The rich get richer, the working people . . . .

[billwald]

I'm pleased/sad that Obama agrees with what I have been saying for several years. So much for Republican "Rising tide raises all boats" hypothesis.


from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...11/07/AR2010110705223.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 7, 2010; 10:31 PM
Without additional government action to spur hiring, President Obama said Sunday that he fears the U.S. economy could enter a "new normal" in which corporate profits are high but the number of new jobs is too low to reduce the nation's 9.6 percent unemployment rate to pre-recession levels.

 

[Robert Snow]

So much for Republican "Rising tide raises all boats" hypothesis.

Right! Their "rising tide" simply sinks many of the boats!

 

[Alcott]

I'm pleased/sad that Obama agrees with what I have been saying for several years. So much for Republican "Rising tide raises all boats" hypothesis.

Okay, but how are the boats that have not risen going to do so without the 'rising tide?'

 

[targus]

Okay, but how are the boats that have not risen going to do so without the 'rising tide?'

But don't you know that the best thing for the economy is to have only companies that make no profits?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

But don't you know that the best thing for the economy is to have only companies that make no profits?

The best thing for the economy is for the unemployment rate to be low so there is still demand. If we really wanted to create jobs, we would be subsidizing employers to keep employees. That could be done in place of the stimulus plan, and that would keep money in the pockets of workers, which would keep demand up, which would really stimulate the economy.

 

[targus]

The best thing for the economy is for the unemployment rate to be low so there is still demand. If we really wanted to create jobs, we would be subsidizing employers to keep employees. That could be done in place of the stimulus plan, and that would keep money in the pockets of workers, which would keep demand up, which would really stimulate the economy.

Subsidizing companies to retain employees has a few down sides...

It is merely wealth redistribution
It is corporate welfare
It puts inefficient companies at the same level as inefficient companies
It does not allow the free market to function
It causes poor employees to be retained for longer than they should be
It is another taxpayer program that would have no end

It is just a bad idea all around.

BTW - why does "money in the pockets of workers" stimulate the economy more than the same money in the pockets of the taxpayers who would be forced to pay it?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Subsidizing companies to retain employees has a few down sides...

It is merely wealth redistribution
It is corporate welfare
It puts inefficient companies at the same level as inefficient companies
It does not allow the free market to function
It causes poor employees to be retained for longer than they should be
It is another taxpayer program that would have no end

It is just a bad idea all around.

You're right; it is wealth redistribution. The corporate welfare/ inefficient companies issue is one that is a legitimate downside to the idea. I'd focus on helping small businesses stay afloat. They could use the extra, subsidized employees to expand their operations and grow the economy. It would have to have a phase out with the goal of expanding the small businesses so they can continue to keep the employees after the temporary subsidies end. In response to your last argument, I never proposed requiring companies to keep employees that have conduct or performance issues. I'd make participation voluntary. Because my proposal is temporary, the businesses would have to do things with the employees that are profitable, otherwise they wouldn't be able to keep them. This would be a great opportunity to help support America's small businesses.

As a side note, if you're a business owner who's looking to hire, now's a great time to do so because of so many highly qualified paople looking for work.

 

[targus]

In response to your last argument, I never proposed requiring companies to keep employees that have conduct or performance issues. I'd make participation voluntary. Because my proposal is temporary, the businesses would have to do things with the employees that are profitable, otherwise they wouldn't be able to keep them. This would be a great opportunity to help support America's small businesses.

Many small businesses hire family members.

Under your proposal a marginal business would look for your subsidy as a way of keeping marginal family employees on the payroll.

Many small business owners don't like to lay off or fire employees even if they are not very good employees.

Under your proposal a soft hearted employer could keep those otherwise marginal employees on the payroll simply to lessen his feelings of guilt about having to let them go.

Why should taxpayers subsidize all that?

And you still haven't explained why money in the pockets of workers is better to the economy than money in the pockets of the taxpayers that would have put it out there for your plan.

...now is a good time to do so because of so many highly qualified people looking for work.

Businesses don't hire just because there are many highly qualified people looking for work - businesses hire because they need employees.

If a business is looking to hire because they need someone - they do it - regardless of how many people are looking for work.

 

[webdog]

I'm pleased/sad that Obama agrees with what I have been saying for several years. So much for Republican "Rising tide raises all boats" hypothesis.


from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...11/07/AR2010110705223.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 7, 2010; 10:31 PM
Without additional government action to spur hiring, President Obama said Sunday that he fears the U.S. economy could enter a "new normal" in which corporate profits are high but the number of new jobs is too low to reduce the nation's 9.6 percent unemployment rate to pre-recession levels.

