month, Trump formed a committee to explore seeking the presidential nomination of the Reform Party, which will automatically be on the ballot in 21 states next year.

Whats at stake in Election 2000Senate OverviewHouse OverviewGovernors Overview

Quick takes on the White House hopefuls.

See how quickly the primary and caucus season will take off with this calendar.

Who is running, who isnt running and who has already dropped out Check out our tally sheet.

If you need to know whos up in 1999 or 2000 and what seats are open launch this quick guide.

Check out the latest numbers or dig back into the poll archives.

How much money have the candidates raised Here are their quarterly reports to the Federal Election Commission.


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 27, 2011)

China-bashing Trump's clothing line made in China

Donald Trump has emerged in recent years as the nation's foremost China basher, going after the Asian superpower for undervaluing its currency and for taking American manufacturing and jobs. So it's at least ironic -- and at most an example of gross hypocrisy -- that Trump's own line of men's wear, the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection, is manufactured in China.


----------



## phosphor (Apr 27, 2011)

I love it. Tax what is taxed with more tax to reward the federal government for overspending and waste - not much from him on cuts yet, waiting for some juicy stuff on that. I do however have to give him props for putting himself under the gun, although I am sure his buddies wouldn't feel the same way.


----------



## LAM (Apr 27, 2011)

"Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40 percent boost in economic activity, with more business startups, more jobs, and more prosperity."

more supply-side voodoo economics....lol at taking financial advice from someone that  uses bankruptcy courts as part of his business model.


----------



## bigpapabuff (Apr 27, 2011)

Trump just loves this publicity, I just don't see him as a legit person to even win a republican primary much less a general election.


----------



## oufinny (Apr 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> "Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40 percent boost in economic activity, with more business startups, more jobs, and more prosperity."
> 
> more supply-side voodoo economics....lol at taking financial advice from someone that  uses bankruptcy courts as part of his business model.



Damn, tax the rich, isn't that your mantra along with giving the middle class every possible tax cut imaginable.  I can't believe you aren't in support of this, it is in fact what you want right?


----------



## Arnold (Apr 27, 2011)

well, I guess that rules out Republicans/Conservatives supporting Trump. lol


----------



## oufinny (Apr 27, 2011)

Prince said:


> well, I guess that rules out Republicans/Conservatives supporting Trump. lol


----------



## phosphor (Apr 27, 2011)

LAM said:


> "Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40 percent boost in economic activity, with more business startups, more jobs, and more prosperity."
> 
> more supply-side voodoo economics....lol at taking financial advice from someone that uses bankruptcy courts as part of his business model.


 





Yup.


----------



## CG (Apr 27, 2011)

And trump becomes a democrat lol. If he holds to this I'm volunteering for his campaign

Sent from my samsung moment android via tapatalk


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Apr 27, 2011)

Fuck yea that's an awesome idea!

Why not?

Seriously, why not?


----------



## maniclion (Apr 27, 2011)

Wanna see a mass migration of half the wealthiest people in our nation, elect this idiot....

How would taking a huge chunk out of filthy rich peoples pockets create jobs and all that?  I guess maybe it would help to increase jobs in companies that rely on Government bids or grants after a little faith would be restored in their ability to make payments from the debt being paid off...


----------



## k4rr (Apr 27, 2011)

hmmm


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 27, 2011)

k4rr said:


> hmmm



Reach your 50 post mark yet?


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 27, 2011)

The wealthy wouldn't leave.  It's a hollow threat that makes conservatives shake in their boots.  The wealthy won't leave because they have it too damn good here.  If anywhere else really were that good they'd have left already.


----------



## BlueLineFish (Apr 27, 2011)

I say why not.  If its a one time thing then fine.  Benefits me anyway.  Fuck the super rich.  They hoard their money mostly.  Also,they should allow people to opt out of social security.   I really don't think it will be there when I am eligible for it anyway


----------



## oufinny (Apr 27, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> The wealthy wouldn't leave.  It's a hollow threat that makes conservatives shake in their boots.  The wealthy won't leave because they have it too damn good here.  If anywhere else really were that good they'd have left already.



That is the fucking truth!


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 27, 2011)

Did you people miss the part about getting rid of the inheritance tax at the same time?  Essentially, Trump wants rich folk to put up 14.25% of their net worth now rather than a much larger percentage when they pass their wealth on to their children.  This wouldn't be a tax on the rich, this would be a boon for them.


----------



## oufinny (Apr 27, 2011)

danzik17 said:


> Did you people miss the part about getting rid of the inheritance tax at the same time?  Essentially, Trump wants rich folk to put up 14.25% of their net worth now rather than a much larger percentage when they pass their wealth on to their children.  This wouldn't be a tax on the rich, this would be a boon for them.



Yet the amount gained would make such a massive dent in the national debt it would be worth it.  The inheritance tax is beyond ridiculous and if I had a billion, giving up 150 million sounds like a good deal in place of the 500+ million I would lose passing it on when I died.


----------



## maniclion (Apr 27, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> The wealthy wouldn't leave.  It's a hollow threat that makes conservatives shake in their boots.  The wealthy won't leave because they have it too damn good here.  If anywhere else really were that good they'd have left already.



Hopefully it would get rid of some of the misers who just horde money cause they're stingy.  My gf's step-grandmother has several million just sitting in banks while she leached off of her husbands retirement money for years.  This bitch got mad at me once cause I threw out 20 years worth of her hoarding straws from each time shed go to a fast food restaurant, the bitch was psychotic I tells ya....


----------



## LAM (Apr 27, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Damn, tax the rich, isn't that your mantra along with giving the middle class every possible tax cut imaginable.  I can't believe you aren't in support of this, it is in fact what you want right?



I'm all for taxing the so called "job creators" more since their incomes are derived not only from wages but from various different avenues so they can afford it...

"Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40 percent boost in economic activity, with more business startups, more jobs, and more prosperity."

but that statement is nothing more than Reagan bull-shit supply side economics repacked by Trump.....it didn't work under Reagan or Bush I or II but somehow magically when applied under a Trump presidency it would finally work?


----------



## phosphor (Apr 28, 2011)

LAM said:


> but that statement is nothing more than Reagan bull-shit supply side economics repacked by Trump.....it didn't work under Reagan or Bush I or II but somehow magically when applied under a Trump presidency it would finally work?


 
Right, your economics is to tax people and businesses into the ground and keep on spending to keep the lower class continually leaching and ultimately be forever dependent off the governments tit. You offer nothing but the same old rhetoric that drives us further into oblivion.


----------



## phosphor (Apr 28, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> The wealthy wouldn't leave. It's a hollow threat that makes conservatives shake in their boots. The wealthy won't leave because they have it too damn good here. If anywhere else really were that good they'd have left already.


 
I take it this is an assumption? Look at it this way - big business has been leaving this country in droves to escape taxing and to pay their workers lower wages to save money. Other countries have far lower taxes already than this country. The rich already have their money and want to keep as much of it as possible and they would be willing to do the same if it gets draconian.

Take new jersey for instance. A few years back, they raised the taxes in that state for businesses, etc. and the rich left in droves. At first the governor and his staff estimated a boon - multi-millions of dollars in extra revenue. Instead they left in droves for other states that did not institute draconian tax laws and as a result, lost multi-millions instead.

Somehow, I think that people wanting to have them taxed more and more would be the same ones to shift the blame and point the finger at the rich for leaving - even though they were fully warned of the consequences of taking such harsh measures. They already paid their dues, but they are left to pay again and again.. more and more. Something will give and all this wonderous windfall of cash that we keep leaching will be gone for good. Then it will left to the middle class to bear brunt the burden - certainly not low income earners, they are left to keep leaching and getting their freebies.

They will leave if they have to and making the assumption otherwise is risky and foolish.


----------



## Big Pimpin (Apr 28, 2011)

Fuck this bullshit.  The wealthy didn't squander our social security and medicare taxes, nor did they overspend by trillions of dollars to the point where they had to print money.

Trump can talk all the shit he wants but this would never pass congress because it's good ole fashioned socialism.  The wealthy in this country don't owe you, me or the federal government a goddamn thing when it comes to paying extra on government created debt.


----------



## k4rr (Apr 28, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> Reach your 50 post mark yet?



Nope not yet.


