Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Producers vs. Losers - who really produces ?

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 11, 2012, 9:35 a.m. EST by jph (2652)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We seem to get a lot of this here, the" you are just jealous, lazy, freeloaders", from the corporatists that troll here. This is addresed quite well in a great article over at Truthout; http://www.truth-out.org/producers-vs-moochers-freeloaders-and-losers-cruel-pro-rich-propaganda-right/1328901019

quote==> Heritage fails to mention that we were paying off the nation's debt before Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, at the rate we were paying off the debt when Clinton was President the entire US debt would have been paid off by now. Except for those tax cuts for the wealthy. But according to Heritage, the problem is not wealthy people paying very low taxes, it is humans who have human needs who are a "a potentially ruinous drain on federal finances."

Please take a look at Heritage's "dependency index." Social Security is "government dependence." Medicare is "government dependence." And on and on. Heritage says nothing about the huge, bloated, corrupt, enormous, massive, ginormous military budget -- that doubled under Bush. Heritage says nothing about the incredible subsidies government provides to oil and coal companies. Heritage says nothing about the cost of all of the tax cuts handed out to the wealthiest since the Reagan era. Nothing at all.

Heritage says that We, the People doing things for each other "encourages dependence." They talk about people as if they are squirrels. Like building the interstate highway system encourages dependence or having good public schools encourages dependence or a pension after a life of hard work encourages dependence or public health programs that keep epidemics from spreading encourages dependence or giving vaccines to children encourages dependence or, I guess, in the old days helping a neighbor put up a barn encouraged dependence.

257 Comments

257 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 17 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

This is a great post. What the wealthy and corporations have done is they have twisted the American ethos of rugged individualism to use it against the American working people by shaming them for their lack of "success." When, in reality, it is actually the workers who are the producers. Profits are the result of labor and capital and without the labor there would be no profits. They know this, they just know they can use shame to exploit labor to the maximum.

The only freeloaders in this country are the wealthy and the corporations. They are the only ones who are entitled to rape and pillage the government and the people.

[-] 6 points by Renaye (522) 2 years ago

The ruling elite use our money as their own personal welfare system.

[-] 7 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

Basically, yup, and then they point the finger at the working class.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

and rightfully so :)

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

You've been hanging around slammers too much.....

The working class is the backbone of this nation and the reason why there are any profits at all.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

This country was made by people with an entrepreneurial spirit. People who created jobs instead of searching for them.

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

It seems that the Indians did just fine took care of there people .destroyed nothing.and created no phoney wealth.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Uh, no. This country was built by the citizens. Without the public there are no companies, no government, no economy. There are just really lazy and stupid people.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Of course it would be 'citizens' that would build it. I am constantly amazed by the replies i get here.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

As am I. To make a claim that it is a small segment of the population that makes all the contributions is kind of ignorant of the facts.

This country was made what it is by those that think they know what is best for everybody else. A divided, leaderless country ran by corporations for their own profit.

An educated society is a productive society where the Citizens create opportunity for themselves and others. A corporate structured society attempts to quash the competition. We live is a corporate structured society, where people learn their values in the office instead of in the community.

Who cheered for MS when they crushed Stacker Software? Who was taken by surprise to find out word was supposedly created by another? Who would think a kid shoots somebody for stepping on their sneakers.... I wonder where they learned that from?

Creating opportunity at the expense of somebody else by stealing their ideas or property is not the "entrepreneurial spirit". Creation through original thought and design is and this type of creation does not cost others or destroy existing businessmen.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

In corporate life there is a saying for most teams "20% of the people do 80% of the work". These 20% are the A performers. So yes, a small segment is actually responsible for most of the contribution.

Corporate structure society? Now you are just making up words.

[-] 3 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Sigh, Corporate, Structure and Society are all words used today and are in the dictionary. Attempting to obfuscate the facts does not change them.

The industrial base of this country is not manned by the wealthy corporate officers, it is manned by those that make a lot less and do almost ALL the work and do all the manual labor. Your vacuous argument is nothing more than vapor.

The retail, sales and service industries are not manned by the corporate officers, they are almost all manned by those that make a lot less.

All in all, the workforce of this country continues to become poor while the corporate officers do little and get paid well for doing it. The only thing these corporate officers have been able to do is to boondoggle the people by moving their manufacturing off shore to avoid paying taxes they rightfully owe.

Apple is one of those corporations. Other corporations [Broadcom 15 Million taxes on 1 Billion profit or 1.5% in taxes] are set up so that a large portion of their entire profit is a direct result of these tax loopholes.

Is this good for the Country????

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Yes yes I know. The CEO simply sits on his ass whole day and the shop floor worker and janitor do the 'real and important' work. Heard that.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Good, you agree that these corporations move their facilities out of the US for the tax breaks they claim as profits for their shareholders and their CEO's sit primarily on their collective asses while the labor that makes a company successful is dome pretty much by what is called the "labor force".

It isn't that hard to reach an accord.

Ford believe he should pay his employees enough to buy his own product.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

dont u get bored with the rhetoric?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Again, not brilliant responding to the wrong post.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I am saying that unless you are making a Ferrari the workmanship and craftsmanship aren't a huge deal. Or say assembling a computer or an iPhone, not a big deal. The bigger deal is the high level work that goes on in designing, marketing and distributing an iPhone.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

That's good because Jobs farmed out the manufacturing of the iPhone/iPad to China and he has to be smart to sell something to Americans that cost Americans their jobs.

That is what you were talking about right?

The thing is, when you can't dazzle the public with your brilliance you must then baffle them with bullshit.

I am not dazzled or baffled and what you say is bullshit.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

"The CEO's and other corporate officers do not do anywhere near the combined volume of the labor force in America." - You seem to be unable to differentiate between quality and quantity as well.

[-] 0 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

So the labor force workmanship and craftsmanship suck is what you are saying or are you saying the quality of the CEO's work sucks?

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

No I dont agree. Along with common sense you also dont seem to have the capability to detect sarcasm

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

And the same can be said about you and sarcasm. As for common sense. It is not something that you can buy, rent, steal or borrow.

What did I say that was in error?

Do I need to post a link to substantiate these?

The work of the manufacturing base is essentially done by the labor force in America.

The labor force is becoming poorer and poorer each decade with no end in sight.

The CEO's and other corporate officers do not do anywhere near the combined volume of the labor force in America.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-299457--.html

Corporations move their facilities out of the country to not pay taxes or their fair share of taxes.

Corporations claimed these tax breaks as profits.

Where are my "glaring" errors exactly?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-critics-of-ows-have-been-trying-to-vote-up-the/

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Here is a "by the way" for you to see how subsidies impact this country. Your entrepreneurial spirit at work for the rest of us.

78 Companies Paying Zero Tax or Less in at Least One Year, 2008–2010

Company Name Profit before taxes Tax in dollars Tax Rate Years of zero taxes

Ingram Micro $1,400,000.00 -$187,600.00 -13.40% 1

Insight Enterprises $1,500,000.00 -$484,500.00 -32.30% 1

Omnicare $1,800,000.00 -$1,369,800.00 -76.10% 1

Pantry $2,900,000.00 -$368,300.00 -12.70% 1

Con-way $4,600,000.00 -$5,308,400.00 -115.40% 1

Holly $4,600,000.00 -$2,396,600.00 -52.10% 1

FMC Technologies $6,700,000.00 -$13,400.00 -0.20% 1

NYSE Euronext $6,700,000.00 -$3,102,100.00 -46.30% 1

SPX $9,000,000.00 -$3,636,000.00 -40.40% 1

Dean Foods $12,600,000.00 -$4,838,400.00 -38.40% 1

Cliffs Natural Resources $12,800,000.00 -$4,915,200.00 -38.40% 1

Interpublic Group $14,800,000.00 -$4,839,600.00 -32.70% 1

Rockwell Automation $14,800,000.00 -$355,200.00 -2.40% 1

Casey's General Stores $15,000,000.00 -$675,000.00 -4.50% 1

Domtar $16,200,000.00 -$615,600.00 -3.80% 1

Navistar International $16,200,000.00 -$2,997,000.00 -18.50% 1

Southwest Airlines $16,500,000.00 -$2,392,500.00 -14.50% 1

Paccar $18,700,000.00 -$13,576,200.00 -72.60% 2

Reliance Steel & Aluminum $19,700,000.00 -$1,477,500.00 -7.50% 1

Eli Lilly $20,200,000.00 -$20,785,800.00 -102.90% 1

Eastman Chemical $20,400,000.00 -$8,200,800.00 -40.20% 1

International Paper $21,700,000.00 -$24,889,900.00 -114.70% 1

Health Management Associates $24,400,000.00 -$732,000.00 -3.00% 1

Tenet Healthcare $25,700,000.00 -$5,397,000.00 -21.00% 2

Yum Brands $29,400,000.00 -$6,967,800.00 -23.70% 1

Mattel $35,600,000.00 -$2,100,400.00 -5.90% 1

Apache $43,900,000.00 -$13,038,300.00 -29.70% 1

Peabody Energy $46,500,000.00 -$93,000.00 -0.20% 2

Ryder System $47,500,000.00 -$4,987,500.00 -10.50% 2

H.J. Heinz $50,000,000.00 -$2,650,000.00 -5.30% 1

Integrys Energy Group $52,500,000.00 -$9,397,500.00 -17.90% 2

Scana $53,300,000.00 -$4,690,400.00 -8.80% 1

Reinsurance Group of America $54,300,000.00 -$21,611,400.00 -39.80% 1

R.R. Donnelley & Sons $56,100,000.00 -$4,936,800.00 -8.80% 1

Halliburton $56,500,000.00 -$2,994,500.00 -5.30% 1

Marathon Oil $57,100,000.00 -$23,239,700.00 -40.70% 1

Atmos Energy $61,200,000.00 -$11,077,200.00 -18.10% 2

Computer Sciences $62,600,000.00 -$39,688,400.00 -63.40% 1

State Street Corp. $73,100,000.00 -$88,524,100.00 -121.10% 1

Baxter International $74,500,000.00 -$10,504,500.00 -14.10% 2

NiSource $84,500,000.00 -$25,857,000.00 -30.60% 2

Yahoo $85,500,000.00 -$8,208,000.00 -9.60% 1

CMS Energy $86,800,000.00 -$3,298,400.00 -3.80% 2

Pepco Holdings $88,200,000.00 -$50,803,200.00 -57.60% 3

Deere $90,700,000.00 -$90,700.00 -0.10% 1

DuPont $94,900,000.00 -$10,913,500.00 -11.50% 1

DTE Energy $95,000,000.00 -$17,195,000.00 -18.10% 1

Ameren $95,300,000.00 -$7,338,100.00 -7.70% 1

Xcel Energy $104,800,000.00 -$3,982,400.00 -3.80% 1

Wisconsin Energy $107,200,000.00 -$15,651,200.00 -14.60% 2

PPL $116,900,000.00 -$12,274,500.00 -10.50% 2

Sempra Energy $117,100,000.00 -$1,053,900.00 -0.90% 1

Corning $117,600,000.00 -$823,200.00 -0.70% 2

FedEx $120,800,000.00 -$3,865,600.00 -3.20% 1

CenterPoint Energy $125,000,000.00 -$32,375,000.00 -25.90% 2

Capital One Financial $125,900,000.00 -$15,233,900.00 -12.10% 1

Progress Energy $141,900,000.00 -$4,540,800.00 -3.20% 1

Consolidated Edison $152,800,000.00 -$14,363,200.00 -9.40% 1

Entergy $199,200,000.00 -$43,226,400.00 -21.70% 1

Time Warner $203,100,000.00 -$7,514,700.00 -3.70% 1

Occidental Petroleum $206,800,000.00 -$413,600.00 -0.20% 1

FirstEnergy $239,800,000.00 -$20,622,800.00 -8.60% 2

Hewlett-Packard $242,400,000.00 -$8,726,400.00 -3.60% 1

Exxon Mobil $249,000,000.00 -$95,367,000.00 -38.30% 1

Chesapeake Energy $280,600,000.00 -$12,065,800.00 -4.30% 1

Honeywell International $296,600,000.00 -$51,015,200.00 -17.20% 2

American Electric Power $388,300,000.00 -$71,058,900.00 -18.30% 2

Duke Energy $391,700,000.00 -$27,419,000.00 -7.00% 2

NextEra Energy $392,500,000.00 -$14,915,000.00 -3.80% 2

El Paso $410,500,000.00 -$4,105,000.00 -1.00% 3

PG&E Corp. $485,500,000.00 -$102,926,000.00 -21.20% 3

Goldman Sachs Group $490,900,000.00 -$78,544,000.00 -16.00% 1

Merck $576,600,000.00 -$5,766,000.00 -1.00% 1

PNC Financial Services Group $798,200,000.00 -$31,928,000.00 -4.00% 2

Boeing $973,500,000.00 -$17,523,000.00 -1.80% 3

General Electric $1,046,000,000.00 -$473,838,000.00 -45.30% 3

Wells Fargo $2,179,700,000.00 -$396,705,400.00 -18.20% 1

Verizon Communications $2,422,400,000.00 -$130,809,600.00 -5.40% 2

$15,587,200,000.00 -$2,182,413,300.00

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

For the most part, I think they are hilarious! It makes my day to get on here and read this stuff! For some on here, the word "corporation" seems to automatically convey "success". I had a lot of ideas and plans for this "success". Most of them didn't work at all. I lost my ass on them. I finally had success with two ideas and incorporated each of them. One had 45 employees and the other only four. I estimate that for every "success" there are probably a hundred failures.

Here's a couple of ideas that might be successful should any of you have the ability to follow up on them. Be careful, though. There's a good chance of failure: But, that's the chance a businessman takes. He puts his past successes on the line every time he opens his shop. He puts his future on the line every time he expands. There ARE no guarantees with him. There is no guaranteed hourly wage nor insurance nor health care. He makes it or breaks it. He HOPES the people he has hired are able to build what he has thought of. Part of the decisions he must make are to get rid of those who CAN'T and hire more that CAN.

Try one of these ideas:

Mom's Spit. You remember Mom's Spit, don't you? That's when Mom spit on a hankie and rubbed the dirt from your face, or pushed back a lock of hair.Take that and run with it, if you have the ability to do so.

Individualize a plastic container about the size of a suitcase. What with the cost of taking your things with you on a plane, you can probably ship it to your destination a week early for less. You don't really care how long it takes your clothes to return, do you?

Pockets: Everyone can use an extra pocket in a shirt or blouse. Unless you are military you probably only have one the size that will take a pack of smokes, leaving your glasses on your head, where there's a good chance you forget them. Find a good way to attach a pocket or two to any garment. You'll make a million selling pockets.

Go ahead...run with it...if you dare. You'll need capital...sell stock in your corporation to your friends...become a corporate CEO. Then come back on here and tell us all about it.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

I disagree wholeheartedly.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

your money?

[-] 1 points by untold (24) 2 years ago

the FED is a blank check-book being wielded by a few selfish rich men and we're all going into debt because of these idiots. not to mention its watering down the value of all of our goods. it has us in this situation where we NEED to go in debt to prosper as a country. that means we need to take on SMART DEBT... or debt that has a chance of making us lots of money. EDUCATION is the smartest debt. it is humanity's insurance. more smart people will just create more markets in the future.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

In case you dont know the FED Tarp money was paid back long ago. QE1 and QE2 shored up the value of MBS so as to prevent the economy from going further down. As for inflation, QE contributed almost nothing to inflation (as per CPI release in Nov) though inflation was expected. And the current rate of inflation in US can hardly be called 'watering down'. Most other countries have higher inflation.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Wow, how can anyone read this and not see the crystal clear truth of it?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

I don't know, that is why we have to keep talking about this stuff.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

Interesting...The workers are the real producers...Certainly true...without the workers there would be NO production at all! That's obvious. You seem to be saying that the workers should get all the credit in a successful business...I may be wrong with that assumption, but it appears that is what you believe.

If it is indeed true that the workers get all the credit, then who is to blame for all failures? (Businesses fail or succeed in at least a ten to one ratio) Does it not seem obvious that should one take the credit for success, then he/they must take the blame for any failure?

Or do we do as all politicians...put the blame on someone else? Are only the successful businesses to the workers credit?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

Ah hah. Good question. Labor includes management as well. Managers are part of labor. Their compensation is included in the cost of labor as well, though, of course they usually make more and their remuneration is a bigger lump of the labor costs per capita. My point is that it is wrong to devalue lower level workers just because their skill set is less. Without them the production would not happen.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Morning Beautiful, hey I'm freeloading too, sortof letting you be my editor, I only got so much time to read, want to get to the good stuff, thanks for helping and doing what you do.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

Well, facts are fun, right, factsrfun? And that's one of the great things about this forum, we learn a lot from other people's knowledge. In this case it's really jph to thank.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

that's right (factsrfun for liberals) gave jph comment, shows up much father down

[-] -2 points by Libertarianliving (149) 2 years ago

Well then, just simply don't go work for them or buy their products!

[+] -6 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

How naive. I am confused. When did labor become so important? I mean, sure if you are Google or Microsoft, labor (employee) is important and I am sure simply throwing money in the air wouldn't have created Google unless you also had smart people to go with. But manufacturing? Unless you are making an F1 car, tightening screws and bolts and knowing how to use a wrench, well did that become so important and irreplaceable?

I understand how OWS like to romanticize about labor, much like the communists. But hey, reality check, not all labor is equally important.

[-] 5 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Everyone who works for pay is sacrificing their time of life for the effort. We all have different skill-sets, however all our time of life is of equal value. Claiming otherwise is pure ego, the height of arrogance, and clearly shows an anti-social mentality. Thanks for playing.

[+] -4 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I am sorry. No. Not everyone's time is equally valuable from a purely mathematical perspective. If you want to think emotionally, you can come to any conclusion but from a purely number driven perspective, the answer is a BIG NO.

". Claiming otherwise is pure ego, the height of arrogance, and clearly shows an anti-social mentality" - That is a typical cultist mentality. If only I had a dime everything someone here made a statement to someone that goes "If you dont believe/support/agree to X then you are Y", where Y is usually something horrific, I could simply retire.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

You make no point, just saying NO is not an argument. Your claim that labor is unimportant is in fact an indication of your mental state, pure ego and anti-society. If manufacturing does not mater to you then stop using products you did not make your self in your rugged individualist workshop. Thank you come again.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I never said 'unimporant', do you have trouble in processing language? I said, not all labor is equally important. Is capital important? You may think not. But try telling this to a cash strapped company that might have to lay off workers and shut a few factories to continue operations.

Is the labor done by workers at Coca Cola's bottling plant equally important to those working at crafting suits at a Prada workshop? I don't think so.In fact, with Coca Cola labor is the least important thing. Their (and Pepsi) entire sales depends on advertizing and in ads what matters is simply how much money you have. But with Prada, ads cant sell a good suit. I would rather buy a suit from some non advertized place at West End rather than some crap brand that it there on TV and Internet at all times.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I quote "When did labor become so important?".

Do you have trouble recalling what you wrote? Calling yourself "smart" does not make it so.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

'So important' and 'unimportant' are different degrees of 'importance'. Exercising daily is not 'so important' but getting a pedicure is 'unimportant'. Does that helps?

[-] 3 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

i agree with jph, i think our society is somehow controlled by idiots, who pay guys who throw a foot ball or shoot a basketball millions of dollars a year, whilst the guys who build our homes, and plumb them, filter our drinking water, repair our cars so that we can get to work on time get paid paycheck to paycheck. Id rather see a flip flop, lets pay the people we need the most, like farming our food too, but food is cheap cheap cheap in comparison. Nothing in our economic system adds up thats why we believe a global collapse is coming.

And lets not forget the corporations, this is another example of how the people at the bottom make less than what they need to survive, and yet the products they make we all purchase in our stores we can hardly live without. Its all just so dumb.

[+] -4 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Oh good, you admit you are an idiot.Now, in case it wasnt clear to you occutards, there is no committee that sits and decides what the salary of each of the professions should be, you know like "we the evil 1% decree that foot ball player should all make at least a million a year and factory workers are not be paid more than $40k.". Sorry doesnt work that way. The reason a baseball player get paid that kind of money is simply because its so hard to get into. There are few people among which the spoils are shared and so everyone earns a lot. And it takes years of hard work, training, mental and physical strength to get there. Compared to that anyone can become a plumber, there isnt much of a contest there, is it?

See I know you guys anything where you have to compete because you guys suck at it. You are the participation trophy crowd. But real life has no participation trophy mate.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I don't think you are getting it SC.... it's not so much about labor as it is about having a strong middle and lower class economy.... and labor for the most part provides that... I don't care what they/we are doing ..just as long as we are producing our own income.... otherwise the consumer base collapses and then it's only time before the upper classes' wealth deflates.. and they collapse also...

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

The middle class itself transforms over time. So dont worry.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

I'm not worried about the middle class... we can always revert to communal living ... as we are moving to already... I'm worried about saving the capitalistic prosperity building system

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Let's see, your auto analogy...tightening screws and bolts...let's go with something really simple and visible...lug nuts. Don't tighten them properly tire comes off, car crashes. Tie rods, same issue don't put them in properly nice crash.

All labor takes some skill. Some labor takes lots of skill. The man who makes sure your brakes work may not be able to understand the theory of relativity, but he can sure make sure that your car stops.

Labor, all labor is like the cogs in a machine, some are large some are extremely tiny, yet let one stop and the whole thing bogs down.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Sure and I agree. But even with cogs, some are more expensive to make and replace than others.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

I know you are smarter than this, smartcapitalist! LOL! Go ahead, try to make that car with no labor.

And, we never say all labor is freaking equal in terms of compensation. Come on. All labor IS humanity, though and is valuable and deserving of a decent, respectable life, yes!

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

If i or anyone could make cars without NO labor then surely car companies would have laid off all their shop floor workers. Similarly if the laborers thought they are invaluable they could have demanded more salary or even quit, heck they could have started their own car company, what with your claim of capital being unimportant. But they don't because they know that any unemployed guy with functioning hands and legs can be put to work with minimal training. Is it that hard to understand?

In much the same way Bryan Cantrill was far more important for Sun Microsystems than me (I worked there once) and Jeff Dean is far more important to Google than most of it's other programmers. Therefore these guys earn far more, get higher stock options etc.

"All labor IS humanity, though and is valuable and deserving of a decent life" - Yes sure. the baseline would be foodstamps. If they want to do better than they need to do work and be valuable in it. I am not sure what your definition of decent it. And I dont think we can agree on that either. Your definition of decent seems to be something of a govt funded life long holiday.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

People over profit. Period. You are an automaton.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Sure any day. But it's not an either or thing. It's more of an indifference curve. You cannot keep any people employed without profits. And you can't have profits without proper people and keeping people happy.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

Okay, but as long as there are profits there is no excuse for paying people a wage that is less than enough to live decently on. Decent meaning being able to pay for housing, food, education, transportation, healthcare, etc. all the basic essential needs a family might have.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Again profits dont mean you have to licence for profligacy. Sorry. It's common sense. You save money to fund future expansions, to increase ad spending, buy other businesses or to simply act as a buffer in bad times. That's what people do even in households. You dont buy your kid a BMW and wipe your ass with silver plated toilet paper just because you earn $150k a year. You save. Even billionaires save.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

Who said labor should be paid at a "profligacy" rate? I said they should be paid a wage they can actually live on! Why do you guys think, as soon as labor is treated fairly, somehow the sky will fall?

[+] -4 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Who knows, may be. Can't risk the sky falling, can we? And they are treated fairly. Its a market determined rate. And the market is always fair.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

No. The invisible hand of the market lack humanity. Humans first.

[-] 1 points by flip (7475) 2 years ago

here is noam on the invisible hand - "Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People." He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, destroys the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It destroys community, the environment, and human values generally—and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces. (...)[20]

and

Rather interestingly these issues were foreseen by the great founders of modern economics, Adam Smith for example. He recognized and discussed what would happen to Britain if the masters adhered to the rules of sound economics -- what's now called neoliberalism. He warned that if British manufacturers, merchants, and investors turned abroad, they might profit but England would suffer. However, he felt that this wouldn't happen because the masters would be guided by a home bias. So as if by an invisible hand England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality. That passage is pretty hard to miss. It's the only occurrence of the famous phrase "invisible hand" in Wealth of Nations, namely in a critique of what we call neoliberalism.[21][22]
[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

Thanks, flip!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

“The market is always fair”? What’s fair about a billion dollar company negotiating with little old me about what I should get paid? When me and “him” walk into the Mayor’s office who you think he’s going to listen to? Dude there ain’t no Santa Clause, no Easter Bunny and nothin’ in life is “fair”.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

The market has many billion dollar companies so if you think one particular company is not paying you fairly, you are free to go search for work elsewhere. And you are right, nothing in life is 100% fair. Get used to it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey I just thought your "the market is always fair" was just so precious I had to say something.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

‎"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" - Mark Twain

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You should of listen to him.

[-] 1 points by flip (7475) 2 years ago

boy are you confused - you have nothing without the worker - from your computer to the water coming out of the tap - no house, no car, no electricity - where do you think that comes from. who digs the coal - who transports it? what are you thinking - you are not it seems. look at greece when they call a general strike - the country shuts down - you may not like it but labor can stop everything. we are going skiing in aspen - where the smart guys in suits don't come to work we ski just fine - when the grunts that run the lifts and groom the slopes late at night don't show we are done skiing! wake up - and you call yourself smart - you do know that most people who say they are smart are not! the smart ones first of all know that others are smarter and - oh never mind.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Going for skiing in Aspen? Good. Where does the money for that come from? You have to do a job for that, the vacation won't last forever. And when you come back to the job, you will be paid based on what value you bring to the firm. As for your retort about me not being smart, you just called me not-smart which as per your own convoluted logic automatically makes you 'non'-smart.

The worker sure matters but some matter more. The guy who repairs my car is not as important as the designer who designed it or the engineer who engineered it. And not each of those engineers who worked on it is equally important either. Similarly, the sales guy who sold me the car is not as important as the Head of Sales and Marketing at the car company because had it not been for the continuous promotion of the car company that I have been subjected to since I was a kid, I would probably not be buying it now. And the CEO of the car company matters even more than the Head of Sales and Marketing.

I understand that a lot of people in these forums have never held any middle (or even lower middle) management jobs or even high paid engineering jobs; most of them it seems have held jobs lower down the rung and hence the unfounded arrogance and smugness about their own importance. It's a feel good thing, a make-believe that hey, though my job is to serve coffee at one of the thousands of Starbucks outlet in the country, I am still somehow more important than Howard Schultz, the CEO of starbucks.

And this cognitive dissonance is at the heart of the discontent expressed everywhere in this forum. You can't come to terms with reality so you would rather protest to get reality altered rather than change with it.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Really SC, your attempts to demean people you've never met and know nothing about do make you a joke. The price of labor is "based on the value to the firm". No, more accurately, it's based on "how cheap can I get it" No I don't work for Starbucks. As I've stated before, I own a small business. I hire people. I value people who do real work. I have a question for people out there. Who is more valuable to society, an investment analyst or the sanitation worker that picks up their garbage.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Which people is your rhetorical question directed to? The market determines wages. I dont think people need to get a mba degree to become a janitor. Does janitorial work require maths? Calculus? Any of it? But hey you wouldn't know all of that or even if you did, you wouldn't acknowledge. Yours is the kind of rhetoric that I have heard from only one other group of people, a group I detest even more than OWS; the politicians, our elected representatives. They are expert at ignoring facts and making rhetorical statements to cheer the crowd. You sound like one of those.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Yes yes, the market. Isn't it odd that when a union strikes for higher wages, and management realizes they can either pay more, try to do it themselves or make no profit at all, the "market price" can instantly go up. The "value to the company" takes a leap. So market price isn't so clearly defined.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Its defined by the negotiating party with the most power. Since companies have more negotiating power than individuals ("there are enough unemployed people that we can wait until someone takes our low-ball offer") the company wins most of the time. It is only when we have unionized labor that the labor can hold more power, and suddenly the company has to negotiate. That's why it is so important to keep labors alive, and make sure "right to work" also means "right to demand a fair wage."

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

I agree.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Yes sir. What was your first clue? Market price isnt clearly defined. There is no board somewhere that says Factory Workers: $10/hr Baristas: $12/hr Engineers: $100/hr Investment Bankers: $1000/hr Lawyers: $1200/hr

In fact, in some cases if you switched jobs, you salary will suddenly increase by 30%. It depends on what the industry is paying, the value that the parrticular person brings (or seems to bring) to the table and of course bargaining power on either side. Which is why workers form unions to get better bargaining power.

And this applies for almost everything. Does food cost same across all restaurants? Do all cars cost the same?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

So there is not really an specific intrinsic value to any given job. It's supply and demand, yes but that can easily be skewed. My point was, it isn't really based so much on "the value to the company" but rather, how cheap can we get him/her.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

God. You still can get ur head around it can you? Companies will try to hire for as cheap as possible and employees will try to extract as much compensation as possible. If I told my boss than I am ready to work for $100k and that too no bonus he would be a happy man. But would I? Similarly, if a fresher analyst ask for my level of compensation, we will laugh at his/her face. If tomorrow 10 other equally competent and experienced analyst come up and are ready to work for less, I dunno I might have to search for another job. Similarly if another firm approaches me with a better offer and a higher position, I would say goodbye to this firm. What is it about this simple aspect that you cant understand? Seriously, I am at my wits end here.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

The distinction I'm trying to make is there is not necessarily a direct correlation between value to the company and compensation. That was an assertion that you made in a comment above. "you will be paid based on what value you bring to the firm". While the value to the firm is obviously a factor and tends to set a ceiling, it's not the same as how cheap can we get the service.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Your compensation is primarily a function of your value to the firm

[-] 1 points by flip (7475) 2 years ago

there is a saying from more than 100 yrs ago - "those that work in the factory should own it" - and how about " those that don't work with their hands are parasites" - you can make the case that an engineer who has gotten an education should be paid more than one who works on the line but that is not a law of nature - just the opposite in fact. look to history and see if your idea that one person is more valuable than another has been around for a long time - here is black elk - "I could see that the Wasichus did not care for each other the way our people did before the nation's hoop was broken. They would take everything from each other if they could, and so there were some who had more of everything than they could use, while crowds of people had nothing at all and maybe were starving.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I am not sure what people said 100 years ago. As an analyst (and a bit of trading exp) my focus varies from a few hours to a decade at max, either way.

And I people who don't work by hand are parasites, the everyone from school teacher, to scientists are parasites. But seriously, is that how you discuss economics? By quoting some made up quotes, facts and reasoning be damned. Rather, "he said" and "she said" stuff.

And the law of nature is actually far brutal than what we have in the human society. In nature, the more powerful animal kills the less powerful ones and sometimes even their young ones so that one ever contests him. That's the law of nature for you. In nature, if you are too weak to hunt for yourself, you die; no one provides you with food. In nature, if the deer is slightly slower than the cheetah, it dies.

As for history, it is only now that the civilized man with more refined sensibilities demands equality and dignity for human life. In earlier times, there used to be slaves who were considered property. In olden times there used to be the monarchy and a few of his cohorts, then the feudal lords who weld some power and then everyone else, the common peasant who had hardly any power.

So may be it is you that needs to look into history and nature and of course economics.

[-] 1 points by flip (7475) 2 years ago

made up quotes - wow - shows your lack of knowledge. the point of the quotes is to show you that for many years this fight has been going on. i can get you the context if you need it but shouldn't be necessary. that fat pig of a man, winston churchill would agree with you but most do not - here is winston -"democracy" is successfully achieved when the government is safely in the hands of "the rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations," .you are pretty selective about human history - your thoughts about monarchs and common peasants show a very small view of history. we go back much farther than that - when there were no rich or poor, no monarchs to rule or peasants to be slaughtered - just communities of equals. black elk's comment was just over 100 yrs ago so that shows there were lots of people who do not see the world as you do. the fact that you have trouble seeing that or understanding that shows your lack of a real education. do not lecture me about economics - again you have a one sided view of the "science" and a real ignorance of how the world actually works. i am sure i sent you max neef - he points out clearly that the profession of economics is totally ass backwards but you cannot see it. you are right about one thing - we have progressed from the days when the king could rule the peasants - this is the same fight, just the latest phase and you are on the side of the monarch and the hedge fund managers. the sad part is you do not realize it - poorly educated - you must have been a ivy league guy!

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Storing quotes in my brain does not add to my paycheck. If that's the kind of knowledge you consider valuable, good for you. I am sure your non Ivy League education has taken you very far in life.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Yes,neoliberalism is the law of the jungle. It is moving backward to feudalism. Thank you Milton and Greg for your contributions to society.

[-] 3 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

LOL, we ARE the producers. A simple concept that somehow escapes most people in america and this forum. Without the working class, there is nothing, not even a country. As soon as this concept is part of the discussion without needing to be said, everything else will fall inline.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

When the poop stops getting scooped...The place is sure going to stink!

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

It is good to read from someone who thinks people are more important than a bottom line.

[-] 2 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

the wealthy are the biggest parasites on the planet. where would they be without workers to exploit????

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

---> "according to Heritage, the problem is not wealthy people paying very low taxes, it is humans who have human needs who are a "a potentially ruinous drain on federal finances."

that's all the more reason to take that burden off their hands ... by building our own Fed level "Social Reserve Bank"

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

nor do they mention that retired presidents are paid 450k per year until they die. with free medical. and retired senators are paid 350k a year until they die with free medical. and you know some of those guys.. like wiener for example are very young.. he will draw for what.,, maybe another 50 years at the tax payers expense?

[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

Not enough people care.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

I would say it is not that they do not care, it is that they "do not know".

For if the masses were truly educated, they would then care.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

Thank You a fine post.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

Many of the corporations at Wall Street do not 'produce'. They merely move money around or a "redistribution of wealth" as they like to call it. It has been claimed that this movement of money generates value. I'm not sure about everyone else here but I'm beginning to doubt that 'value'.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thank You for this excellent post!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I heard this a lot in the 1980’s working at a nuclear plant, so I start investing in 1989 by 1995 I was making more from investments than my managers did in salary, I didn’t change my position, still didn’t really change their opinions, one of my early introductions to “faith based” politics that is not affected by facts. First time I’ve done this but here’s a repost of something I put up a couple weeks ago, supports your point.

Bush tax cut = Deficit

In the summer of 2001 Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that, “We are on track to pay the debit off completely within 10 years.........the biggest economic threat facing America is that we will pay our debit off too quickly and then Washington might not spend the money wisely.” Now he used Greenspan speak but this is what he said, then we pasted the Bush tax cuts and the rest is history.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Now don't you go making sense and presenting facts. Somebody's head might explode and you don't want that on your hands.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

oppps...then some working stiff would have to clean the mess up..I'd better be more careful

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

We're all God's children. Some of us just deserve a higher allowance.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

You deserve nothing.And if you claim to be a child of god it must be the God Mamon.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

and I say again....since you fools like to conceal the truth:

There was no paydown on the debt when Clinton was president......hahaha

where do you get that nonsense...the debt only went down twice since WW2....in 1948 and 1951.......every other year it increased....

and......if you want to mention Clinton and low deficits you must rightfully include the fact that all of those low deficits were from budgets created and passed by a Republican controlled "conservative" congress......

Clintons two years under Democrat controlled congresses had yearly deficits that exceeded ALL of Reagans yearly deficits but one (the one posted the year BEFORE the final tax cut) and only by 7%...

Oil and Coal get no direct subsidy, it is all based on earnings and profit, and is tax reduction that is also provided to, in some cases, ALL business enterprises, and in other cases all natural resource enterprises...like salt, copper, gold, and such...

If you want to see subsidy that creates no profit, and no return on investment....look into the government venture capitalism into alternative energy since 2009....which is mostly payola for campaign support in the 2008 elections....

Your "collectivist" lowest common denominator nonsense is as old as time, and has failed in every instance.....time to wake up and get with the program...

Your "intentions" mean NOTHING if your results don't back them up......and the "war on poverty", The Square Deal, The New Deal, The Fair Deal, and the Great Society have attempted for over a hundred years now to use redistribution of wealth and collectivist notions as ammunition against poverty, and it is the biggest failure of all times......

Poverty is a mindset, supporting those with that mindset, without also attempting to educate them to the failure of their idea's ensures poverty will continue.......PERIOD

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

The Reagan tax cut boosted growth and cut unemployment. You assume that growth will always be there. Expenses across teh baord should be cut including the defense budget and subsidies. There should be no subsidies what so over. Entitlement programs have to be eliminated as well as they are taking a larger portion of the budget and don't produce any growth.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Growth is NOT always a good thing. Endless growth on a finite planet is just not possible, this is simple logic. Unfortunately in economics theory logic is not a factor.

http://degrowth.org/

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Our problem is not over growth and over population. It is just the exact opposite. Every first world nation save the US is not pro-creating. This debate was argued in the 70's already.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Funny, the wold population is still growing quickly. And human consumption of natural resources grows even faster.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

But isn't a "finite plane" only a theoretical construct? The real world is infinite. The limitations we perceive are only limitations of the mind.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Ok swami good luck with that. I guess there has been no reduction of oil supplies? (peeked before 2005) never been a shortage of food, water, or any of the stuff people need to live?? Species are not being forced into extinction due to habitat loss at an alarming rate, no fishery has ever collapsed, or logging operation closed down,. and on and on. In the real world physical limits are reached all the time.

The economic idea that growth is a requirement is just a flawed idea.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Sure there has been a reduction in oil supplies, but did you know there is a vast supply of the material used to create nuclear fusion reactions on the moon? Throughout the existence of humanity we have constantly used up one energy resource, only to move on to a better one.

If we focused on solving the problems of nuclear power, we could have an abundant supply of energy for over a thousand years. After that, we can move to matter-anti matter reactions, which are even more powerful.

We can also reforest areas to provide more habitats for animals through projects like NAWAPA which would bring vast quantities of fresh water from Alaska to the central American desert.

We could create agricultural land there, and when the water evaporates, it would be distributed as rain across the country, helping both wild and agricultural land to grow more vegetation.

In the real world, limits are indeed reached, but human creativity enables us to go beyond them.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Nice science fiction! We have NO nuclear fusion reactors nor the tech to build them. As the fukushima nuclear plant shows, we are currently unable to safely use that tech. from the 50s. And the cost of building the plants is huge, yet the cost of maintaining the wast "holding facilities" (as we have NO way to actually deal with the wast, we just hold it, hoping to "one day" come up with something!) is not factored into the price of energy sold from these plants. That is the profits are taken now and the cost of the wast management is offloaded to future generations.

There is no techno-fix. We need to deal with reality not some sci-fi dream world. Perhaps you should go to a Darth-Gingrich site and pledge your support for the new moon base, so we can get the fuel to run those reactors we don't yet know how to build?

I also have great faith in human ingenuity and our abilities, however we need to focus on cleaning up the mess we have, not making a much bigger one. We need to focus on rebuilding the natural systems that actually sustain life on this planet, working with nature, using appropriate low tech. systems that work. Not moon basses and rocket dreams.

Permaculture, Degrowth, Relocalize, SlowMoney,. etc.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I am aware that we have no fusion reactors, but I believe that with continued research and development, we could have them. This was originally what we called "the American way", to think that all technical problems can be solved.

There are dangers involved with all energy sources, but I am not aware of any deaths due to the escape of radiation at Fukushima. I believe more people die from the waste going into the air from energy derived from fossil fuels than from the nuclear waste buried underground.

America was founded on industrialism, we fought the British empire so that we could make our own stuff and be independent. Having a clean environment is a good idea, but it has been turned into anit-industrial propaganda by the remnants of the same empire for the purpose of taking away our independence.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Agreed

[+] -5 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

There was no paydown on the debt when Clinton was president......hahaha

where do you get that nonsense...the debt only went down twice since WW2....in 1948 and 1951.......every other year it increased....

and......if you want to mention Clinton and low deficits you must rightfully include the fact that all of those low deficits were from budgets created and passed by a Republican controlled "conservative" congress......

Clintons two years under Democrat controlled congresses had yearly deficits that exceeded ALL of Reagans yearly deficits but one (the one posted the year BEFORE the final tax cut) and only by 7%...

Oil and Coal get no direct subsidy, it is all based on earnings and profit, and is tax reduction that is also provided to, in some cases, ALL business enterprises, and in other cases all natural resource enterprises...like salt, copper, gold, and such...

If you want to see subsidy that creates no profit, and no return on investment....look into the government venture capitalism into alternative energy since 2009....which is mostly payola for campaign support in the 2008 elections....

Your "collectivist" lowest common denominator nonsense is as old as time, and has failed in every instance.....time to wake up and get with the program...

Your "intentions" mean NOTHING if your results don't back them up......and the "war on poverty", The Square Deal, The New Deal, The Fair Deal, and the Great Society have attempted for over a hundred years now to use redistribution of wealth and collectivist notions as ammunition against poverty, and it is the biggest failure of all times......

Poverty is a mindset, supporting those with that mindset, without also attempting to educate them to the failure of their idea's ensures poverty will continue.......PERIOD

[-] 8 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

'Poverty is a mindset" really? You clearly have so little grasp on reality it is not even possible to debate with your faith based stupidity. Get a clue, grow up, and join the human race.

The concentration of wealth and power is a perpetual problem with small minded greedy monkeys, people forget this from time to time and let the sociopathic minority take too much. However the greedy few seem to forget where their stolen wealth comes from, and that when pushed too far the majority will, in the end, push back. Get ready for a pendulum swing of epic proportions.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Normally I don't support any sort of name calling but your honest emotion is heartfelt and your points on target.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Swami, "faith based stupidity", those are good. Do you mind if I borrow them from time to time? It is too funny and on target.

[-] 0 points by asauti (-113) from Port Orchard, WA 2 years ago

Did Gandhi live in a state of poverty?

And what about Jesus Christ?

[-] -2 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 2 years ago

No they both lived in luxury for their times.

Jesus was probably best known for drinking wine and hanging with whores. A life that even today would be quite expensive.

With regards to 'Gandi' the best quote of all time is "It takes a fortune to keep Gandi Poor", ... See while Gandi was portrayed as poor he had kings team of body-guards and staff at his disposal.

Both of the above men were in reality quite RICH.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

all I can do is laugh at your silly sad little pathetic comment.......

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Laugh it up monkey boy. The momentum of the swing back is already unstoppable. Your anti-collectivist pro-individual wealth dreamworld is about to be shaken to the core. Good luck with that, I hope when you awaken, you decide to join with the human people and work together for a better life instead of just working to take more than you need.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

shaken by you fools in your douchy skinny jeans and scarves, lazily standing and sitting around in the public commons......I'm not concerned...

and, as for the more violent anarchist elements of your silly little movement....we have tools to deal with your nonsense as well, and every one of your new escapades diminishes your support by the general public....

If that is shaking to the core...have at it, it's not even stirring a ring in my coffee cup, on your BEST day.......More people turned out to welcome home the victorious Giants in NYC than you gather in a month to support your foolish cause....please refrain from back-patting your callow little public temper tantrum...most Americans are unmoved and unimpressed, and just want rid of you....

I work to take what I EARN.......EARN!...GET IT....that is a word you should familiarize yourself with, it's a word of great importance to productive people, if you ever want more than the groveling crumbs you have, you would do well to learn it's meaning and the methods for it's attainment........

You fools don't want to work together with anyone, you want others to work together and provide for you....you talk of social contracts, fairness and obligation, but those things are always the responsibility of the other guy....you just want the benefits without the effort, and you somehow think you deserve the same things another person has earned just because you exist........Your parents and educators have failed you, and the only way you will EVER have a better life is to earn one......I hope when YOU awaken to the stark reality of the world that you haven't wasted too much of your time with your foolish notions and can enjoy the fruits of your efforts before you pass on.....

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22348) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Wow 5 whole points in this incarnation. I am so impressed Slammer.

How long will you be digging your hole this time, before you reincarnate again?

We all of us would miss your put-downs and belittling if you were to ever go away ( NOT ).

You are a happy hole digger aren't you?

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

that's all you have to say........I'm impressed :-/

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22348) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You should get in touch with smartcaptitalist. Maybe He can mentor you. You are both quite similar, but he has a whole 162 points. That is staying power when one is so negative and myopically blind obtuse and dense in their overweening arrogance. Really he may provide you with some tips on how to keep your negative attacks from taking your score negative.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I don't care how you view me......those like you in 1930's Germany would have made me disappear.....but thankfully we don't live in such a place.....

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22348) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It's more than obvious that you don't care what others think. Why else do you think your comments are so universally down voted? It is because they are worse than useless. It is because your comments are more like the spewing of filth.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

no, it's because the truth gets in the way of collectivists....that is why they have historically eliminated those who spoke counter to their idea's.....just like the "voting down" accomplishes here......

You'd have made a fine SS "Brown Shirt" Officer.......

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22348) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Again with your filth and belittling. Your stupid put-downs, and mud slinging. If you were not recognized already as a blind marching corruption supporter I might take offense.

But you are so I won't.

Keep digging it is a long way to China. When you get there you will feel right at home with "their" Powers that Be.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

hardly...the Chinese are collectivists after your own heart....and they did it for the "Good of the people"....Well......of course, only the people who agreed with the collective.....

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22348) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

In your next incarnation you should change your name again to reflect more of your mental make-up.

I mean slammersworld is fine as it is, in that is what you try to do ( slam other people and "just" ideas ).

But you should add SFB as it does most readily support your mentality = Shit For Brains.

I mean really? Come on! You expect anyone to buy this shit???? :

-] 1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (5) 0 minutes ago

you are fighting for things that don't exist, and in that vein your exploits are meaningless.....there is no land of Milk and Honey, no Utopia where life is easy and free and where competition doesn't exist......and your wasting your efforts looking for it......but, they are your efforts to waste.....so, have at it, the results are know, and the exercise futile....the rest of us will observe in tickled glee as you fail.....again, as you always do.... ↥like ↧dislike permalink

You might even consider adding "SA" as you have a Shitty Attitude.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

most of you don't have the faculties to understand reality, as most of the authority figures in your lives have sold you lock, stock, and barrel on utopian nonsense...to the point you actually believe it, like a child and Santa Clause of the Tooth Fairy......

To give up your notions would be to surrender your weakly constructed identities.....

Something that struggle and success has already accomplished more those of us who have entered the mature world.....

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22348) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nice come - back slammerschmuck you may yet learn how to hang - on to your 5 points for awhile.

[-] 1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (5) 9 minutes ago

I'm quite sure I've engaged in more brutish difficult manual labor than a fool such as yourself......

and since you really have no coherent points, you're nothing more than mere entertainment anyway...... ↥like ↧dislike permalink

Why would I need to bring up any coherent points in this current conversation. It is what It is a commentary on a blind marcher. Your contributions to all posts are salient points all by themselves.

So please continue to Dig Dig Dig. You provide us all with a good example of why we are here fighting corruption and it's voice (s).

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you are fighting for things that don't exist, and in that vein your exploits are meaningless.....there is no land of Milk and Honey, no Utopia where life is easy and free and where competition doesn't exist......and your wasting your efforts looking for it......but, they are your efforts to waste.....so, have at it, the results are known, and the exercise futile....the rest of us will observe in tickled glee as you fail.....again, as you always do....

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22348) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hey SA ? Who is touting the creation of utopia in this movement against greed and corruption. There you go, trying to belittle again. Oh in case you didn't catch it before SA is for your Shitty Attitude.

[-] 1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (5) 0 minutes ago

most of you don't have the faculties to understand reality, as most of the authority figures in your lives have sold you lock, stock, and barrel on utopian nonsense...to the point you actually believe it, like a child and Santa Clause of the Tooth Fairy......

To give up your notions would be to surrender your weakly constructed identities.....

Something that struggle and success has already accomplished more those of us who have entered the mature world..... ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22348) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Dig Dig Dig . . . . Hi-ho Hi-ho it's off to work I go . . .

Remember to wear gloves your soft hands are not likely familiar with manual labor.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I'm quite sure I've engaged in more brutish difficult manual labor than a fool such as yourself......

and since you really have no coherent points, you're nothing more than mere entertainment anyway......

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

So what is your point besides Dribble

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

You seem sort of confused, it appears to be self-imposed ignorance and that makes you about as dumb as a teaspoon of dirt.

Of course you can redeem yourself by explaining what the cause is about. Personally, I am of the opinion you don't have the knowledge to do this.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I didn't bother to read the post above because it didn't have any numbers in it.

Any post that has words in ALL caps and no numbers, I always just skip. I prefer those with facts and sources.

I am sure If I miss anything one of you reputable posters will bring it to my attention. Thanks, in advance.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

why on earth would you comment on a post you didn't read.......that brands you as ignorant......are you ignorant?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

Poverty is not a mindset. It is a fact. It stems from lack of opportunity. Going around and telling poor people that if they weren't lazy they'd meet your measure of some shallow "success" is a lie. It's also callous and inhumane.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

poverty is a mindset....the economic reality of being "poor" is a result of certain behaviors, not the cause of them.....

It's not about being lazy, in every case....sometimes it's about poor resource management, sometimes it's about poor social skills, sometimes it's about accepting failure, and many other behaviors which lead to the RESULT of economic poverty.......

Opportunity is EVERYWHERE, waiting to be seized....but, it doesn't come to your home, unlock the door, roust you out of bed, clean and dress you, make you breakfast, and announce "Here I am, I'm ready for you to take advantage of me"......you have to search for and find opportunity, it's not provided.......and we've discussed this before, why do you continue to assert that same point........

No one has to meet my level of success but me, and what is callous and inhumane is to tell people they have no chance to improve but to go walking about with their hands extended and to live off the efforts of others parasitically....that reduces them to sub-human existence.....

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

No. It is callous and inhumane to pretend that 300 million Americans could ever possibly all be entrepreneurs and "business successes" when our economy could never possibly handle such a thing. You live on an alternate universe where you take your own personal experiences and parlay them on to everyone else. One-half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 and border on poverty because that is how the corporations fund their obscene profits, on the backs of their labor.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

our economy grows each year, and currently ALL accumulated wealth is only the equivalent of less than 5 years of total wages....to say that there isn't the capacity for most Americans to live secure lives is false....the simple cost of the "toys" and unneeded luxuries most Americans waste their money on (I am guilty of this, as are most) in their early adult years would provide enough of a base, if wisely and intelligently invested instead of being wasted on trivial things....most people could live MUCH more "successful" lives if they managed whatever resources they had better, and more responsibly.......

and your assertion that one half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 is simply wrong.... the household median (2010) is $49,777.00, and the median of persons over the age of 15 is $32,184.00 (Median is half earn above/below the figure cited...source: 2012 US Statistical Abstract, Section 13, Tables 691 and 701)....

Profits are earned in the market, not on labor.......labor is a contract, effort for reward, not based on profit.....based on task/value, profits are a measure of the marketplace....not the workplace...

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

No, profits are the result of the exploitation of labor costs and capital costs. And, the median wage is $26,000 and because of how low it is 22% of our children live in poverty.

Wages, as a percent of GDP are at their lowest level since 1929 while corporate profits are skyrocketing. Hmm. What's up with that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/business/for-companies-the-good-old-days-are-now.html

[-] 1 points by flip (7475) 2 years ago

these two, slammer and the not so smart one are real sickos - i would not bother with them if i were you (although i do too often!) - there are better ways to spend your energy - to them we live in a meritocracy and they deserve all the money they get for whatever shit they do - if you cannot make enough money then crawl under a rock and die - just like in 1820's england! they cannot see what is obvious to anyone with a 10 yr old brain so - let them live in their own fantasy world in their nice little gated communities and let's talk to those who can listen! "there are none so blind as those who will not see"

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

The problem, flip, is that many Americans think the way they do, as misguided as it is. I'm willing to debate if they stick to the issues. You never know when you may hit a nerve.

[-] 1 points by flip (7475) 2 years ago

i think you have a chance to reach people who are open minded - they may read your debate and think about things - i think you would be surprised at how many americans feel the way you do. there are lots of serious polls (mostly unpublished) that show the mass of the population wants, higher taxes on the wealthy, less military spending, more money for health and education etc - we just need to reach them - ows was a good start - keep it going!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

You too, flip. I always love to read your comments.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you need to check the facts.....the median income is as I presented it, According to the US government.....

You are going to present a NYTimes story as "fact".......

exploitation is a common accusal from those on your side......how is it exploitative to provide all the means of production, from the facilities, to the machinery, raw materials, environment, and even the training for a person to complete a task, then only requiring the task completion for a prescribed level of compensation.....

and you claim that is exploitation.....how novel of you?

22% of children live in poverty because they have irresponsible parents, for who we advocate to remain irresponsible, and perpetuate the cycle, over generations..... the poor of the Great Depression created the children of the first US industrial boom because of the lessons they passed on......not because of the a less "exploitative" environment in their lives.....

and that story just decides to gloss over that federal spending higher than ever, other than during WW2, as a percentage of GDP......and instead looks to a percentage point or two rise in corporate profit shares....rather than the multiple point rise in government spending......

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

Yes. The NY Times articles is factual about how wages are at their lowest level as a percent of GDP since 1929. Please.

Are you Herman Cain???? "If you're poor or unemployed, blame yourself!" Ay, ay, ay, I never heard something so ridiculous in my life. You sound just like him.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

yes....just ignore the part about the enormous federal spending levels as a percentage of GDP

[-] 6 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

If people earned enough to live on they wouldn't need entitlement programs. What is so hard to understand about that?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

There is no need to defend the public support services when the banks have been bailed out to this extent, car manufactures have been bailed out and don't for the savings and loans during Clinton.

The fact is that opportunity is not available for some, some kids live in poverty through no fault of their own and are made to pay for that for the rest of their lives.

The poor 18 year old kid doesn't have the knowledge to get out of where he is because the information he has access to is limited, the role models to help him have limited access to information or may have little education.

These posters have the knowledge and still don't know any better how to treat others.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

All true, but we need to shine a light on where their arguments are specious because there are people just like them making these same arguments in legislative positions.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

A perfect example is blacks in the Southern states where lynching, rape and such things like the Jim Crow laws were everyday common occurrences. I would move to the northern states myself so why did blacks stay when there was so much hatred?

Lack of knowledge.

People don't choose to be poor. People don't always know their options or what they can do.

Take the protester that were pepper sprayed and beaten. They have every right to sue, not only the city, but every officer that was involved for civil rights violations. People don't understand that there is no immunity for a police officer or any officer of the Court, including a Judge, if the knowing commit an unlawful act in the performance of their duties.

Isn't a game, isn't a joke.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Isn't that the same thing? Just a different way of asking. If the government added the entitlement to your salary, it would be the same thing.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

No. It would be paying them in a way that would value their labor more fairly and humanely, much differently than our economic system values labor today. It would be an inherent change in the economic system to make it work for the majority of citizens rather than primarily for the wealthy capitalists and corporations.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

How much do you think the labor of someone who sweeps the floor at WalMart is fairly valued at?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

You are not opening your mind. I am not talking about valuing labor based on markets, especially markets that have high unemployment or a "normal" unemployment rate of 5% which always leaves the power with the employer to set the wage. I am talking about valuing labor completely differently than it is today where the cost of living is the biggest factor in setting a wage.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

ya the cost of living is the biggest factor, and a hidden factor is when we pay 80% of our monthly mortgage payments to banks. I wish the government would run our mortgages, or else a peoples bank that we set up. I think we as a people would have more money on the table and possibly the cost of living would drop down into a more affordable range.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

But why would an employer want to see it differently?

I understand what you are trying to say, I just don't think it is realistic. The current system, while far from perfect, does indeed work. The employer does not set the wage, the market does. Just last year I was hiring for a specific position and it took me 4 months to find someone and I ended up having to pay her about $5 an hour more than I wanted. It works both ways.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

Well, tell me, how much profit does WalMart make? How much income does that person need to live a decent life to provide for basic necessities for their family?

Labor does not have to be valued strictly on the skills involved in the task. There are other ways to value labor.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

It doesnt matter how much profits Walmart makes. Even if you divided the entire profit among the floor workers, it would still not lead to any substantial increase in their wages. And what Mooks is saying is absolutely right. Way pay someone $10, when someone else is ready to do it at $9. And the same goes for companies, why buy something for $100 when a similar product is available for $90? Thats the market that you continuously fail to understand.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

You are right, there a number of variables that you have to look at when you value labor. One of them is the overall supply of it. If they are paying that guy $10 an hour but someone else is willing to do the same job for $9, then why shouldn't WalMart get the guy for $9? I am sure you shop around for the best price when you make big purchases.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

oh i didnt know the profit margin was that low. If that is the case then i guess walmart has given back all they can afford and will just have to live on that 600 million dollar a year net profit.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Small correction for the numbers:

Current Revenue: 404.16 Billion US Dollars

Net income: 13.59 Billion US Dollars

Total Employees: 2,100,000

Background information:

two thirds of Wal-Mart’s 2,100,000 [~14 million] workers make between $7.92 (cashiers) and $8.23 (sales associates) per hour, this wage rate is unacceptable because it amounts to yearly salaries between $11,948 and $13,861 which are below federal poverty levels. This is misleading because most of the jobs are part time which means the gross will be lower.

The average full time yearly salary is $17,114.24 [a little over $1,400.00 a month], again below the federal poverty level

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

It is a ton of money, that is for sure, but when you consider the size of their operation and the fact that investors have $212 billion invested (many of whom are their employees and other middle class workers) their profits are really quite modest.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

well if you consider the profit margin at the company, id say at least 45k - 60k a year would be fair.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

That is between $20-$30 an hour, why would a company pay that to someone with no real skills who is easily replaceable? Even at $15 an hour, there would be plenty of people willing to take that job so why should they pay this guy $20-$30? I shop around when I need to make a sizable purchase, I am sure you do to. Employers do the same thing because after all, they are just shopping for labor.

And according to their SEC filings, Walmart's profit margin was 3.77% last year. I don't see how a 3.77% profit margin justifies giving their maintenance people a 300% raise.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

What about corporate entitlement kid? Why should corporations be given a say in how our country is run?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

regarding your post of walmarts 13.5 billion dollars, even if they paid all their 1,200,000 employees 60k a year, they still would have profited over a billion dollars. why would someone need 13 billion in one year? shame on apple also.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

if people worked on expanding their value they would be paid enough, and if they managed their resources wisely they would live better.....

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

You are exasperating.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

and you are promoting failure by giving it excuse.......

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It could just as accurately be said that YOU are promoting GREED, by giving it excuse.........................

[-] -3 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

keeping what you earn is not greed.....it's just compensation....

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

And, you are promoting false hope.......

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

It's false hope to people who have failed to succeed. For people work diligently and know how to succeed, it's a very plausible scenario.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

yes as would the government

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Do you know when and why rebates and refunds happen?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

no, go on

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

Amen...on that one.......

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

How would an older person "expand their value", as say a Wallyworld greeter?

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

No one is born a older person. The older person had a whole life to do fruitful work that would ensure a decent life in future.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

It still amazes me that folks who seem to think the way you do, have no concept of the simple fact that "shit happens".

It's as though you live in your own little utopian bubble.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Yeah Shit happens and then you have to depend on govt welfare. Sorry. Thats life.

[-] 2 points by flip (7475) 2 years ago

wow - you are really a creep - you are talking about my relatives - they worked hard all their lives - what a creep!

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Your relatives? When did they come up? Is there some rule somewhere which says only our relatives qualify as 'older person'? 12% of all Americans are above the age of 65 and therefore qualify as 'older person'. Do you mean to say all those 12% people are your relatives? Seriously? How is that possible? Are you nuts?

[-] 1 points by flip (7475) 2 years ago

this is what you wrote - The older person had a whole life to do fruitful work that would ensure a decent life in future. - and with that statement you are speaking about my relatives - the ones who were not able to ensure a decent life. why do you have trouble seeing that. wow - you are a creep and stupid - bad combination!

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I am extremely sorry your relatives were unable to ensure a decent life, but than that's not my or anyone else's problem. May be you should derive some solid lessons from their mistakes and not repeat them again.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I'll give you a specific example of that, if you like......in my former city, we had an elderly lady existing only on assistance, from income to residence...everything.

She was a customer in the cigar store I visited during my times not working (she liked to chew tobacco, odd...since she had not a tooth in her mouth)..

When the price went up she was livid, and expressed her anger to the owner, questioning how she was going to afford the tobacco on her income (which was not really his problem, his mark-up on that product...kept only for her, was extremely low)

A little background on this lady......she did not have a car, she had a 3-wheeled bicycle, and she road it all over town......although she didn't appear to be in great shape, she was, for her age....and for someone much younger....except for the teeth...

Anyway.....I suggested that some of her neighbors in the facility she lived probably had no transportation, and didn't have her level of health, and as such, had to pay bus fare, or cab fare to shop for groceries and other necessities......and that she, being mobile....could pick those things up for those who couldn't do so without expense, for less than those people paid for the transportation to take them to the various stores......she balked at the idea, at first....and then when I saw her another time asked me about it again...I suggested a small charge per bag of items that made the trips worth her time......

She finally gave it a try, and made not only enough to buy her tobacco without guilt, but also some new clothes and eventually a new bike.......

THAT was her "increased value" success story.......we don't all have to be Gates' or Trumps....she became a participant in life, and was rewarded for it.......there are many things seniors can do, they have lots of time, and a wealth of life experience.....all they need do is put that to work......

I once did business with a man who ran a souvenir shop during is regular working life, did OK, but not "wealthy" by any stretch.....then after his retirement....during a hurricane a pecan tree came down in his back yard...he had an old wood lathe in his garage that he had never really used, and he decided that he would learn how to use it.....he began to learn how to turn wooden bowls...and he won awards for his bowls...eventually upgrading to burl wood to turn, and when he would make an order from overseas he was bothered by the shipping charges for the single pieces of wood, so he began ordering larger quantities of material, and eventually began to sell it here in the US.....then worldwide......and he did all of this after 70 years old.......

Unfortunately he passed away almost two years ago in a shop fire.....but, his life was a testament to the fact that you're never too old.....

I don't expect overnight turnaround....only progress.....

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Nice story, but as usual, it doesn't address the question asked.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

it exactly addresses the question asked......you increase your value by finding a desire, or need, and providing the things desired or needed, for a small charge......and as such, increase your value....like Mabel, and like Dale......

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

If you are poor and unemployed in this country, yeah blame yourself.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Maybe lack of opportunity has something to do with it. Maybe too many jobs for the less educated have gone overseas and aren't coming back and there is little to replace it with. Which results in too many lower educated persons chasing too few jobs which further depresses wages for those jobs.

Maybe the high cost of college is pricing too many out of higher education. Maybe our only average (at best) public education system is not properly preparing students for college and/or the changing job landscape. Maybe the few who are prepared for and can afford college are chasing more plentiful higher level jobs which drives those wages up. Maybe you're not oh-so-great, but are fortunate enough to be benefitting from this situation.

Maybe people are doing the best they can in this scenario and are being further harmed by regressive tax policies. That has helped contribute to 30 years of stagnant wages for the middle class.

Maybe one unlucky turn (an illness, a downsizing) and you could find yourself on the unfortunate side of this scenario too. In the wrong field at the wrong time. There are lots of white collar professionals out of work. Who thought they were oh-so-great at one time too.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I went to public school my entire K-12 education (if you can call it that, towards the end)

I was fortunate to grow up in Iowa, which, at the time, had one of the highest rated public education records of all the states....then, in my Junior year my parents moved because there was no work (imagine that, moving to find a job?, and they had a house, and car payments, etc.....and yet they still managed.....crazy, right?) to Arkansas, Land of Clinton, and his wife's meddling in their public education system.......I was using textbooks as a Junior in HS that I had used in middle school in Iowa......

The education system is shit because of those running it, and their lack of standards, but no lack of money.......you could spend a trillion dollars a year, but without real standards, you get NOTHING.......

I wasn't much interested in school, but I loved learning new things, like almost every child, with few exceptions......I read everything I could get my hands on, we had a Carnegie Library in my hometown, and guess what.....libraries are free, all the combined knowledge of man for free...and all you have to do is show up......

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

So you put the whole blame on extraneous factors. Great. I was in public school till 5th grade and then went to a private school when my parents decided they could afford one. I turned out just fine. I did reasonably well at both places.

As to whether that can happen to me and you wishing me illness (thank you very much), yes it could happen. And if I am unable to work I would not expect my firm to retain me without me doing any work.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Don't pull ad hominem on me like that. I'm not wishing you any ill will and you know it.

Of course lots of people turn out fine. But it's not very "smart" to ignore the extraneous factors I pointed out. Can you honestly say these things are not a problem?

Loss of jobs overseas. Regressive tax policies. Average public school system. 30 years of stagnant wages for the middle class. Increasingly large income and wealth disparity. Increasingly out of reach cost for higher education.

And I'm not putting the whole of the blame anywhere. Certainly, in some cases, people made poor choices that resulted in a bad outcome. But there have been and always will be people that make poor choices. This is nothing new. There are bigger things going on than just people making poor choices.

It's not about handouts. It's about honestly recognizing problems in our society. Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.

Your attitude seems very self centered. Your attitude seems to be - "I'm ok, so everything must be alright. I'm just going to take care of me in spite of what is going on around me". Correct if I'm wrong.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Which developed economy does not lose job to less developed ones? I agree there are problems but its not all that tough to rise out of those problems.

As for my attitude, I have what i read somewhere as a 'internal locus of control'. I believe that most factors are under my control rather than out of my control, which seems to be what the OWS crowd thinks. It's not being self centered.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

We agree. But how would you do that? I could suggest that we impose higher taxes on the wealthy and use that money to subsidize higher education for more students.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Middle class wages - it's not about a number, $38k - $100k. It's about those wages being stagnant for 30 years.

So what do you think would be some ways to spread prosperity throughout society?

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Well for starters ensure more people get a higher education and a good one. Only 27% of our workforce has any undergrad degree. Lets start with increasing that number first. I believe in teaching a man to fish...

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Losing jobs overseas is not the only problem. But personally, I'm not even necessarily in favor of bringing low skilled jobs back into the country, not on a large scale anyway. But, for instance, China devaluing it's currency at the expense of American workers, is fundamentally unfair.

Our education system not keeping pace with the reality of globalization and an increasingly technoligical society that demands a higher level of education to maintain a living wage. And is necessary to fuel innovation, which ultimately is a major factor in job creation.

Your "internal locus of control" might be great. But you're not an island unto yourself. You're part of society. And, not to be overly dramatic, but to the degree society prospers or faulters, your well being will be affected by that to some degree.

To the degree that the lower and middle classes continue to be hurt by bad policy - this will affect you, me and all of us. A good example is the national healthcare legislation. This was simply a reaction to middle class wage stagnation and sharply rising healthcare costs. For the lower and middle class that cost was either out of reach entirely or taking an ever larger portion of income to pay. Something had to fill that gap. Thus, the reaction to this was national healthcare. I'm not happy about it. Neither are you I suspect.

But to continue "putting upon" the middle class, this will only result in more and more government programs. To the extent that the lower and middle classes cannot do for themselves, basic necessities, this only results in more government. This affects you, me and all of us.

You want less government - I say the solution is for the government to help to foster an environment where the majority of people can do for themselves. Make a living wage. Policies that help the majority of people to prosper. This is a win win for us all.

It is the middle class that is the backbone of the economy. Who do you think buys all of those goods and services that the wealthy are selling? 2/3 of the economy is driven by the consumers. 99% of those consumers are lower and middle class. If you are a business, you depend on top line growth. Where do you think the majority of the top line growth comes from?

For the lower and middle classes to have less and less disposable income, this affects you, me and everyone. For top line growth to be dependent on the consumerism of the few, rather than the many, this is not healthy for the economy. For prosperity to be spread out broadly, throughout all levels of society, is much more healthy for the economy and society in general.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Frankly, it's hard to tell if China really is devaluing. Some analysts say the currency may actually be overvalued by around 30%, of course our politicians would never tell you that. But then I wont be surprised it is devalued either.

And speaking of unfair, we continue to subsidize our farmers and thereby killing any possibility of competition from poor African farmers thereby resigning an entire continent to poverty. We have long been dumping our products and eradicating fledgling industries in other nations in the name of free trade. Now that's unfair. I love this country but I cannot be blind to facts.

Our education system can sure do better but it isn't all that bad. And our higher education is the best in the world.

My internal locus of control does not mean I dont give a damn about society. It's just that I dont blame extraneous factors for my failures and don't give god any credit for my successes.

As for healthcare, I think our system needs a major overhaul and health insurance might have actually exacerbated the problem.

The middle class is defined as people with income of $38k to $100k. Those jobs arent disappearing.

I am all for prosperity to spread throughout the society. I just dont agree with you means of doing it.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22211) 2 years ago

Yuck. Just, yuck. And, what if you're a greedy grubber? Should they blame themselves as well?

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

What is greedy? Is the sales guy trying to sell you a car so that he can get a bigger bonus and buy better presents for Christmas for his family a greedy guy? And the other sales guy who does not show up to work on time regularly and hardly pushes sales and get booted out not a greedy guy? When did greedy become the opposite of lazy?

[-] 2 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

I just checked, but it is as I suspected. You are both right about the median income. One is for individual, the other for household.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

what is the "individual"...the second (lower) figure I posted is for all persons over 15....is direct from the US Government via the US Statistical Abstract section 13, tables 691 and 701...found here:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/income.pdf

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 2 years ago

The percentage of children living in poverty has much less to do with how responsible their parents are than how our society defines money and property.

We could have a society where there is no free primary education. Plenty of such societies exist throughout history. Getting to fifth grade could be a privilege of the middle and upper classes.

Or we could have a society where every child has the right to attend college and get a B.S. or B.A. or higher degrees in any and as many areas as they like for free. Sure, it would cost a lot, but no one would accuse our country of having an uneducated workforce.

The same is true of many other sorts of property. For example, we accept that people have free unemployment insurance; free help after certain declared natural disasters; free assistance from the police after a burglary, and sometimes still from fire departments and ambulances also; free access to roadside rest areas on the interstate. Those who misbehave rapidly find free accommodations in the prison and, if they behave badly enough, the mental health system. So we should question why it is that we don't offer, for example, similarly guaranteed access to free shelters and showers for the homeless and to fast treatment for addicts.

Now much of this depends on what is actually reliable as a right, rather than being a mere "handout". For some reason, the child in school doesn't see himself as rattling the tin cup and depending on the kindness of strangers. Yet a free lunch in the school can carry a social stigma. It is vital that the poor enjoy real rights, things that are simply always there for every American to call upon, rather than being given as handouts that need to be requested and perhaps withheld.

Now imagine that the rights of the American citizen even went so far as to receive some of that free capital which our government is always freely lending out to the banks whenever they make bad bets and request a bailout. Imagine that a child graduating from high school could file a business plan, get it approved by some kind of peer review process, and get $200,000 in working capital, together with enough expert assistance to ensure it isn't squandered stupidly. Imagine the high school prepared that child properly for administering that sort of money. Then every child would be a member of the wealthy class.

So where we stand, whether children are impoverished or powerful beyond our dreams, lies solely under the control of what we deem to be private property and what we deem to be universal rights. It is our philosophical decision to make. And we have been making it with scarcely a thought in our heads, and making it badly.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Uh, no.

"poverty is a mindset....the economic reality of being "poor" is a result of certain behaviors, not the cause of them....."

Poverty usually comes from lack of knowledge as well as opportunity and as for "resource management" you have to have resources to manage and opportunity is not evenly spread and often requires a certain economic standing to obtain or use. Some folks don't have food, don't have a place to live and the accouterments associated with having opportunity.

You have had the opportunity and access to information and have mismanaged your mental resources; this means that you suffer from "Mental Poverty".

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

opportunity isn't "given", it isn't "spread", and it isn't "Scarce"......it's everywhere, and you have to go find it....it doesn't come to you...

You don't need to tell me about having enough food, I've been there pal, I lived out of my car for almost a year.....and opportunity was still to be found...and that's how I am where I am now......

and one of my friends from HS, and #65 on the Forbes 400, Jean Paul Dejoria...who was also homeless after being in the navy in the 70's.......

Go sell your lies to someone who doesn't already know better......it doesn't work on me, i've been successful, AND poor.....it's a mindset, plain and simple....

Libraries are free to anyone who walks through the door....

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

And I buried a father at 9, a mother at 15 and put a brother in foster care at 16 and lived on the streets until I was 23 and worked while doing so.

Opportunity is not around the corner for everybody.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

it is around the corner for everybody....most just choose not to look

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Reality is what is is, facts are what they are and you can keep telling yourself that if you need to for your own comfort. It doesn't change reality or the facts it just means you need to be comforted.

At 16, I could not get a job, at 16 I could not rent a place to live. Exactly what "opportunity" did I have again... oh, that corner at least 2 years away. You have no idea of what you are even spouting off about kid. In hind sight I might have been able to be emancipated, but I don't know if I could do that. To do this usually requires a guardian signature/consent. Since my parents, i.e. my guardians were both dead that wasn't an option, but since they were both dead I might have been able to do this through the courts. It would have taken time, but I most likely would have had to have an address, they don't deliver mail to those that live on the streets.

I know a lot more now then I did when I was 16 and even now I would have been hard pressed to get off the streets. I do freehand illustration and graphic design, programming in multiple languages and so on. It was only later I was able or even had an opportunity to even go to school even though I received a GED when I was 17.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are just another fucking idiot that likes to talk shit and run your mouth.

Tell me what it was I missed, or "chose not to see".

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

So.....what changed? By your asserted point you should STILL be poor on the street......

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

I worked and slept under a bridge, the PD raided where I slept once or twice a month, I went days without eating and still I worked.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, yet you think you are the smart one. I was given an opportunity after years on the streets as a kid and young adult. Did you catch the term "given"?

It wasn't by this government or any of those you might have expected it to be from. Seems these charities religiously worship money before god. I have nothing good to say about any of the churches, religions or others and nothing good to say about our current form of government.

Here is another BTFW for you. I am not in this fight for me because me and my wife will be set in a few years and be buying a third home most likely in Greece. We want others to have the same opportunity that we have had and it is not there for everybody. Yeah, I went from homeless as a kid, without parents to owning multiple homes and it wasn't from your so called opportunities around every corner. We did this without taking anything from others and have never received any help from this government.

Facts are what they are. You have never learned the facts or the reality of this country and claim that you know it all. What exactly does that make you?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Don't take it seriously. That guy is paid to ignore reality and disrupt this forum.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

He wouldn't last where I come from. He would be expecting an "opportunity" and be a victim of his own stupidity. He would simply become a statistic.

EDIT:

The problem is that others have had and currently have it far worse than I did.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I don't "expect" opportunities......or wait for them....I go find them

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Opportunity is not there but you are to ignorant to understand this. Be aware that at some point you become responsible for your own ignorance and your continued denial of facts simply will denote you as stupid.

How do you get a job when you are under age?

How do you get a job with no place to live?

How do you keep a job if you can't shower, eat, keep clean clothes?

I worked around these things as much as I could by using a gym membership to shower, gas station sink to wash clothes but you can only go so many days without eating.

People like you, are what is wrong with this country. You think that because life was comparably easy for you and your kind that everybody has the same opportunity as you.

Reality does not support your claims kid.

EDIT:

Sorry, missed this one too. How do you get a job when you are under age?

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

Opportunity IS there, but, again...you have summarily decided, because of your situation that you know all the other situations in the world.......I collect stories of those who have overcome the worst odds to make a success (whatever THEY define that as) of their lives.......it started because I was sick of hearing everyone's sad ass stories about how they had no chance and everyone is out to get them.......which is simple not true, unless you decide for it to be, and then it is true for you....and only you.....

We have programs in place for those who are severely underage, but...as for teenagers, in this country one can work after age 14 in many jobs, and after 16 in most others......

Getting a job without a place to live is tougher, but not impossible.....establishing a mailing address can be done in a few different ways....you can get a PO Box (more on this in a moment) or you can find an abandoned house and use that as an address, you can also beat the street and ask people if they would accept your mail for a short time while you look for a job (I know of two people who did this, and also got some other sorts of assistance by asking)......

As far as showering, you answered that one yourself...and that was the same tactic that my friend from HS who was thrown out of the house at 17 by his father, and me used to keep clean and healthy.....

As for "startup" money, for PO Box, and Gym......almost every major city in the US has a plasma donation center where almost anyone over the age of 16 can donate plasma for money, usually about $50 a week...but some pay more......if this is used responsibly one can eat, shower, launder clothing, and receive mail and still have some left over........

You can also help people with things, panhandle, etc.....

For food there are Salvation Army locations in most cities as well, and they serve food to the homeless and needy at no charge.....all you have to do is show up.......

People like ME are what has always been RIGHT about this country.....those who ventured out into territories unknown, with the understanding that almost any problem has a solution that exists in the environment of the problem itself, and who understand that by continued effort one can improve and expand their situation for the better...

Stop being a whinny fucking shithead, and get a positive philosophy to share with others while you help them......which I hope you are doing, both actively and passively....."I" do.......and coming from the background you claim, you should be, as well.........

and, as for "Kid"......42 isn't much of a kid

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I wish......I would gladly accept pay to post here, but, as it is.....I do it for pleasure...

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you did well, but your philosophy is for shit, and regardless of your one example personal situation, opportunity abounds......for those who seek it, plan, execute, and adjust......

I know EXACTLY of the reality and facts of this country, but YOU, who is witness to it, deny it......

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

You're an idiot kid. It is better to be thought the fool than to speak and remove all doubt. A chain [society] is only as strong as its weakest link. You and those like you are the weak links and you are to stupid to even see it.

You are to stupid to see how stupid you actually are.

You do not kill off the weakest link, you make it stronger.

I saw kids that were abused at home on the streets, I saw kids in a similar situation as I was on the streets and I saw kids that were stupid and chose to be on the streets because mommy and daddy didn't give them what they wanted.

I saw predators on the streets.

I know what is out there and you don't. I know the reality of living on the streets and those so called opportunities, you don't.

The sad thing is that you should be happy you don't and you're not.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

KId, huh?.....well I never thought anyone would call me a kid in my early 40's...but, OK

I love it when people accuse stupidity using misspelling and bad grammar....that just make me smile, thanks......

Now, again, as for your specific situations....they don't make the rule, and somehow you managed to get out, and yet you claim it's just not possible....funny....

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

[-] 1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (22) 12 hours ago your attitude is a waste of time....

Because you are an idiot that thinks you everything; this makes learning extremely difficult for you. It is the difference of a cup half full and a cup overflowing with stories; leaving no room for knowledge and wisdom.

My cup is and always will be half full so that I still have room for the knowledge needed to learn wisdom.


All of my examples are true stories......sorry to burst your bubble

You have stories, I have first hand knowledge and experience.


just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.....you're an excuse maker,

You're a punk that wouldn't last with your stories kid. You have no clue what the world is like but you profess to know everything.


and I'm amazed you have created anything in life.........

Imagine where I would be if I had half the opportunity you've had, minus your "stories" of course. Imagine if I had the chance to even finish 8th grade.... Oh, and I have a GED and did go to college so you don't get to claim I am uneducated. Imagine if I could have had the support system of parents...


you can keep claiming I'm a kid, if you like.....but it's not true, much like most of your opinions, you are pulling it out of your ass with no supporting evidence...

I am much older than you are KID. You learn by "stories" and claim to know everything. I learn by doing and know I don't know everything.

If I know enough to know that I don't know everything and don't have all the answers, I suspect I know a great deal more than you do KID.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

You are a kid and you cannot work in the country under the age of 18 without the permission of your guardian. For you to claim you can is just another lie from you.

"We have programs in place for those who are severely underage, but...as for teenagers, in this country one can work after age 14 in many jobs, and after 16 in most others......


BS

Getting a job without a place to live is tougher, but not impossible.....establishing a mailing address can be done in a few different ways....you can get a PO Box (more on this in a moment) or you can find an abandoned house and use that as an address, you can also beat the street and ask people if they would accept your mail for a short time while you look for a job (I know of two people who did this, and also got some other sorts of assistance by asking)......"


More BS. It takes money and an address for a PO Box. Mail carriers do not deliver to abandoned houses. You still have no clue.

Where do you keep clothing, oh, let me guess, a bus or train station. Of course this is only in major hubs.

Then we have this nugget;

"somehow you managed to get out, and yet you claim it's just not possible"

I never said anything was impossible. How long should people have to live on the streets before they "get" the opportunity to get off the streets?

Ask somebody if you can use them to receive mail, good luck with that one.

Your solution seems to be one of asking another for the "opportunity" to help yourself.... I thought "opportunities" are just around the corner....

You waste my time with these excuses and general BS.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

your attitude is a waste of time....

All of my examples are true stories......sorry to burst your bubble

just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.....you're an excuse maker, and I'm amazed you have created anything in life.........

you can keep claiming I'm a kid, if you like.....but it's not true, much like most of your opinions, you are pulling it out of your ass with no supporting evidence...

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

What program might you be talking about that we should wake up and get with my leader.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

Effort + Result = Reward....... There is no other program that works

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

the Bush administration took down the website I would use to disprove the first part of you comment, "Public debt to the Penny" the point that Clinton reported surpluses when they really weren't is true, but only half true, it is more true to understand that when that SS trust fund was created in the 1980's the GOP insisted that the surplus be counted against the deficit for reporting purposes, this has been haunting us and confusing the subject ever since, but allowed them to hide how large the true debt was, now that we are getting to the projected point where the trust fund is no longer offsetting the "income tax gap" it looks much worse but to get true numbers you have to back out the SS trust funds going back to 1986

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

The "Bush Administration" did no such thing......go on, disprove my point...

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

the SS "trust fund" was not created in the 1980's: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/describeoasi.html

The GOP did not insist that the surpluses be counted against the reported deficits (although there have never been "surpluses", and funds that exceed benefit payout are placed into the general treasury fund and spent...with securities, (IOU's), issued back the SSA)....although they should be counted AS deficit, because the surpluses BECOME debt as they are securitized and spent.......

the SS Funds are NOT reported as either debt or spending in the reporting of yearly deficits, the amounts were factored into the calculations for the automatic spending cuts under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, but not for general reporting.....and, in 1990....thanks to PL 101-508, which states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of - (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President, (2) the congressional budget, or (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.....

Those criteria were removed....

.

Unfortunately SS is a huge part of government spending.....and using foolish accounting methods of "off budget" are attempts to hide this fact...: the history of that is found here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

So, I guess facts don't matter to you, as you made three false statements.....although one was semi-true, for a few years.....

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

The chart is from the CBO.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf

It appears that you are the perpetually misinformed and that Clinton did, for a fact, create a surplus in the Budget. You lie, cheat, deceive and steal so that you can manipulate others that don't know where to look to find the true and accurate information. That is a sad commentary on you.

Instead, try telling the truth and let the chips fall where they may. This is called "Responsibility" and it is something most, not all, conservative do not have, yet demand from everybody else. You are delusional.

@factsrfun and others - don't let this twit buffalo you. He is simply full of shit. He cannot dazzle you with something he does not posses, intelligence, so he is left with only bullshit to try and baffle you.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

yeah....that story uses only "Budget" Appropriations......it does not include "OFF-BUDGET" Appropriations......and is, as such, incomplete...

Nice try......

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

When the facts don't support your position, make up new ones as you need them.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

no, when people like you post incomplete distortions I clear them up........Please reference the official debt figures here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

and here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

and find a budget year surplus, or balance after 1951......you won't find one

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

You're truly an idiot. These rules apply to everybody. By the CBO's own accounting methods they demonstrated a surplus.

From the article itself;

"Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used.

The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries.

But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000.

So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years."

BTFW here is the SS information:

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you really don't know what you're talking about....SS funds are NEVER "surplus"......they become debt to the program, adding to overall debt, and breaking any "balance"

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

I am quoting federal sources and the sources that are fact checked. You make wild claims. Go to the site and dispute the facts with them: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

They are called fact check dot org.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Follow up: On 03/30/200 debt hit $5,788,541,874,357 it did not exceed that number again for 15 months on 08/24/2001 at $5,804,540,124.890 that longer than a year, so who’s picking dates? If you want to have an honest discussion you admit that the budget was pretty much balanced and talking about how we get back there.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

fiscal years run from Oct 01 of the preceding year to Sept 30 of the defined year.....those figures for FY 2000 are: 5,656,270,901,615.43 and 5,674,178,209,886.86...leaving a deficit of 17,907,308,271.43

and in FY2001 ending with 5,807,463,412,200.06 the deficit in THAT year was 133,285,202,313.20......

so.....the "Budget" was never balanced.....not "pretty much", or "a little".....NEVER

You are picking dates that are part of two different budgetary cycles, and manipulating the statistics to attempt to prove a false assertion of "balance".......

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is not the site that I used in the 1990’s but it will work, “Total Public Debt” 01/15/1998-06/15/1998 went down by 7,344,179,582 dollars, I know that’s only half a year but your underlying point was that Clinton didn’t balance the budget and is a LIE

As far as the rest of your statement if you have no knowledge of the 1986 payroll tax increase, budget deal that saved Social Security and created what most Americans refer to as “the trust fund” then you can hardy claim to know about the debate at the time. It seems that you are either very ignorant of recent legislative actions or your true propose is to distort and confuse rather than inform.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

hahaha.....yeah, you can find drops in nearly every year at some point, often around the time of the yearly tax filing deadline.....the government spends money it doesn't have and then collects a bit of that back via taxpayers and it looks like a gain, but that gain is washed away by the outcome of the spending/revenue cycle of the fiscal year.......asserting that that was a "balanced budget" is almost comical.......and you do know that the fiscal year of 1998 was the first year that the capital gains reductions passed in 1997 by the Republican Congress caused an increase in treasury receipts collected by the IRS........as a mass of people sold investments and used the funds for other things, and in doing so increased the net revenue paid to the government....a half a year does not make a balanced budget.....so the point stands, although.......Clinton, and the Republican congress pulling the strings did get damn close in FY2000 when the deficit was only 17 Billion....

I am well acquainted with the greenspan commission and the payroll tax increase on SS, but that DID NOT establish a "Trust Fund" and to make that assertion proves that YOU do not understand what took place.......and as I said, all the tenets of the use of the SS funds in the reporting budgetary surplus/deficit was removed in 1990..........

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Follow up: On 03/30/200 debt hit $5,788,541,874,357 it did not exceed that number again for 15 months on 08/24/2001 at $5,804,540,124.890 that's longer than a year, so who’s picking dates? If you want to have an honest discussion you admit that the budget was pretty much balanced and talking about how we get back there.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Cool OK we can actually settle this you show me the 6 month period where debt went down during the Bush years and you will be right, if you don't then I am.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you show me a budget year without deficit and it's settled, but there isn't one........and Bush43/Clinton is an Apples/Oranges comparison...Clinton never had a Tech bubble, he didn't have an Enron Crisis, He didn't have a 9/11, he didn't have any wars.....all things that Bush43 had to deal with that Clinton did not.....and all things that cost the treasury money......

also, how about you show me 6 months under Clinton with Democrats controlling the spending where there was ANY drop in debt...then you can give Clinton the credit....

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So you cann't defend the statement you made Haha I WIN you said "yeah, you can find drops in nearly every year at some point" but the stakes have been upped: now it's 15 months show me the 15 month period post Bush tax cuts, Thought you were against picking and chosing dates, what's so speical about 10/01? As far as the rest of your excusses, if your point is the GOP cann't deal with problems, I agree. (If I give you Bush one and Reagan too will that help you out?)

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

it's the budgetary fiscal year....that is what is special, and that is how spending is appropriated....

your callow little claim of victory again fails to acknowledge that it was Republicans, Conservative ones at that, who crafted and passed those budgets and the tax reform that created the small deficit years......

I can demonstrate a similar reduction in spending by Bush43/Republican Congress, in the reduction of the amount of yearly deficit from the high of 595 Billion in 2004 to the low of 500 Billion in 2007...THAT is how the GOP deals with problems....They solve them and had they retained power in the 2006 election the trend would have continued, instead of being stood on it's head by Democrats who doubled the deficit the first year in control, to over a Trillion Dollars in FY2008

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

What a pathetic little slimy bug you are not fit to soil the sole of a real American, I shouldn’t be surprised considering the Republican “leadership” crawling around with their hats in their hands begging, “Please Mister Jobcreator, if I kiss the other cheek, stick my tongue a bit father in your hole, or bring you a cup of TEA might you think about creating a job, Sir, please?” What a bunch of wimpy little pansies. You might want to call your mommy before you read the rest of this.

I didn’t start this tread to prove your a lying weasel that’s just your natural tendency. So you start off by saying that I’m lying because I implied that Clinton had balanced the budget:

“There was no paydown on the debt when Clinton was president......hahaha”

I gave you a six month period where the debt was reduced:

“This is not the site that I used in the 1990’s but it will work, “Total Public Debt” 01/15/1998-06/15/1998 went down by 7,344,179,582 dollars, I know that’s only half a year but your underlying point was that Clinton didn’t balance the budget and is a LIE”

You accuse me of continuing to lie by picking dates.

“hahaha.....yeah, you can find drops in nearly every year at some point, often around the time of the yearly tax filing deadline..”

“You are picking dates that are part of two different budgetary cycles, and manipulating the statistics to attempt to prove a false assertion of "balance".......”

I invite you to prove your point.

“Cool OK we can actually settle this you show me the 6 month period where debt went down during the Bush years and you will be right, if you don't then I am.”

You run away from your statement.

“you show me a budget year without deficit and it's settled, but there isn't one........”

Then the classic switch.

“I can demonstrate a similar reduction in spending by Bush43/Republican Congress, in the reduction of the amount of yearly deficit from the high of 595 Billion in 2004 to the low of 500 Billion in 2007...THAT is how the GOP deals with problems”

This is so like a conservative, where you make the point that ADDING 500 billion to the debt over 12 months is BETTER than taking 7 billion off in 6 months and all the people who believe that should agree with you.

This is why we can’t fix our problems so many people at the table have no desire to have an honest conversation. We have elected Republicans who are willing to publicly say they don’t believe in evolution, now that’s King George crazy, so in a nutshell, our problem is that people vote Republican.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you say they "Took off" 7 billion in 6 months.....but, during that fiscal year.....1998, the total deficit was 113 billion dollars....so I guess they "added" that in 6 months, as-well......so the point remains the same, there was no balance of a budget.....budgets run from Oct01-Sept30......what happens during any small section of that time is immaterial to the budget year......it's the final result that counts..

and if you are claiming that "Clinton" balanced a budget...YOU ARE LYING....it NEVER happened.....

as for the rest of your attacks, and your juvenile he said/she said...you being the sissy little "she" who can't imagine adhering to the facts of budget years to prove your point of a balanced budget.....don't get mad at me for your lack of understanding, go find a mirror to identify the real culprit for your issues...

and......I have found the answer to your foolish question anyway......but it doesn't change the fact that is still doesn't represent the facts of anything

Bush Innaguration Jan 20, 2001

Jan 22, 2001 - 5,728,195,796,181.57 June 22, 2001 - 5,651,584,304,624.97

difference = +76,611,491,556.6

over 10X better than your claimed Clinton "payback" in 1998

Now do you want to flipflop and start arguing fiscal budget year responsibility?........

but even this doesn't really matter, as the deficit for the entire fiscal year of 2001 was 133,285,202,313.20......so at some point during the year that lack of spending was overcome by other spending......

You are such a fool, and you'll go to any length to try and claim a falsehood is true......

What do you say now...fucktard?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Looked at your comment guess you agree with everything I said.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you should reread my comment....

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I tend to dismiss any wordy post that ends in the term fucktard.

I would urge others to do the same.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

can you belive this is still going on in the other thread? he sent me a private mess calling me a smug f**k, made my day, at least my minute.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

sure you would, because it proves the fucktard wrong......

I guess posts that begin with "pathetic little slimy bug" are OK in your book if they come from those with your ideology.....

do you two serve in the same SS unit?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6000) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Started new tread joining me there, this IS fun you should be able to find it.