With the top 10% of all earners paying 70% of the taxes...aren't they already "spurring" hiring and the economy from gov't perspective?

Let's use almost half of Americans (and illegals) paying ZERO taxes to start "spurring" things for a change!

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Many small businesses hire family members.

Under your proposal a marginal business would look for your subsidy as a way of keeping marginal family employees on the payroll.

Many small business owners don't like to lay off or fire employees even if they are not very good employees.

Under your proposal a soft hearted employer could keep those otherwise marginal employees on the payroll simply to lessen his feelings of guilt about having to let them go.

Why should taxpayers subsidize all that?

Keeping family members and marginal employees is an issue that the business owner will have to deal with. If the owner is a poor manager, that's not something the government can fix. Even if some small business owners do as you described, it still has a stimulative effect in the overall economy by keeping demand up. It's not ideal for it to work that way, but it still helps the situation.

And you still haven't explained why money in the pockets of workers is better to the economy than money in the pockets of the taxpayers that would have put it out there for your plan.

People who have a lot of money spend a smaller portion of their income.

Businesses don't hire just because there are many highly qualified people looking for work - businesses hire because they need employees.

If a business is looking to hire because they need someone - they do it - regardless of how many people are looking for work.

I never said anything to the contrary.

 

[carpro]

But don't you know that the best thing for the economy is to have only companies that make no profits?

Yeah. They sure do hire a lot of people.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Salty]

The rich get richer - why - because they spend money - wisely - to make more money.

I teach the Defensive Driving Course. Costs about $40 - in NY you receive a 10% discount off your insurance. The insurance for my wife and myself is about 2 grand a year. That means we save about $200 a year x 3 years. Lets see spend $80 save $600 = net of $580. (and since I teach the course, I only pay a few dollars for my certifications - (but do I make Mrs Salty pay:saint

True you can not retire on the $580, but the principal is there, spend wisely, save and you will get ahead of the game. I wonder how much rich people pay in interest charge each month. I would say very little. If you have a charge card - take a look at the APR and monthly charges. Give up a soda or coffee each day for a month, save your loose change each day - and apply that $50-75 to your credit card and see how much your interest goes down. While you are at it - call the card and ask for a lower interest rate.
Lots of ways to get ahead of the game - but it takes dedication and preference.

As far as DDC, often I hear - I cant afford it.....

 

[targus]

Keeping family members and marginal employees is an issue that the business owner will have to deal with. If the owner is a poor manager, that's not something the government can fix. Even if some small business owners do as you described, it still has a stimulative effect in the overall economy by keeping demand up. It's not ideal for it to work that way, but it still helps the situation.

Correct - so let's not take yet more money from the taxpayers to give employers for something that the government can't fix.

People who have a lot of money spend a smaller portion of their income.

What does proportion of income have to do with stimulating the economy.

A dollar is a dollar in the economy.

This really sounds more and more like you are only interested in your proposal for the wealth redistribution side of it.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Correct - so let's not take yet more money from the taxpayers to give employers for something that the government can't fix.

And let's not do anything unless we know it will work perfectly 100% of the time.

What does proportion of income have to do with stimulating the economy.

A dollar is a dollar in the economy.

This really sounds more and more like you are only interested in your proposal for the wealth redistribution side of it.

What you fail to understand is that the income is being redistributed- upward. Ultimately it's bad eve for for the rich to have the income distribution we currently have. We built the middle class in this country during the 1950s-1970s with a top marginal income tax rate between 70 and 90 percent. When the income is concentrated at the very top, there's less to go around for everyone else and that causes economic dysfunction. Look at historical income distribution. When the top earners have the most income we see the economy tank.

 

[Salty]

..What you fail to understand is that the income is being redistributed- upward.

Lets see - Your good buddy Rush Limbaugh buys a new car for $30,000. The salesman makes a nice commission - extra money he can go out and spend. Of course, Rush wants to keep his car in tip - top shape - so a mechanic makes more money. I'm sure Rush doesn't go to the self service car wash - bingo - another car washer probably makes a nice tip....
Problem is a lot of folks don't want to work extra or harder.... the dream is out there, but it takes a lot of sweat and tears....

 

[rbell]

What you fail to understand is that the income is being redistributed- upward. Ultimately it's bad eve for for the rich to have the income distribution we currently have. We built the middle class in this country during the 1950s-1970s with a top marginal income tax rate between 70 and 90 percent.

Ah, yes, the wonderful 1970's. What a great time for the economy.

This post shows glaring omissions...

Kennedy dropped tax rates. Result: Economic growth.

Reagan, in the 80's, dropped rates. Result: Economic growth.

Get it yet?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Ah, yes, the wonderful 1970's. What a great time for the economy.

This post shows glaring omissions...