----------



## troubador (Apr 28, 2011)

I think diet is a good analogy. Yes, you can lose weight on a crash diet but you're still a fatass at heart and you'll just gain it right back. The key is to put in place a system that is healthy in the long run.


----------



## LAM (Apr 28, 2011)

phosphor said:


> Right, your economics is to tax people and businesses into the ground and keep on spending to keep the lower class continually leaching and ultimately be forever dependent off the governments tit. You offer nothing but the same old rhetoric that drives us further into oblivion.



you may want to refresh your reading on the basics of economics and the importance of income check out some of Friedman's work regarding the laws of economics.

the US government in collusion with big businesses have sent millions of jobs overseas in the past 3 decades and not replaced them with anything.  and your logic is to cut social protections, etc. as the job market in the US continues to get worst as even those with college degrees can not find work today.  social protection programs that were put into place in the 1930's etc. for a reason.  and as is typical with conservatives they are too stupid to do research on the subject or your would have found that TANF payments have not increased over the years and in fact AFDC only accounts for 1% of the federal budget and 2% overall if you combing all forms of protection into the term "welfare".  so your rehtoric about welfare driving up the deficit is complete and utter  bullshit and there is no data anywhere to back up those statements...

conservatives want to cut education which will obviously help Americans compete in a global economy as the world gets more advanced, brilliant...

any ideas from the right which aren't going to fuck up the country even worst?

the debt ceiling was raised 11 times under GWB do you really want to get into why the budget deficit is so high?  cause it has nothing to do with poor people that have no power...


----------



## phosphor (Apr 28, 2011)

Your just a turd that wont go down after several flushes.

Public education is shit and a bottomless pit. Government collusions? Holy shit! Didn't know that. Thanks for beating the dead corporation horse again. You have claimed before that I need economics classes. It doesn't take a godamn rocket scientist to know what I already stated rings truth. You got a deadbeat class dependent on government handouts growing by the day and you want the rich and corporations to foot their ever-growing bill. Great economics plan. Rob peter to pay paul while paul sits on his dead ass drinking 40s. Go ahead and add 10 more things to the mix, it doesn't matter. Bring up Abraham Lincoln, mickey mouse and the theory of dark matter/energy to mave the shell around a bit. Your constituants plans are still dogshit.


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 28, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> China-bashing Trump's clothing line made in China
> 
> Donald Trump has emerged in recent years as the nation's foremost China basher, going after the Asian superpower for undervaluing its currency and for taking American manufacturing and jobs. So it's at least ironic -- and at most an example of gross hypocrisy -- that Trump's own line of men's wear, the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection, is manufactured in China.



check the print on most american flags....they're made in china too.....that's just wrong......


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2011)

phosphor said:


> Your just a turd that wont go down after several flushes.
> 
> Public education is shit and a bottomless pit. Government collusions? Holy shit! Didn't know that. Thanks for beating the dead corporation horse again. You have claimed before that I need economics classes. It doesn't take a godamn rocket scientist to know what I already stated rings truth. You got a deadbeat class dependent on government handouts growing by the day and you want the rich and corporations to foot their ever-growing bill. Great economics plan. Rob peter to pay paul while paul sits on his dead ass drinking 40s. Go ahead and add 10 more things to the mix, it doesn't matter. Bring up Abraham Lincoln, mickey mouse and the theory of dark matter/energy to mave the shell around a bit. Your constituants plans are still dogshit.



You honestly think the best way to make our pathetic students smarter and more competitive globally is to take funding away from education?


----------



## LAM (Apr 28, 2011)

phosphor said:


> Public education is shit and a bottomless pit.



so de-funding it instead of trying to improve it will make things better?  great logic or lack there of....

neo-liberalism and conservative Presidents have fucked up the US economy and you just can't handle the truth can you, so you (conservatives) blame the poor...conservatism got us into this mess and it surely isn't going to "fix" anything as it has caused nothing except problems since day 1.  good luck re-writing history, conservative economic policy's suck and all the data supports that statement and our current economy is living proof of this...


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 28, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> You honestly think the best way to make our pathetic students smarter and more competitive globally is to take funding away from education?



yes......the plan is to actually have more tax money shifted from public to private in the way of school vouchers.....it's working in Detroit and DC

This Just In: Vouchers Work | Hoover Institution

Test-Score 'Facts' Need Media Scrutiny


----------



## LAM (Apr 28, 2011)

phosphor said:


> You got a deadbeat class dependent on government handouts growing by the day and you want the rich and corporations to foot their ever-growing bill. Great economics plan.



supply-side economics works so great a good portion of Wallmart employees rely on food stamps and other public assistance to get by...great wages the Walton's are paying hugh?


Companies With the Highest Revenue - Tracked.com


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 28, 2011)

LAM said:


> supply-side economics works so great a good portion of Wallmart employees rely on food stamps and other public assistance to get by...great wages the Walton's are paying hugh?
> 
> 
> Companies With the Highest Revenue - Tracked.com



that's misleading....it's because of equal opportunity employer that a large number of walmart employees are minorities and we all know how minorities love their gov't handouts......so they're not "relying" on food stamps....they feel they're "entitled" to them.......


----------



## LAM (Apr 28, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> that's misleading....it's because of equal opportunity employer that a large number of walmart employees are minorities and we all know how minorities love their gov't handouts......so they're not "relying" on food stamps....they feel they're "entitled" to them.......



I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the 3 year average increase in worker pay comes out to $1.07.  and why 31 states have filed suites against Wallmart for unfair employee practices.

the average full-time Wallmart employee makes $14,000 a year...

the US has the highest poverty rate in any industrialized country and also has the greatest divide in income, surely no direct correlation there....

yes, blame the poor people for not making enough wages to support themselves in an environment where the cost of everything increases annually...


----------



## phosphor (Apr 28, 2011)

If walmart actually paid a wage, their wouldn't be 15 million walmarts that everyone HAS to buy junk from - and we all need chinese shit flooding our houses and losers with no direction to fill the stockboy/cashier spots. The dirty little secret is really no secret at all I guess - many of the people that work there really have no ambition in life and are happy to keep on milking the government to get the freebies and then bitch/moan about not getting a fair shake.

I don't like Walmart either, not because of low wages - you know exactly what your getting when your hired in. Don't like it? Move on. If they don't get the people, they will entice with higher wages. I hate how they clutter my house with shit chinese garbage that the grandparents keep buying year after year - filling their little chinese bellies, emptying our wallets. If we made a 1/4 of the shit, we would have more jobs (albeit higher priced products) and less crappy product.

Oh, and btw, fuck the poor. They have been wallowing in their misery long enough and getting the free rides for decades. Time to ween them off the government tit. If they don't like it? Too godamn bad. They should do something with themselves and pay their fair share of taxes like I have to. Deadbeats are the scourge and this country needs a good cleansing.


----------



## phosphor (Apr 28, 2011)

Btw, I make it a point NOT to shop there because of their poor business practices. Besides, their produce sucks.


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 28, 2011)

We don't have a Walmart in NYC.


----------



## phosphor (Apr 28, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> yes......the plan is to actually have more tax money shifted from public to private in the way of school vouchers.....it's working in Detroit and DC
> 
> This Just In: Vouchers Work | Hoover Institution
> 
> Test-Score 'Facts' Need Media Scrutiny


 
Im with the Dems on this one - I don't want those class-disrupting douchebag kids with the invisible parents to muck up my kid's schools. Besides, the dems need to keep the poor where they are so they can retain their voting base.


----------



## phosphor (Apr 28, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> We don't have a Walmart in NYC.


 
We have 5 or 6 in our small city. Rediculous.


----------



## LAM (Apr 28, 2011)

phosphor said:


> Oh, and btw, fuck the poor. They have been wallowing in their misery long enough and getting the free rides for decades. Time to ween them off the government tit. If they don't like it? Too godamn bad. They should do something with themselves and pay their fair share of taxes like I have to. Deadbeats are the scourge and this country needs a good cleansing.



does being a conservative come with mandatory feedings of lead and other heavy metals?

poor people can not get credit there fore they do not create revolving debt or any interest bearing debts, the "middle class" does...

TARP was to provide monies to banks so they can keep giving credit out to the middle class so they can keep consuming.  US economy is based 70% of consumption.

retail spending is decreasing because the middle class has run out of credit, recent changes in bankruptcy laws is keeping consumer credit down.

typical conservative "ideology" is to evade the real issue of stagnant wages  and income inequality and put the blame on the poor, pathetic....


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 28, 2011)

i love how people choose where they work and then complain about it......kinda like the disrespectful cashier at mcdonalds.....it's not my f'n fault they work there....i can't get a job at mcdonalds because i'm a straight white male.......i'm discriminated against because of my superiority......addition by subtraction is what liberals want.....poor are poor because they choose to be poor......i've made mistakes that i admit to that made me poor....it's the fact that i've done something about those mistakes that makes me better!


and "funny money" doesn't work in the long run.....you can't spend on credit and not pay it back....it catches up to you....we're finding out as consumers about the buy everything on credit mentality brought about during clinton's years


----------



## LAM (Apr 28, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> i love how people choose where they work and then complain about it.....



yes, American's in 2011 have so many options as to where they can work the unemployment rate is still 9% and the underemployment rate is 18%+

U.S. Underemployment Steady at 18.4% in July


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 28, 2011)

LAM said:


> yes, American's in 2011 have so many options as to where they can work the unemployment rate is still 9% and the underemployment rate is 18%+
> 
> U.S. Underemployment Steady at 18.4% in July



the easiest fix to the economy and employment is to do whatever it takes to reduce gas back to $2 or less a gallon......that frees up money for everything....companies to ship more, produce more, hire more, get more sales, and the average american will spend more because that's what we do is spend (even when we don't have it unfortunately "funny money")


----------



## LAM (Apr 28, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> the easiest fix to the economy and employment is to do whatever it takes to reduce gas back to $2 or less a gallon......that frees up money for everything....companies to ship more, produce more, hire more, get more sales, and the average american will spend more because that's what we do is spend (even when we don't have it unfortunately "funny money")



you want gas at $2 tell the speculators on Wallstreet 

Blame High Oil Prices on Speculators and Bernanke
Blame High Oil Prices on Speculators and Bernanke - BusinessWeek

it is mainly the lack of wage increases in the past 30 years that got us into this mess or at least the consumer debt problem with the middle class.  wages can not remain stagnant for the majority while the costs of all goods and services increases annually, common sense tells you this...tax rates are at their lowest since the 1950's but people still can't keep up with expenses


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 28, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> yes......the plan is to actually have more tax money shifted from public to private in the way of school vouchers.....it's working in Detroit and DC
> 
> This Just In: Vouchers Work | Hoover Institution
> 
> Test-Score 'Facts' Need Media Scrutiny



It isn't working in Detroit.  Probably not in DC, either.


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 28, 2011)

Zaphod said:


> It isn't working in Detroit.  Probably not in DC, either.



you can't force kids to show up to school.....but for those who do it IS working......i think i'm mistaken about detroit....i know DC is doing well, i can't remember the other metro area that's doing it that's been well documented on it...i thought it was detroit sorry


----------



## soxmuscle (Apr 28, 2011)

I envy you, LAM.  Smart man.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> yes......the plan is to actually have more tax money shifted from public to private in the way of school vouchers.....it's working in Detroit and DC
> 
> This Just In: Vouchers Work | Hoover Institution
> 
> Test-Score 'Facts' Need Media Scrutiny



So, you think there is enough money in the public coffers to pay for every single student in the U.S. to go to private school?  Despite there being nowhere near enough charter/private schools to take them all, it would cost way too much.  I do like that students do better in these situations, but they do so because of the small class sizes.  These schools are going to become overcrowded and suffer the same fate as public school if every student in the US goes to them.  If the infrastructure was there I would think this is a great idea, but it's not.


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 28, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> So, you think there is enough money in the public coffers to pay for every single student in the U.S. to go to private school?  Despite there being nowhere near enough charter/private schools to take them all, it would cost way too much.  I do like that students do better in these situations, but they do so because of the small class sizes.  These schools are going to become overcrowded and suffer the same fate as public school if every student in the US goes to them.  If the infrastructure was there I would think this is a great idea, but it's not.



there won't be "total" privatization.....there will be both public and private, but let's be real.....public education is draining the taxpayers and not getting the desired results......remember i'm in wisconsin on the frontlines of this union thuggery that's going on......and also these vouchers should be in the form of scholarships, which means kids need to start stepping up to the plate (and some good parenting needs to be done).....you can give to tools to succeed, but you can't permanently remove the ghetto or trailer park mentality....


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 28, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> there won't be "total" privatization.....there will be both public and private, but let's be real.....public education is draining the taxpayers and not getting the desired results......remember i'm in wisconsin on the frontlines of this union thuggery that's going on......and also these vouchers should be in the form of scholarships, which means kids need to start stepping up to the plate (and some good parenting needs to be done).....you can give to tools to succeed, but you can't permanently remove the ghetto or trailer park mentality....



I could get behind this, but they would have to raise taxes to do it.


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 28, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> I could get behind this, but they would have to raise taxes to do it.



no just reform tax waste pork......there's so much overlapping still......


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 28, 2011)

I was born poor then my father made some money on 3 businesses he had. We had a color TV while most of my friends still had black and white TV.
Had all the toys you can imagine, then my parents had a nasty separation and we became poor and went to bed without food.

I feel bad for some of the poor, those who were screwed in life.

Now I am doing well and I piss on the poor.


Just kidding, we help out a lot of troubled kids. Feed them, take them to the movies....


----------



## maniclion (Apr 28, 2011)

phosphor said:


> Oh, and btw, fuck the poor. They have been wallowing in their misery long enough and getting the free rides for decades. Time to ween them off the government tit. If they don't like it? Too godamn bad. They should do something with themselves and pay their fair share of taxes like I have to. Deadbeats are the scourge and this country needs a good cleansing.


Fuck the poor and cut education?  

Do you know how ridiculous you sound....how the fuck can the poor get themselves out of their hole if they don't have the basic tools to do it....

How are the deadbeats working no where jobs at Walmart going to find better jobs not selling Chinese garbage if they can't get a decent education?  You would think that with all that money the Wal-Marts of this nation save by getting the ultra-cheap crap from China and marking it up to Made in America prices they could raise some wages for their own "Associates"


----------



## LAM (Apr 28, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> you can't force kids to show up to school.....but for those who do it IS working......i think i'm mistaken about detroit....i know DC is doing well, i can't remember the other metro area that's doing it that's been well documented on it...i thought it was detroit sorry



you sure can't and it doesn't help when the "parent" is only 16-18 years older than the child and they themselves don't have a complete education.  it's a viscous cycle that we have to find a way to break somehow.


----------



## phosphor (Apr 28, 2011)

LAM said:


> does being a conservative come with mandatory feedings of lead and other heavy metals?
> 
> poor people can not get credit there fore they do not create revolving debt or any interest bearing debts, the "middle class" does...
> 
> ...


 
So, now your putting words in my mouth. I do not believe I said I was for TARP - the equivalent of welfare for shitbag companies that took the money and shit it away into their own white collar pockets. The same TARP where Obama would not allow the release of the records of where the money went - and when eventually released, was wholly known that a majority of the funds went to European banks. We can talk TARP all day buddy.

You expect people working at McDonalds and Walmart to have a LIVING wage. It doesn't happen and never has. Every job is not designed or WORTH to be a living wage - thats where people get.. get ready for it... 2 or 3 jobs to cover the expenses. Just like I did to get on my feet - or my brothers or some friends I know. God forbid people take initiative.

The poor, poor people are obviously exempt in your eyes - while you seem to ignore the fact that it is draining us dry - along with government mismanagement, shady dealings, etc. If you feel so strongly on the subject, put your money where your mouth is.

I take my heavy metals just like everyone else here, including you, liberal. Through my AAS made in.... CHINA!


----------



## phosphor (Apr 28, 2011)

LAM said:


> you sure can't and it doesn't help when the "parent" is only 16-18 years older than the child and they themselves don't have a complete education. it's a viscous cycle that we have to find a way to break somehow.


 
Sterilization. Works every time.


----------



## troubador (Apr 28, 2011)

Dale Mabry said:


> So, you think there is enough money in the public coffers to pay for every single student in the U.S. to go to private school?  Despite there being nowhere near enough charter/private schools to take them all, it would cost way too much.



I went to a private school where tuition was less than what the average amount spent per public school student was. I received a much better education also. Unfortunately, the right gets labeled as uncaring whenever they want to cut spending on anything. The left goes on about how poor the U.S. students perform yet we are also one of the top spenders on public education. I thought it was fairly common knowledge that the US not only spends more on education but that over time performance hasn't improved because of it. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how people can continue to make the argument that we need to increase education spending. We need to do something but I don't think it's a problem we can spend our way out of. 

President to Call for Big New Ed. Spending.Here’s a Look at How that’s Worked in the Past | Cato @ Liberty


----------



## LAM (Apr 29, 2011)

phosphor said:


> You expect people working at McDonalds and Walmart to have a LIVING wage. It doesn't happen and never has. Every job is not designed or WORTH to be a living wage - thats where people get.. get ready for it... 2 or 3 jobs to cover the expenses. Just like I did to get on my feet - or my brothers or some friends I know. God forbid people take initiative.
> 
> The poor, poor people are obviously exempt in your eyes - while you seem to ignore the fact that it is draining us dry - along with government mismanagement, shady dealings, etc. If you feel so strongly on the subject, put your money where your mouth is.
> 
> I take my heavy metals just like everyone else here, including you, liberal. Through my AAS made in.... CHINA!



lol @ anyone getting 2-3 jobs in the year 2011 have you seen the unemployment and underemployment numbers?..I also had 2 jobs to get myself ahead but that was 20 years ago when it was possible.  you guys on the right always offer "solutions" that are not applicable in the REAL WORLD that we live in today...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141770/underemployment-steady-july.aspx

please show the data were the poor are running up the budget deficit...there is no INTEREST PAID on monies spent used on social protection programs, they are paid for unlike monies used to fund wars and tax cuts for the top 2% all of those monies are borrowed and we have to pay interest on those loans.  that is where the majority of the 14T deficit has come from excluding the couple of T added under Obama..

The US has gone broke not paying for the poor but for spending money on the military budget so oil company's could get contracts to Iraqi oil fields and defense contractors can increase their stock prices....blaming the poor is the same old tired conservative rhetoric..


----------



## oufinny (Apr 29, 2011)

LAM said:


> lol @ anyone getting 2-3 jobs in the year 2011 have you seen the unemployment and underemployment numbers?..I also had 2 jobs to get myself ahead but that was 20 years ago when it was possible.  you guys on the right always offer "solutions" that are not applicable in the REAL WORLD that we live in today...
> 
> U.S. Underemployment Steady at 18.4% in July
> 
> ...



Yeah, a couple of Trillion in what, 2.5 half years.  So he added over 25% to the already high 11.5 trillion dollar deficit when he came in (that could be a little off so lay off if I missed a few hundred billion).  What is shocking is you don't find this repulsive at all, that much added by one man and his party, and you have the nerve to call everyone else wrong.  Please, this problem is so deep rooted you can't find an end in sight.  

I will say I firmly believe that Barry O, Harry Reid and a few choice Republicans need to get the fuck out of Washington.  Until there are term limits, nothing will change.  Until they take away the lifetime pension for being a congressman, nothing will change.  Both parties are wrong right now by bitching instead of finding some way to solve this that does not hang someone out to dry in the process.  LAM, your determination is honorable but I truly believe you substitute studies and what you read for simple logic on occasion.  I don't need an economist to tell me Barry O blew the fucking deficit through the roof and is continuing to do so with no end in sight; I just need to know how to add. 

A lot of really smart people who are very successful all agree, Barry O is a weak, ineffective President and we could have chosen better.  Hopefully that changes in 2012.


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 29, 2011)

troubador said:


> I went to a private school where tuition was less than what the average amount spent per public school student was. I received a much better education also. Unfortunately, the right gets labeled as uncaring whenever they want to cut spending on anything. The left goes on about how poor the U.S. students perform yet we are also one of the top spenders on public education. I thought it was fairly common knowledge that the US not only spends more on education but that over time performance hasn't improved because of it. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how people can continue to make the argument that we need to increase education spending. We need to do something but I don't think it's a problem we can spend our way out of.
> 
> President to Call for Big New Ed. Spending.Here???s a Look at How that???s Worked in the Past | Cato @ Liberty



higher spending and wages DO NOT EQUAL BETTER TEST SCORES.....and being from wisconsin and against Unions and their thuggery I can say that once we remove collective bargaining and they start paying their fair share of their retirement and benefits just like everyone else does they'll be forced to "teach" instead of just showing up to work......the unions protect and promote complacency....they need to be graded on their results and rewarded or removed accordingly......I Support Gov Walker!


----------



## LAM (Apr 29, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Yeah, a couple of Trillion in what, 2.5 half years.  So he added over 25% to the already high 11.5 trillion dollar deficit when he came in (that could be a little off so lay off if I missed a few hundred billion).  What is shocking is you don't find this repulsive at all, that much added by one man and his party, and you have the nerve to call everyone else wrong.  Please, this problem is so deep rooted you can't find an end in sight.



the electors obviously picked the best of the 2 puppets that we had to choose from...

yes I find it repulsive but this is what happens during every recession, tax receipts are decreased and the gov has to step in and spend.  the problem is that things are getting worst with each recession and it has everything to do with globalization and the loss of millions of job over the past 2-3 decades and stagnant incomes at the bottom...


The Debt Limit:
History and Recent Increases
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/105193.pdf


----------



## oufinny (Apr 29, 2011)

troubador said:


> I went to a private school where tuition was less than what the average amount spent per public school student was. I received a much better education also. Unfortunately, the right gets labeled as uncaring whenever they want to cut spending on anything. The left goes on about how poor the U.S. students perform yet we are also one of the top spenders on public education. I thought it was fairly common knowledge that the US not only spends more on education but that over time performance hasn't improved because of it. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how people can continue to make the argument that we need to increase education spending. We need to do something but I don't think it's a problem we can spend our way out of.
> 
> President to Call for Big New Ed. Spending.Here???s a Look at How that???s Worked in the Past | Cato @ Liberty



This is a multi-faceted problem.  I have a close family member that is an administrator in Des Moines, IA; you don't get anymore midwest than that.  You want to know what she sees day in and day out that fucks over students all the time?  1. Single parent families 2. Rules that prevent teachers from having control in the classroom  3. Parents not enforcing the rules that students continually break.  Money is a problem but not why you think.  There is an ass load spent in Indianapolis per student where my parents live, the graduation rate is below 70%.  Throwing money at it won't solve the problem, it never does.   This is a cultural problem.


----------



## myCATpowerlifts (Apr 29, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Yeah, a couple of Trillion in what, 2.5 half years.  So he added over 25% to the already high 11.5 trillion dollar deficit when he came in (that could be a little off so lay off if I missed a few hundred billion).  What is shocking is you don't find this repulsive at all, that much added by one man and his party, and you have the nerve to call everyone else wrong.  Please, this problem is so deep rooted you can't find an end in sight.
> 
> I will say I firmly believe that Barry O, Harry Reid and a few choice Republicans need to get the fuck out of Washington.  Until there are term limits, nothing will change.  Until they take away the lifetime pension for being a congressman, nothing will change.  Both parties are wrong right now by bitching instead of finding some way to solve this that does not hang someone out to dry in the process.  LAM, your determination is honorable but I truly believe you substitute studies and what you read for simple logic on occasion.  I don't need an economist to tell me Barry O blew the fucking deficit through the roof and is continuing to do so with no end in sight; I just need to know how to add.
> 
> A lot of really smart people who are very successful all agree, Barry O is a weak, ineffective President and we could have chosen better.  Hopefully that changes in 2012.



Hell yea! Let's blame the president for everything!!!
Way to go!!


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Apr 29, 2011)

I don't believe we need to cut funding for education.  But, lack of funding isn't what's hurting the public education system.  In AL, we have some of the worst public school systems in the country (thank god for Mississippi & DC or we'd the worst).  Yet, AL spends more money per student than most other states.  Much of the problem is the teachers unions which, by design, protect incompetency and makes the system serve the employees, rather than the students it's supposed to educate.  Unionization has no place in the PE system.  There is a reason why people who can afford it send their kids to private schools.  The quality of the product (education) has not dropped into the shitter courtesy of the teachers' unions.

Here's a thought.  Imagine a scenario where you are zoned for a particular grocery store, based on your zip code and said grocery store is fully staffed by union workers that can not be fired unless they commit (and are convicted of) a serious illegal act.  You are not allowed to buy your groceries anywhere else.  The argument is that it wouldn't be fair nor ethical to allow people in your zip code to shop elsewhere, regardless of how good or bad the products and service are.  After all, the store might go out of business and put the employees of the store out of work.  Now, would you expect the quality and service offered by this store to improve or down?  There's is scenario should help explain why the PE system in some parts of this country are hardly competitive with any 3rd world country.  

If you want to improve education in under privilided communities, school vouchers would allow the money to follow the student and put under performing schools out of business and force incompetent teachers out of the profession, yes out of work.  The purpose of the system is not to provide cradle to grave benefits for anyone.  It is to provide education for kids, nothing more, nothing less.  Just my evil and heartless neo-con thought for the day.


----------



## oufinny (Apr 29, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> higher spending and wages DO NOT EQUAL BETTER TEST SCORES.....and being from wisconsin and against Unions and their thuggery I can say that once we remove collective bargaining and they start paying their fair share of their retirement and benefits just like everyone else does they'll be forced to "teach" instead of just showing up to work......the unions protect and promote complacency....they need to be graded on their results and rewarded or removed accordingly......I Support Gov Walker!



 Damn straight, the unions have WAY too much power.  Look at this complete shit they are pulling with Boeing, disgusting the nerve the NLRB has.  You are going to tell a company what it can do, really, how about you go FUCK YOURSELF instead!  You should ask any employee that works for Ford in the union if they like their job; I bet 9/10 will say they do.  The smallest bonus last year was $5k and they don't have near the power these assholes at GM and other companies have yet they are employed and the company is now prospering (I wonder why????).  Collective bargaining rights brought down to reality is great, welcome to the real world mofos. We all don't get a job guaranteed, so why the FUCK SHOULD YOU!  I split my time between two offices, drive 40 minutes to work, pay TOLLS to get there and I don't bitch at all because I have a job.


----------



## oufinny (Apr 29, 2011)

myCATpowerlifts said:


> Hell yea! Let's blame the president for everything!!!
> Way to go!!



You make the world stupider with each post, there is a special place in hell for ignorant people like you.  Oh wait, I think that is called the NAACP during your living years.


----------



## LAM (Apr 29, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Much of the problem is the teachers unions which, by design, protect incompetency and makes the system serve the employees, rather than the students it's supposed to educate.  Unionization has no place in the PE system.  There is a reason why people who can afford it send their kids to private schools.  The quality of the product (education) has not dropped into the shitter courtesy of the teachers' unions.



NCLB made things much worst in terms of education and what does unionization have to do with the performance of students?

most of the education problems can be traced back to the decline of the family, there is now 40 years of evidence that shows children born and raised by single mothers achieve less across the board.

divorce..children generally have more problems than those that come from parents that stay together.  this group performs better than the single mother group because they typically get child support while 50% of single mothers receive $0.

today both parents typically work long hours, this creates less of a family environment further disrupting the educational process...


----------



## LAM (Apr 29, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Damn straight, the unions have WAY too much power.  Look at this complete shit they are pulling with Boeing, disgusting the nerve the NLRB has.  You are going to tell a company what it can do, really, how about you go FUCK YOURSELF instead!



The graph I posted shows the decline of wages in the US with the decline of the labor unions in the country


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Apr 29, 2011)

The problem is that it changes the dynamics of the system so that it serves the employees as opposed to the kids.  It protects not only good teachers, but lousy ones also.  For instance, if you can't fire a first grade teacher even though two thirds of his/her class can't read or write at the end of every year, that is a problem and it's a result of the teachers' unions.  Just look at the "rubber rooms" in NY, where teachers are removed from their duties are set out to pasture with pay, yet can't be fire due to union contracts.


----------



## oufinny (Apr 29, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> I don't believe we need to cut funding for education.  But, lack of funding isn't what's hurting the public education system.  In AL, we have some of the worst public school systems in the country (thank god for Mississippi & DC or we'd the worst).  Yet, AL spends more money per student than most other states.  Much of the problem is the teachers unions which, by design, protect incompetency and makes the system serve the employees, rather than the students it's supposed to educate.  Unionization has no place in the PE system.  There is a reason why people who can afford it send their kids to private schools.  The quality of the product (education) has not dropped into the shitter courtesy of the teachers' unions.
> 
> Here's a thought.  Imagine a scenario where you are zoned for a particular grocery store, based on your zip code and said grocery store is fully staffed by union workers that can not be fired unless they commit (and are convicted of) a serious illegal act.  You are not allowed to buy your groceries anywhere else.  The argument is that it wouldn't be fair nor ethical to allow people in your zip code to shop elsewhere, regardless of how good or bad the products and service are.  After all, the store might go out of business and put the employees of the store out of work.  Now, would you expect the quality and service offered by this store to improve or down?  There's is scenario should help explain why the PE system in some parts of this country are hardly competitive with any 3rd world country.
> 
> If you want to improve education in under privilided communities, school vouchers would allow the money to follow the student and put under performing schools out of business and force incompetent teachers out of the profession, yes out of work.  The purpose of the system is not to provide cradle to grave benefits for anyone.  It is to provide education for kids, nothing more, nothing less.  Just my evil and heartless neo-con thought for the day.



BRA-FUCKING-VO!  I love this, comment of the day.


----------



## oufinny (Apr 29, 2011)

LAM said:


> The graph I posted shows the decline of wages in the US with the decline of the labor unions in the country



You can also correlate that union membership does not increase wages as those that stayed in, saw little wage gain.  Unions had their time and place, they need to go.


----------



## LAM (Apr 29, 2011)

oufinny said:


> You can also correlate that union membership does not increase wages as those that stayed in, saw little wage gain.  Unions had their time and place, they need to go.



yes that way company's can pay their employees the bare minimum just like Wallmart, then things would really get better in a land where the cost of everything increases annually...low wages is one of the main reasons why household debt mainly from the middle class is at like 100%+ of GDP


----------



## LAM (Apr 29, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> The problem is that it changes the dynamics of the system so that it serves the employees as opposed to the kids.



kind of like how company's used to produce quality products to meet the demands of their CUSTOMERS now they work for the SHAREHOLDERS...


----------



## LAM (Apr 29, 2011)

oufinny said:


> You can also correlate that union membership does not increase wages as those that stayed in, saw little wage gain.  Unions had their time and place, they need to go.



the IMF recommends that country's NOT follow the US in terms of labor practices...

UNEMPLOYMENT AND LABOR MARKET INSTITUTIONS:
WHY REFORMS PAY OFF
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2003/01/pdf/chapter4.pdf

* that is pretty sound advice coming from the debt collecter of governments and multi-national corporations..


----------



## LAM (Apr 29, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> For instance, if you can't fire a first grade teacher even though two thirds of his/her class can't read or write at the end of every year, that is a problem and it's a result of the teachers' unions.



and what is a teacher to do when that student doesn't pick up a book outside of the classroom and their life at home is filled with nothing except TV?

the home-life and modeling after the parents far out-weights anything that can be taught in schools..

The Influence of Parent Education and Family Income on Child
Achievement: The Indirect Role of Parental Expectations and the
Home Environment
http://www.mikemcmahon.info/ParentEducationIncome.pdf


----------



## oufinny (Apr 29, 2011)

LAM said:


> yes that way company's can pay their employees the bare minimum just like Wallmart, then things would really get better in a land where the cost of everything increases annually...low wages is one of the main reasons why household debt mainly from the middle class is at like 100%+ of GDP



Unionization does not increase wages [in our current times, before it did, I cannot and will not argue that], when are you going to understand this?  It drives up costs to the employer, the workers in mandatory union dues, decreases investment that also prevents growth.  Successful companies pay their employees and give wage increases; been there, seen it and with success and growth comes advancement (wage increases come with advancement).  Companies burdened by extensive cost structures fail and we need look no farther than Detroit for some charming examples.  GM failed once, Chrysler twice and luckily Ford saw the light right as it stood on the precipice of failure.  Not to mention the companies and brands that completely went away (Oldsmobile, Pontiac to name a few).  

You always say there are no free markets, well unions are a MAJOR part of that problem.  How is Boeing able to operate freely when some asshole union that has no right to do what they are, tries to stop them from expanding production of an already behind schedule airliner.  Oh yeah, they did a good job in 2008 of hastening the delays to the 787 schedule as well; its like their idea of success and job security is to drag out schedules so long companies miss obligations (and lose orders, just like what is happening to Boeing right now).  In almost no situation is a union an effective solution.   People want to get paid more, make the business case to your supervisor you are not getting paid what you are worth.  Sorry, its time people stopped bitching, moaning and crying in the corner and do something about it themselves.  If you don't like your job or your wage, find a new one.  And save the "there aren't any argument" BS, if you are already employed and are in good standing, you will be able to find another job it just might not be next week.

The handouts are over, we screwed that pooch for the last 30-40 years and the country is now broke because of it.  Back in the day people worked for what they got, not people think they are entitled, guess what, YOU'RE NOT!


----------



## oufinny (Apr 29, 2011)

LAM said:


> the IMF recommends that country's NOT follow the US in terms of labor practices...
> 
> UNEMPLOYMENT AND LABOR MARKET INSTITUTIONS:
> WHY REFORMS PAY OFF
> ...



I have a life, 22 pages of some IMF brief isn't part of it.  Post the abstract or this falls on deaf ears.


----------



## LAM (Apr 29, 2011)

oufinny said:


> The handouts are over, we screwed that pooch for the last 30-40 years and the country is now broke because of it.  Back in the day people worked for what they got, not people think they are entitled, guess what, YOU'RE NOT!



Here is why the country is broke:  Good Old Supply-Side Economics

The Debt Limit:
History and Recent Increases
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/105193.pdf

* why do you conservatives constantly try to re-write history when it's your economic policy's that have caused all the problems?


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 29, 2011)

LAM said:


> The graph I posted shows the decline of wages in the US with the decline of the labor unions in the country



the graph is misleading because it shows income only and not income plus benefits totals.....


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 29, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> the graph is misleading because it shows income only and not income plus benefits totals.....



Two separate things.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Apr 29, 2011)

min0 lee said:


> Two separate things.



IDK about that.  If I had been receiving family health coverage for $10-20 per month instead of $440 at my last job, that would have been a pretty descent raise.  Some of the union workers at Ford & GM were getting full coverage for about that much.  They could afford those benefits when their only competition was other union shops.  But, enter Germany, Japan, and Korea, and that changed.  There is a Hundai plant, Mercedes plant, and a Honda plant here in AL.  They aren't union, but they put their new hires through a training program and start them out at around $20+ per hour with pretty good benefits.  It would seem that they pay so well in order to avoid unionization before it happens.  That is pretty good pay for a guy with a HS diploma.


----------



## Glycomann (Apr 29, 2011)

Everyone is ignoring the root cause of this problem.  Our monetary system is based on debt. Any solution is temporary. The international banking system needs to change and that's never going to happen.  Let is all fall to shit. Then we can build it better without the international banking system. Let nations regulate and produce their own currency and get these criminals out of banking.  I better watch what I'm saying or I could end up killed off like Lincoln and Kennedy. Thankfully I have no power so I can rage against the machine.


----------



## LAM (Apr 29, 2011)

Glycomann said:


> Everyone is ignoring the root cause of this problem.  Our monetary system is based on debt. Any solution is temporary. The international banking system needs to change and that's never going to happen.  Let is all fall to shit. Then we can build it better without the international banking system. Let nations regulate and produce their own currency and get these criminals out of banking.  I better watch what I'm saying or I could end up killed off like Lincoln and Kennedy. Thankfully I have no power so I can rage against the machine.



but now you are talking about messing the the Fed and Wallstreet which are major causes of monetary problems.  the income issue is separate but obviously very important but seems to never be addressed, the CPI is just not accurate as a tool to use for wage increases anymore.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 29, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Unionization does not increase wages [in our current times, before it did, I cannot and will not argue that], when are you going to understand this?  It drives up costs to the employer, the workers in mandatory union dues, decreases investment that also prevents growth.  Successful companies pay their employees and give wage increases; been there, seen it and with success and growth comes advancement (wage increases come with advancement).  Companies burdened by extensive cost structures fail and we need look no farther than Detroit for some charming examples.  GM failed once, Chrysler twice and luckily Ford saw the light right as it stood on the precipice of failure.  Not to mention the companies and brands that completely went away (Oldsmobile, Pontiac to name a few).
> 
> You always say there are no free markets, well unions are a MAJOR part of that problem.  How is Boeing able to operate freely when some asshole union that has no right to do what they are, tries to stop them from expanding production of an already behind schedule airliner.  Oh yeah, they did a good job in 2008 of hastening the delays to the 787 schedule as well; its like their idea of success and job security is to drag out schedules so long companies miss obligations (and lose orders, just like what is happening to Boeing right now).  In almost no situation is a union an effective solution.   People want to get paid more, make the business case to your supervisor you are not getting paid what you are worth.  Sorry, its time people stopped bitching, moaning and crying in the corner and do something about it themselves.  If you don't like your job or your wage, find a new one.  And save the "there aren't any argument" BS, if you are already employed and are in good standing, you will be able to find another job it just might not be next week.
> 
> The handouts are over, we screwed that pooch for the last 30-40 years and the country is now broke because of it.  Back in the day people worked for what they got, not people think they are entitled, guess what, YOU'RE NOT!



GM, Ford and Chrysler doomed themselves by designing and building crap.  The plants built the crap that was designed on a shoestring budget with parts from the cheapest suppliers that built the cheapest parts possible.  Blaming the unions for such chart toppers as the Cadillac Cimarron is silliness.  GM management decided that they'd build a Cadillac on the cheap and people would buy it because of the badge on the grille.  That wasn't a plant idea.  Maybe it was a plant idea because whoever decided that was a braindead vegetable.  

So you're saying that people don't work for anything today?  I beg to differ.  Myself and the people I work with put in their fair share every day and would gladly activate your dental plan for saying otherwise.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 29, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> the graph is misleading because it shows income only and not income plus benefits totals.....



Where does it say that?


----------



## antisocialcreep (Apr 29, 2011)

hmmm, interesting.lets try this first though... stop spending money the govt doesnt have and that is not even constitutional. hey, im just saying. not so much a revenue problem as a 'my wife caught me in bed with a 20 year old blonde and has the check book' type spending problem


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 30, 2011)

All this talk about this being a factor and that being a factor are all fine and dandy, and you can point to unions being a problem, but at the end of the day, LAM is right, until the middle class starts making more money, the economy is going to stay in The shitter.  It's just common sense, when 1% of the people can afford to buy anything they want and don't need and 99% of the population can't afford the mortgage on a modest home on 2 incomes the economy is going to be in the shitter. Political ideology aside, we all have to agree that you make more money selling iPods to 150 million people than you do to 1 million.


----------



## min0 lee (Apr 30, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> IDK about that.  If I had been receiving family health coverage for $10-20 per month instead of $440 at my last job, that would have been a pretty descent raise.  Some of the union workers at Ford & GM were getting full coverage for about that much.  They could afford those benefits when their only competition was other union shops.  But, enter Germany, Japan, and Korea, and that changed.  There is a Hundai plant, Mercedes plant, and a Honda plant here in AL.  They aren't union, but they put their new hires through a training program and start them out at around $20+ per hour with pretty good benefits.  It would seem that they pay so well in order to avoid unionization before it happens.  That is pretty good pay for a guy with a HS diploma.



When people compare union wages and benefits they combine the two but when it's the private sector they only bring up their salary.


----------



## LAM (Apr 30, 2011)

oufinny said:


> You always say there are no free markets, well unions are a MAJOR part of that problem.  How is Boeing able to operate freely when some asshole union that has no right to do what they are, tries to stop them from expanding production of an already behind schedule airliner.



Boeing is #18 on the list in terms of revenue
Companies With the Highest Revenue - Tracked.com

guess those union wages they have to pay aren't hurting them that bad...defense contractors are surely one market that should have unionization they have lobbyist in DC that make sure the make more money year after year...there's a reason why the military budget is 700B  and their stock has almost doubled since 2001 when we went back into Iraq.


----------



## antisocialcreep (Apr 30, 2011)

fed, international 'free trade', and supply-side are the vehicles that drove us here, entitled behavior,laziness, and stupidity are what prevents the u.s. from correcting the mistakes of the last 30 years.
reality check; social welfare is NOT A FUCKING 'RIGHT'! dont whine that they are taking YOUR health care,social security, welfare, ect away. you never should have gotten a fucking penny of it to start anyhow!
since i am on a rant.
 stop fucking bitching about gas prices if you are stupid enough to buy chinese shit from walmart. increased demand from china, brasil, india, and russia are a HUGE reason for soaring gas prices. why the new demand? because they are manufacturing shitty products that idiots buy at walmart to save a few bucks over a well made domestic version! 
but thats just my .02


----------



## LAM (Apr 30, 2011)

antisocialcreep said:


> reality check; social welfare is NOT A FUCKING 'RIGHT'! dont whine that they are taking YOUR health care,social security, welfare, ect away. you never should have gotten a fucking penny of it to start anyhow!



welfare is not a right but every single civilized nation in the world has some sort of welfare system.  fiscal support at 2% of GDP and 20% publicly mandated the US spends the least out of every other country on the planet and also has the greatest income inequality, surely no direct correlation there...


----------



## irish_2003 (Apr 30, 2011)

LAM said:


> welfare is not a right but every single civilized nation in the world has some sort of welfare system.  fiscal support at 2% of GDP and 20% publicly mandated the US spends the least out of every other country on the planet and also has the greatest income inequality, surely no direct correlation there...



your response sounds like you want MORE money from hardworking taxpayers to go to welfare? HELL NO.....we need to cut much of it so the "welfare culture" stops......when people have no free rides they're forced to work instead of gov't handouts......you couldn't be any more of a left wing nutjob lam......people create they're own situations and get out it they do the right things.....i have no sympathy for anyone living in the trailer parks or projects....i got out....so can they....fuck 'em all!


----------



## LAM (Apr 30, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> your response sounds like you want MORE money from hardworking taxpayers to go to welfare? HELL NO.....we need to cut much of it so the "welfare culture" stops......when people have no free rides they're forced to work instead of gov't handouts......you couldn't be any more of a left wing nutjob lam......people create they're own situations and get out it they do the right things.....i have no sympathy for anyone living in the trailer parks or projects....i got out....so can they....fuck 'em all!



welfare has existed in one form or another since the 1800's and the US will never do away with it.  I do not want to increase it but I surely don't want it to go away.  it is a necessary part of any modern society that functions on capitalism, especially the perverted form practiced here in the US with our severely managed and not free market economy.  

the Census puts out annual reports on poverty every year, you should try reading one.  only about 2% of the population lives in poverty full time the rest fall in and out depending the economy, INCOME and the costs of energy and food, etc.  in every single report you see the same word repeated, over and over, income, income, income.. you also see that word over and over again in studies about the relationship between income and education.  families with higher incomes achieve more and get better educations, doesn't matter if the studies comes from the US, UK or Europe they all say the same thing.  hell all of the global 500 company's are located in northern states with the exception of Texas, this may be because of the great schools in the south.

call me a left wing nut job all you want but you and the rest of the GOPe'rs here couldn't no any less about world history, economics or sociology.  you preach the same far right rhetoric and never have any empirical data to support your side.  the conservative agenda is nothing except harmful to the overall health of the country. China just invested 2T dollars to educate their ENTIRE country and the GOP plan is to cut education funding along with fighting for lower wages for families, brilliant....

to make a long story short the CPI is infective for use in regards to determining wages in this day and age.

2001 Poverty Report
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-219.pdf

2009 Poverty Report
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf


----------



## HialeahChico305 (Apr 30, 2011)

LAM said:


> you sure can't and it doesn't help when the "parent" is only 16-18 years older than the child and they themselves don't have a complete education.  it's a viscous cycle that we have to find a way to break somehow.




we can start by glorifying it all over national television!!!! 

oh wait, MTV already does that. Great helping hand 







YouTube Video


----------



## HialeahChico305 (Apr 30, 2011)

LAM said:


> NCLB made things much worst in terms of education and what does unionization have to do with the performance of students?
> 
> most of the education problems can be traced back to the decline of the family, there is now 40 years of evidence that shows children born and raised by single mothers achieve less across the board.
> 
> ...




God , there is so much truth on this post. Without a family environment a child is vulnerable and destined to fail. plain and simple


----------



## GearsMcGilf (May 1, 2011)

NCLB was just one more example of the Fed govt getting involved and "helping" where it wasn't needed.  Yes, the decline of the fambly is definitely a huge factor, much more so than the teachers' union.  I would attribute a lot of that to the feminist movement which  marginalized and ridiculed stay at home moms and paints women who don't have careers, and play a more traditional role in the family, as weak and something of a genetic throwback.  Single motherhood has often been glorified somewhat over the last couple decades (i.e. Murphy Brown et al).


----------



## Hench (May 1, 2011)

GearsMcGilf said:


> NCLB was just one more example of the Fed govt getting involved and "helping" where it wasn't needed.  Yes, the decline of the fambly is definitely a huge factor, much more so than the teachers' union.  *I would attribute a lot of that to the feminist movement which  marginalized and ridiculed stay at home moms and paints women who don't have careers, and play a more traditional role in the family, as weak and something of a genetic throwback.*  Single motherhood has often been glorified somewhat over the last couple decades (i.e. Murphy Brown et al).



+1, couldn't agree more. 

At least in the US religion somewhat counteracts it, you should see the effect this shit has on a secular society. Fucking awful.


----------



## LAM (May 1, 2011)

Hench said:


> +1, couldn't agree more.
> 
> At least in the US religion somewhat counteracts it, you should see the effect this shit has on a secular society. Fucking awful.



Teen birth rates highest in most religious states 
Teen birth rates highest in most religious states - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com

Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States
http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/pdf/1742-4755-6-14.pdf


----------



## Hench (May 1, 2011)

LAM said:


> Teen birth rates highest in most religious states
> Teen birth rates highest in most religious states - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com
> 
> Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States
> http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/pdf/1742-4755-6-14.pdf



I get what you're saying LAM, but I don't feel those stats are directly applicable to the quality of family life, which is what I was referring to. 

I gotta dash, I'll make a more detailled post in a couple of hours.


----------



## LAM (May 1, 2011)

organized religion I can see having a positive effect in regards to keeping some family's together but most likely those families in general are fairly disciplined already in family structure.

ultimately the family has been declining all over the world since the industrial revolution.  even faster in the US because of the rapid growth in this country post WWII, then you add in the 70's, etc.  single mothers being glorified on tv today also adds fuel to this fire.

 it now takes 2 full-time working adults in the US to provide the same means that 1 did 30-40 years ago.  wages from single mothers are significantly less than married then decrease further depending on education, race, etc.  

ultimately nothing in the US is going to get better now or in the future until wages are increased at the lower quintiles.  the problem is the majority of the smart people that work in economics all work on wall street and are occupied with finding new ways for that market to make money instead of replacing the consumer price index (CPI) which is inefficient in today's world for determining wages.

the middle class is screwed so obviously those at the very bottom in terms of wages don't have a prayer.

Below are 2 papers from the EPI in regards to jobs and the economy

* This one talks about our current unemployment rate and the future of jobs for recent HS and college grads

Young workers face a dire labor market without a safety net
http://epi.3cdn.net/c7d6ec52122ea9c188_rbm6bc14a.pdf

* this paper talks about how even if every job in the US was filled today 80% of the unemployed would still be unemployed because their simply are no jobs (go globalization!)

Reasons for Skepticism about Structural Unemployment Examining the Demand-Side Evidence
http://epi.3cdn.net/c1218e8213c58051e4_tlm6b5tf9.pdf


----------



## GearsMcGilf (May 1, 2011)

LAM said:


> Teen birth rates highest in most religious states
> Teen birth rates highest in most religious states - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com
> 
> Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States
> http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/pdf/1742-4755-6-14.pdf



I seriously doubt that teen birth rates directly correlate with religiosity.  It probably has more to due with the fact that more people are religious in rural and inner city communities (particularly black and hispanic) and those are the communities where you see more teen pregnancies.  IOW, the grape juice and wafers served at communion doesn't affect fertility. lol  But, that finding certainly does help make an argument for those with an anti religion agenda.


----------



## bandaidwoman (May 1, 2011)

I don't think you guys realize who the poor are.

   Teachers are showing up at our food bank that I volunteer at to get food for their family, Teachers and fire fighters on Long Island, New York  subsist on food stamps since cost of living is so high.  When I was on a post doc tract doing research  I was making less than minimum wage, if I had to support a family I would have had to rely on social services ( in fact some of my fellow chemist's with three kids to feed) actually qualified for medicaid and food stamps.   The medical residency when I was training and living in a big city made  21 grand working 120 hours a week. ( before taxes).  The ones who had families and children had to put their kids on medicaid for health insurance since they could not afford the health care premiums to insure the whole family. It's not just the "leeches" and uneducated. There are many  of us were highly educated and working our butts off.

When my dad was  a POW ( was in  Air america so he did not exist and therefore my mom had no financial support from the US government), my mom starved down to 65 pounds ( she is 5 6) trying to raise three kids in a country that provided absolutely no social services ( Malaysia and Thailand).  Noone gave a mother with eurasian children a job due to racism back in the pacific rim even though she could speak 4 languages.  ( she had to tote us kids on some of her job interviews since there is no such thing as daycare, nannies etc. in these countries back in the 70's, they took one look at us and assumed she was a prostitute.

as for the rich not leeching off social security,etc.  Ayn Rand who wrote Atlas Shrugged developed lung cancer ( self induced from her chain smoking) .  She was quick to dip into social security and get medicare to pay  for her own chemo, radiation and lung surgery for a disease that was self induced.  She was rich enough and if true to libertarian values should have just self funded all her medical care from her book proceeds, espcially something she was entirely responsible for. ( not like developing ALS or MS etc.)


----------



## bandaidwoman (May 1, 2011)

Hench said:


> +1, couldn't agree more.
> 
> At least in the US religion somewhat counteracts it, you should see the effect this shit has on a secular society. Fucking awful.




actually societies that are *most egalitarian and secula*r have the best educational attainment and adult literacy.  look at norway, iceland, australia, canada, sweden , Iceland etc. Japan, though not egalitatarian,  is one of the most athiestic and their educational system is unfucking believable. We feminists are not responsible for the decline of eduction , my mother was a single mom for a decade when my dad was a POW, she made sure she educated us ( we were in a stringent asian system at that) despite working full time ( we all became physican, physicist and software engineers).

As a scientist I encourage to look at real data, not gut instinct.  

There are tons of data linking maternal educational status with favorable long lasting advantages and  outcomes of the children.  This can only happen in an egalitarian society ( advocated by feminists)

and I will cite primary references rather than some internet blog : Rosenzweig and Wolpin (1994) found that maternal education completed during the first three years of a child's life improved his or her later vocabulary and academic skills. In a more recent study also using the NLSY data, a mother's enrollment in education during the first three years of her child's life was associated with higher math and reading achievement by age 6 (Moore & Schmidt, 2007).

 Finally, Magnuson (2007) demonstrated that maternal education obtained when children were between the ages of 6 and 12 predicted children's academic skills but only among children with young and educationally disadvantaged parents. Positive associations were more pronounced for reading skills than for math skills and were concentrated among younger children.


----------



## bandaidwoman (May 1, 2011)

here is data on working moms like myself

The Effects of the Mother's Employment on the Family and the Child

there were subtle diffeences between boy or girl child




> *Daughters of employed mothers have been found to have higher academic achievemen*t, greater career success, more nontraditional career choices, and greater occupational commitment.
> 
> 
> Studies of children in poverty, in both two-parent and single-mother families,* found higher cognitive scores for children with employed mothers as well as higher scores on socioemotional indices.*
> ...



the last showed both positive and negatives


----------



## LAM (May 1, 2011)

bandaidwoman said:


> I don't think you guys realize who the poor are.



my guess in today's economy more married couples with children that fall in the lower 3rd-4th quintiles in income are requiring food-stamps, etc. to get buy.

below is a link to a marriage study commissioned by the GOP House in 2005 ($500M over 5 years was the budget).  Bush had originally proposed the idea in 2002. 

The BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES PROJECT
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opr...rts/unmarried_parents/15_impact_exec_summ.pdf


----------



## juggernaut (May 1, 2011)

LAM said:


> "Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40 percent boost in economic activity, with more business startups, more jobs, and more prosperity."
> 
> more supply-side voodoo economics....lol at taking financial advice from someone that  uses bankruptcy courts as part of his business model.



LAM, I'm not saying I agree with what he's proposing, but take a look; this country is in serious trouble. We've tried almost everything. Everyone freaked when Obama wanted health care-did it change anything? No. What makes you think this plan of his will screw us?


----------



## bandaidwoman (May 1, 2011)

LAM said:


> my guess in today's economy more married couples with children that fall in the lower 3rd-4th quintiles in income are requiring food-stamps, etc. to get buy.
> 
> below is a link to a marriage study commissioned by the GOP House in 2005 ($500M over 5 years was the budget).  Bush had originally proposed the idea in 2002.
> 
> ...



exactly , we need to look at data, and by no means do we feminist advocate single parenthood. We know marriage is the best ( unless one is a pedophile or very violent) but an egalitarian society now allows the man to contribute equally to family rearing if the woman has the better ability to provide income.  Also, through no fault of their own, if the husband dies or become disabled, a educated woman can return to the work force instead of resorting to prostitution or  working menial jobs that won't allow for adequate day care etc. as  in countries that don't advocate women empowerment in terms of education.

case in point, my friend's husband owned a very successful landscaping business ( they have three kids), well, needless to say his business is bankrupt, she has a degree in mathmatics, she went back to working as an acturarialst after 10 yrs, they were able to keep their house , the kids continue to go to a very good school district.  *In a society that did not allow this woman that chance for education and salary attainment ,where would her family be?*


----------



## LAM (May 1, 2011)

juggernaut said:


> LAM, I'm not saying I agree with what he's proposing, but take a look; this country is in serious trouble. We've tried almost everything. Everyone freaked when Obama wanted health care-did it change anything? No. What makes you think this plan of his will screw us?



supply-side economics and especially the tax breaks for the wealthy, etc. has never worked in US economic history.  it has never created any jobs and has only increased the federal deficit by trillions dollars due to interest payments on borrowed monies to pay for those tax breaks, this is what all the data shows over the past 30+ years.  in terms of bang for the buck they offer the least in return (see the graph on page 5 on the 3rd paper that I posted).

the US has been bleeding jobs for decades, jobs that have not been replaced all due to globalization.  the US never recovered from the recession in 2001 in terms of jobs.

When you get the time read the 3 papers below from the EPI.  If you don't have the time to read all three, I  implore you to find time to read the 2nd and 3rd.

THE CLASS OF 2011
Young workers face a dire labor market without a safety net
http://epi.3cdn.net/c7d6ec52122ea9c188_rbm6bc14a.pdf


Reasons for Skepticism about Structural Unemployment Examining the Demand-Side Evidence
http://epi.3cdn.net/c1218e8213c58051e4_tlm6b5tf9.pdf

ABANDONING WHAT WORKS (AND MOST OTHER THINGS, TOO)
Expansionary fiscal policy is still the best tool for boosting jobs
http://epi.3cdn.net/ec12c2ff3297c3785e_rkm6bh9l9.pdf


----------



## TheGreatSatan (May 1, 2011)

maniclion said:


> Hopefully it would get rid of some of the misers who just horde money cause they're stingy.  My gf's step-grandmother has several million just sitting in banks while she leached off of her husbands retirement money for years.  This bitch got mad at me once cause I threw out 20 years worth of her hoarding straws from each time shed go to a fast food restaurant, the bitch was psychotic I tells ya....



So, that's where your blind hate of the rich comes from


----------



## juggernaut (May 2, 2011)

LAM said:


> supply-side economics and especially the tax breaks for the wealthy, etc. has never worked in US economic history.  it has never created any jobs and has only increased the federal deficit by trillions dollars due to interest payments on borrowed monies to pay for those tax breaks, this is what all the data shows over the past 30+ years.  in terms of bang for the buck they offer the least in return (see the graph on page 5 on the 3rd paper that I posted).
> 
> the US has been bleeding jobs for decades, jobs that have not been replaced all due to globalization.  the US never recovered from the recession in 2001 in terms of jobs.
> 
> ...


I see you know your shit. REPPED.


----------



## bandaidwoman (May 2, 2011)

juggernaut said:


> I see you know your shit. REPPED.


agree


----------