Kennedy dropped tax rates. Result: Economic growth.

Reagan, in the 80's, dropped rates. Result: Economic growth.

Get it yet?

Kennedy dropped tax rates, but he also closed many loopholes in the tax laws so that in many cases, there was a tax increase. During the 50s-70s, we didn't have crashes or boom and bust cycles. The economy just chugged along. During the 70s we did have stagflation, but no crash. When Reagan dropped the tax rates, we did have a short-term boom, but then we had the 1987 crash and we entered a cycle of boom and bust that continues to this day. Furthermore, if you look at wages in inflation-adjusted dollars, wages have been stagnant since the Reagan tax cuts even as worker productivity increases. Where does all the extra money from the worker productivity go? Straight to the top.

 

[rbell]

Kennedy dropped tax rates, but he also closed many loopholes in the tax laws so that in many cases, there was a tax increase. During the 50s-70s, we didn't have crashes or boom and bust cycles. The economy just chugged along. During the 70s we did have stagflation, but no crash. When Reagan dropped the tax rates, we did have a short-term boom, but then we had the 1987 crash and we entered a cycle of boom and bust that continues to this day. Furthermore, if you look at wages in inflation-adjusted dollars, wages have been stagnant since the Reagan tax cuts even as worker productivity increases. Where does all the extra money from the worker productivity go? Straight to the top.

I must admit, I got a good laugh out of your explanation for why Reagan's tax cuts hurt our country.

You write good fiction. Keep it up.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

I must admit, I got a good laugh out of your explanation for why Reagan's tax cuts hurt our country.

You write good fiction. Keep it up.

I know. I wrote piece of fiction on a blog about Census workers back in August under the name "Jax Enumerator".

Here at LCO 8666, we had a party in the office. We all brought lots of booze. Everyone was so drunk. One of the FOS brought his weed dealer, who gave us all discount prices, so myself, my CL, and a couple of other enumerators lit up in the office. We also had a live Nirvana cover band to entertain us. We were all rocking out. Our LCOM got up on a table and starting dancing. After the band was done playing, we played games. The clerks played a game where the first person to successfully log in to PBOCS won a prize. We played poker, and my CL won $50 because he was gambling. However, one of the other players was a radical feminist, so he got paid in Susan B. Anthony dollars. My favorite game was called “Leaky PII Holes” where we tortured each other into revealing confidential information. My CL from NRFU tickled me until I told her the names of a family I enumerated. The AMFO was a tough nut to crack. I ended up waterboarding him. He then confessed to all of his wrongful terminations and how he sold confidential address lists to the Russian spies who got deported last month. After that a CLA from another crew came in with a goat and sacrificed it to Satan. By this time it was 1 A.M. My CL and I then put the goat carcass in the trunk of my car. I was still drunk and high, and we went around painting pentagrams on the doors of all of our refusal cases in goat blood. As I was driving on the wrong side of the road, I got pulled over and arrested for DUI. I spent the night passed out in the drunk tank in jail, but the AMFO bailed me out with money he stole from the Census bank account.

LCO=Local Census Office
FOS=Field Operations Supervisor
CL=Crew Leader
LCOM=Local Census Office Manager
PBOCS=Paper-based Operations Control System
PII=Personally Identifiable Information
AMFO=Assistant Manager for Field Operations
NRFU=Non-response Follow-up
CLA=Crew Leader Assistant

The link is http://www.mytwocensus.com/2010/08/...rom-2010-census-debriefing-sessions/#comments

That mytwocensus.com website was the non-partisan watchdog for the 2010 Census. The first comment on that article is another made up story that's pretty funny. There are also a bunch of others.

Aren't I funny, Rbell?

 

[Thousand Hills]

Problem is a lot of folks don't want to work extra or harder.... the dream is out there, but it takes a lot of sweat and tears....

:thumbsup: I'm very thankful that my parents taught me as a child to work hard and take pride in a job well done. With the economy the way it has been over the past few years I've worried from time to time about what would happen if my current job ever became obsolete. After studying on it a while I figured I'd be okay cause I'm not afraid to work, and the Lord rewards that.

It saddens me to come across so many people in day to day life who just hate their jobs, as Dave Ramsey says they have the "Thank God its Friday, Oh God its Monday mentality".

My dad always said "Poor people have poor ways", this may mean getting their paycheck and buying lotto tickets, beer, etc. I don't mind a bit to help anyone who truly needs it - we as Christians obviously have a duty to, but the truth of the matter is the problem with America today is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I believe like Salty that the dream is still achievable, but it doesn't happen overnight (unless your a sports star, pop star, etc.).

Ok I'll now get off my soapbox. Please resume the discussion.:smilewinkgrin: