Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, March 5, 2013 | 2:01 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
I don’t see how our elected officials can get the solution to our anemic economy so wrong. In the first place, with our ever-increasing population, there is really little need to reduce budget expenditures in view of the steady and significant reduction of debt as related to total gross national product since Barack Obama became president. Secondly, how can anyone be opposed to reductions in tax loopholes and subsidies as a partial means of reducing our deficit?
Also, why do the politicians not recognize that the most effective way to spur the economy is not by spending cuts but by increased spending? Do we want to leave our future generations decaying bridges and transportation systems when we could eliminate much of our unemployment by rebuilding bridges and leaving our children infrastructure that could make us proud? Another project like the Hoover Dam could go a long way to help our clean energy program while putting people back to work. Can’t we all accentuate the positive rather than dwelling on the negative?
Stan mistakenly says "there is really little need to reduce budget expenditures in view of the steady and significant reduction of debt as related to total gross national product since Barack Obama became president. Secondly, how can anyone be opposed to reductions in tax loopholes and subsidies as a partial means of reducing our debt"
You better check with CBO
Obama raised the debt from $10.5 trillion to $16.5 trillion yet the GDP is still just $15 trillion --- the is no signification reduction there an increase.
When we were dealling with the fiscal crisis republicans offered tax reform to eliminate deductions -- and the president refused saying he had to have RATE INCREASES.
When conservative proposed deduction elimination as part of TAX REFORM Obama claimed it did not add up - the math did not work.
So Obama got his $600 billion tax increase -- Obama chose to get from rate increases not eliminating deduction
Stan further says "Also, why do the politicians not recognize that the most effective way to spur the economy is not by spending cuts but by increased spending? "
Stan believe that GOVERNMENT SPENDING is the only solution to the economy. WOW.
Obama has proven this to be wrong over the last 4 years -- $6 trillion in deficit spending and what did we get NOTHING -- unemployment higher then when Obama took office, GDP at 2% per year, million more on food stamps.
And lest you missed it SPENDING HAS BEEN HIGHER EVERY YEARS INCLUDING THIS YEAR EVEN WITH THE SEQUESTER. SO THERE HAS BEEN NO CUT IN FEDERAL SPENDING
When the government spends the money on wasted stuff - it takes money from the private companies and citizens can not spend it
The payroll tax was increased 2% January 1st direct reducing the money they have to spend
The most recent census showed that US population growth is slowing and stands at its lowest rate since 1940. It also showed an aging population.
I don't have a problem with closing tax loopholes, even after the President got a tax increase he favored. However, to say we don't need to reduce spending because our population is growing is 'a bridge too far'.
It amazes me that Americans are so complacent. Washington DC lets the sequester take place; we have a 16 trillion dollar debt, Medicare is heading for trouble.... and John Kerry announces we are giving 250 million dollars to Egypt, even after the comments Morsi made about America.... and what do Americans do? They yawn!
Amazing...
Michael
An election took place and Obama won. Obama got his $40-60$ billion in extra yearly tax revenue via higher taxes on the top 1% of wage earners. Two LVS articles yesterday eluded to this point:
Tax bills for rich families approach 30-year high
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar...
Who will pay what in 2013 taxes?
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar...
Shouldn't we all be exercising a little more patience in order for Obama's "tax the rich more" economic strategy to kick in and work?
While government may not create jobs, government spending does. We spent most of 2012 arguing about job creation and the first step seems to be job furloughs and layoffs. Go figure!
New ObamaCare/FrankenDodd regulations along with the EPA will kill off any economic growth for the next 4 years. The class warfare rheotoric has produced the most anemic 'recovery' since the great depression.
Must be related to Vernos..all I all read was SPEND....
Jim et al:
By all accounts the furloughs and layoffs will affect Federal government employees and contractors inside the Washington DC beltway. This is one if not the only sector of the economy that has been immune from the financial tsunami since 2008 while the rest of the country and its workers have not. I'm not sure what the exact percentage of the DC economy is to the rest of the country. But, I opine a day off for all government workers once a month, and fewer consultants and contractors in DC for the next 9 months, will have little if no negative effect on the nation's economy as a whole. In fact as Gramm Rudman Hollings [the first government sequestration] proved in 1986 and 1987, if combined with tax cuts, it actually invigorates the rest of the economy.
Maybe, just maybe the House GOP has it right this time and the President and Senate ought to listen. On a positive note, even the mainstream media, like the Washington Post and NY Times, President Obama allies, pushed back the President and his Administration on their gloom and doom forecasts for sequestration.
CarmineD
Carmine Here is what another Obama Allie said
---
Liberal Democrat Eugene Robinson said "another thing I hate about the sequester: the political incompetence and miscalculation that produced it. To quote baseball legend Casey Stengel: Can't anybody here play this game?
Obama figured that Republicans would be so horrified at the prospect of deep defense cuts that they would make a deal on his [Obama's] terms, even after being forced to accept a humiliating defeat -- a tax increase for the wealthy -- in the "fiscal cliff" negotiations two months ago.
The president apparently didn't foresee that the Republican Party's activist base would approach the sequester deadline full of outrage, not resignation....[on] shrinking the Pentagon, many tea party Republicans are closer to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party than to their own party's establishment."
Obama was inept
That's a fair and accurate observation, Mr. Freeman. But it only tells half the story. Let's look at how wealth has been distributed in this country over the last 30 years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijn...
Stan Broselow
We know all the things you wrote about would grow our economy. The republicans do not want to grow the economy. The wealthy have their money and they feel no one else should have any, for it would diminish their power.
The republicans represent the wealthy, powerful and elite. If fixing the economy means it will benefit everyone else, then they won't do it.
The republicans in office are even dismissing the Romney plan of eliminating loopholes you and I don't enjoy and keeping the tax rates the same. They call this plan, increasing taxes. Never mind we are still collecting under 18% of our GDP in taxes, the lowest since we start running deficits under Reagan.
No, the plan the conservatives have is to destroy the American middle class. They know if they can knock off one group after another, then the last remaining group of working class white men will be easily suppressed.
They can then establish the new plutocracy. Where the few of them own everything, and the rest of us live out a life of serfdom or chattel slavery. We will no longer own our own land, homes, schools, churches, roads, bridges, and etc, but we must pay fees, tolls and rents to the owners for the privilege of using them (rent taking).
They have a plan.
God help us if they succeed.
Emthree,
See the yearly income figures below. Should person B & C get an increase in wages to equal person A's income at $83,000?
Person A = $83,000
Person B = $57,000
Person C = $42,000
Stan says "Also, why do the politicians not recognize that the most effective way to spur the economy is not by spending cuts but by increased spending? "
I had to re-read this statement because I thought maybe he mis-spoke.
There are plenty of people on the right that scare me, but Brtaylor and others like him on the left scare me too.
The wealthy don't want to destroy the middle class. They are not stupid and know their wealth is derived from having a middle class that buys stuff. Likewise, the middle class should also know that wealthy people are also necessary for a vibrant economy.
Do the wealthy want to advantage themselves? Absolutely? So do people in the middle class. There is nothing wrong with this.
The problem isn't the wealthy. The problem is that our legislative branch (with a disinterested public, no term limits, out of control lobbying and no public financing of campaigns) is ripe to be corrupted and is totally and completely corrupted.
That is what we need to fix. Brtaylor and others need to understand that in a Capitalist system with a free market economy, there are always going to be people with wealth and power who try to advantage themselves by manipulating our government.
The Framers of our Constitution set up a pretty good system to protect us against abuse. The problem isn't those that try to gain advantage. They will always be there. The problem is that our legislative branch must be changed to better deal with forces that try to corrupt it.
Michael
Brtayor says "Stan Broselow--We know all the things you wrote about would grow our economy. The republicans do not want to grow the economy."
Don't you get it
Obama, Reid and Pelosi have been spending like mad -- for several years -- and we have NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT
The economy is not growing under Obama's tax borrow and spend polices - $6 trillion in deficits
That does not include the $85 billion each month that the fed is printing to by up toxic mortgages.
Republicans WANT THE ECONOMY TO GROW - THAT HOW EVERYBODY MAKES MORE MONEY - EVEN GOVERNMENT REVENUE
"Obama was inept." Future
On many matters he is BUT not all. He is the consummate politician from Chicago. That's great for campaigning. Not so much for governance. President Obama shares many ideological and philosophical beliefs with President Lyndon B. Johnson. Both are teachers, both liberal Democrats, both ardent believers in the big government state as the equalizer for the poor and downtrodden. Sadly, President Obama lacks the political experience and wisdom to forge alliances and partnerships with the opposition to move the goal posts.
So instead, President Obama will sit on his hands for the next two years and use money [Organization For Action, his old political campaign] and ramp up the political rhetoric to defeat the House GOP control in 2014. Thinking that a Democratic Senate and House will push his agenda through in the last 2 years of his Presidency. Risky at best.
CarmineD
Let's cut through the baloney little bit. If you talk to 100 different economists like myself you're going to get 100 different answers on what should be done with the economy. It's not that simple.
Global growth has slowed to 3% which is very close to a worldwide recession. Europe is in recession with unemployment averaging 10% on the continent. It's a very difficult slow growth period in world economic history.
That being said the economy is a lot stronger than it was a few years ago, the stock market is closed all time highs and Americans have gotten trillions of dollars back that they lost in the financial crisis. In addition banking, insurance, and real estate are all back on a firm footing. These were the industries that suffered most during the crisis
The lingering negative is that all of that wealth is being concentrated in the hands of very few people and wealth distribution is at Third World levels in the United States. I think we are between Turkey and Chile. The few million millionaires can take care of themselves. I'm not sure what's going to happen to the other 300,000,000+ people going forward.
I agree with Carmine's above statement. There is way too much politics and Republicans and Democrats need to work together. Sky high medical costs are driving bankruptcies, the deficit, and starting to reduce life expectancies. Of the roughly $70 trillion in unfunded liabilities going forward the vast majority is in Medicare and Medicaid. Something has to be done about medical inflation.
In addition water shortages are wreaking havoc on the Western United States and Texas. These regions are responsible for a large portion of the countries output. If a state like Texas or California were to go dry the economic dislocations would make the financial crisis look like child's play. We have to work on infrastructure and get water to where it is needed. Trillions of gallons of water are wasted just do to leaky infrastructure.
I personally could care less about the deficit. Large debts never get paid back. It doesn't matter whether it's governmental debt, corporate debt or individual debt. Bankruptcy, reorganization, inflation and other forms of manipulation take care of debts in the long run. My opinion is in the minority. If people are concerned about the debt pay it down. There's going to be close to one quad- trillion worth of economic activity in the United States in the next 50 years. The $16 trillion is a tiny fraction of anticipated economic activity. If people don't like the debt pay it down. With a national sales tax you could get rid of the debt in a few years if you wanted to.
Now all of a sudden a nuclear armed Iran is a big deal. Have you ever played chess with someone that's really not that bright?
FUTURE
Let's correct some of statements you have made.
1. Obama, Reid and Pelosi have been spending like mad -- for several years -- and we have NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT.
RESPONSE:
The 2009 budget, (The last year of Bush's budget), $3.517trn. 2013 budget- 3.803. Spending increased because we started including war spending and the Medicare Part D costs in the federal budgets. GDP (2009)- 13.939trn, (2013)- 16.334trn.
2.The economy is not growing under Obama's tax borrow and spend polices - $6 trillion in deficits
RESPONSE:
See GDP from 2009-2013. Clinton collected 19.36% of GDP in revenue. Tax collection under Obama is as follows.(Percent of revenue to GDP)
2010 - 14.91%
2011 - 15.40%
2012 - 15.82%
2013 - 17.77%
Bush's record.
2002 - 17.41%
2003 - 16.00%
2004 - 15.86%
2005 - 17.06%
2006 - 17.99%
2007 - 18.31%
2008 - 17.47%
2009 - 15.10%
Obama is collecting less in taxes than Bush and that is why we are running deficits. Let's not forget the republican recession in which we saw our GDP fall from $14.450trn (2008) to $13.939trn (2009).
3.That does not include the $85 billion each month that the fed is printing to by up toxic mortgages.
Republicans WANT THE ECONOMY TO GROW - THAT HOW EVERYBODY MAKES MORE MONEY - EVEN GOVERNMENT REVENUE
RESPONSE:
I thought tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of the financial markets was going to create jobs, wealth and growth for all Americans. Now you are telling me the federal reserve must pull the banks fat out the fire.
The American people want the economy to grow so they can grow their wealth. The conservatives want the economy to grow so ONLY the rich can grow their wealth. Asking the rich to share in the fair distribution of wealth is out of the question for republicans.
Tax cuts and low tax rates only allow for the people in power to take for wealth for themselves. The people not in power are at the mercy of the people in charge.
Deregulation has allowed big corporations to consolidate power and market share. Thus, forcing small business out of business and gobbling up medium sized business to add to their largess.
Funny how all the cuts and pain must fall on the backs of the working class and poor. The rich cannot be bothered with a cut in their wealth or bear the pain of not taking such huge salaries for themselves.
That is why I said what I said Future.
Brtaylor says "The 2009 budget, (The last year of Bush's budget), $3.517trn. 2013 budget- 3.803. Spending increased because we started including war spending and the Medicare Part D costs in the federal budgets."
---
First point Harry and Nancy never allowed Bush to sign a 2009 budget. They Held it for Obama to retool and increase spending.
Obama signed the Reid-Pelosi 2009 budget after he took office and added part two of TARP and the $1 trillion Stimulus on top for a Hugh increase over 2008.
Further the true benchmark is the FY-2007 budget. This was before Reid, Pelosi, and Senator Obama to control of Congress
The FY-2007 budget included the two wars, Medicare Part D, and the Bush tax rate cuts.
Bottom line is the FY-2007 deficit was $160 billion and that was during the housing recession that started jan 2007.
My simple response is the ecomony is growing at less that 2% under Obama
So for all the increases in government spending we are not getting anything in return
The government spending model is not working because the private sector is held back with higher taxes, more regulations and uncertainty
"There is way too much politics and Republicans and Democrats need to work together." Gerry Hageman
I opine Congress will in the next two years move the goal posts on debts/deficits, tax reform, immigration reform, jobs, the economy, and gun controls. Congress knows all too well it's approval rating is at all time lows. And President Obama's approval rating has tanked 13 points due a bad week he had. Some, like me, say the worse week in his Presidency. I'm not so sure the President's will rebound UNLESS he changes. I am sure Congress' will rebound.
CarmineD
That's not a fair comparison, Mr. Freeman -- and I think you know that. A better question would be what to do about these numbers:
A. $14,500 per year (2000 hours x the $7.25 federal min. wage)
B. $51,000 per year (the mean income in the U.S.)
C. $717,000 per year (the average income of the top 1%)
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneywisewom...
Is it fair that our country asks people in Group B to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than those in Group C?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/20...
Obama is spending like mad. Really!! The economy is growing slow because the world is either in recession or decelerating. It is a world wide phenomenon and there is very little that can be done about it.
Future
You do know that all spending and budgets must originate in the house. Pelosi and Reid were forced to deal with Bush for fiscal year 2008-2009.
He suddenly got religion on spending and threatened to veto any bill that showed any increase in spending. To get around Bush's veto threat, they had to do continuing resolutions to fund the government.
You and I may not have liked TARP, but it was the only way we could get the conservative blue dog democrats to sign off on anything to help working people in this country.
FYI for you, the two wars and Medicare Part D were NOT carried on the books until Obama demanded the cost be put on the books, starting in fiscal year 2009. Bush wouldn't allow it. He had to prove he was CONSERVATIVE.
You are being dishonest by only stating the 2007 budget deficit. Lets start with Clinton's last budget in 2001 and see when and how big the deficits got until now.
Clinton 2001
Bush 2002-2009
Obama 2010-present
2001 - 128.20 surplus (under Clinton)
2002 - (157.80)
2003 - (377.60)
2004 - (412.70)
2005 - (318.40)
2006 - (248.20)
2007 - (160.70)
2008 - (458.50)
2009 - (1,412.70)
2010 - (1,293.50)
2011 - (1,299.60)
2012 - (1,327.00)
2013 - (901.40)projected
Looking at these numbers, I see why you omitted the other deficits. The largest deficit ever was the under Bush.
Excuse me, the continuing resolution under Reid and Pelosi.
You mentioned the stimulus. Thank goodness we had President Obama and a democratic congress who had the good sense to pass it. It prevented the United States from entering into another Republican Great Depression.
We could have done like Europe and did austerity. The U.S. is the only advanced country showing growth over the past four years. Thanks to the stimulus.
Don't forget 1/3 of the $787bn stimulus was tax cuts. Either you admit the stimulus was only $525bn or tax cuts cost revenue, which add to the deficits. Which means tax cuts must be considered spending.
By the way, Obama cut a tax deal with republicans in 2010, that cost us $858bn in revenue. It cost us more than the stimulus. Didn't help create on job.
You remember the deal, so the republicans would not crash the economy or hurt workers by not extending unemployment for the long-termed unemployed. Such kind-hearted Christians.
Any way you cut it, the republicans have the interest of the rich and powerful in mind. They could care less about average working people.
As we know most people making less tha 50k per year are not paying income taxes
50% of people are not paying taxes
That would be 0% of their income to Obama as income tax
50% of the people have no skin in the game
To answer the question 0% is less than the 39.5 % tax rate paid by C.
Dow at an all time high, property values up 13 % last years in Vegas, 34% in Phoenix. To bad Tbags the economy is recovering.
"FYI for you, the two wars and Medicare Part D were NOT carried on the books until Obama demanded the cost be put on the books, starting in fiscal year 2009. Bush wouldn't allow it. He had to prove he was CONSERVATIVE."
--
Not true all revenue and all spending costs by the Federal Government is in the bottom line deficit and debt
Your point about war spending is that Democrats made Bush fight for funding as a separate line appropriation and not part of the normal Defense department appropriation - this was done by Democrats to highlight the war cost but it does not make the expenditure disappear - as you would have us believe. Spent money is spent money
FY-2007 had a bottom line as you reported at $160 billion - that was the last time republicans were able to control the budget.
Congress went to the Democrats January 2007, after that lame duck Bush has no say over spending.
One can only assume that John Maynard Broselow was being sarcastic.
Emthree,
How much the top 1 percent of wage earners earn has no bearing on whether the bottom 20 percent can move up. Those who plan, get an education, have a career in an in-demand field, work hard, save, invest and live within their means tend to do quite well compared to others who don't. For adults in their fifties to earn more than college students or retirees is perfectly normal. The spirited, entrepreneurial and determinedly self-reliant citizens will tend to earn more income.
Yesterday, LVS posted an article titled "Who will pay what in 2013 taxes?". The info was as follows:
How much households at different income levels will pay in federal income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes for 2013:
Bottom 20 percent
Average income: $10,552.
Average tax bill: -$284.
Average tax rate: -2.7 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: -0.4 percent.
___
Middle 20 percent
Average income: $46,562.
Average tax bill: $6,436.
Average tax rate: 13.8 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 8.6 percent.
___
Top 20 percent
Average income: $204,490.
Average tax bill: $55,533.
Average tax rate: 27.2 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 71.8 percent.
___
Top 1 percent
Average income: $1.4 million.
Average tax bill: $514,144.
Average tax rate: 35.5 percent.
Share of federal tax burden: 30.2 percent.
___
Now, what was your point Emthree concerning federal tax burden at differing income levels?
Read more: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar...
"How much the top 1 percent of wage earners earn has no bearing on whether the bottom 20 percent can move up."
How our economic system distributes income has EVERYTHING to do with upward mobility. This country has adopted policies over the last three decades specifically designed to move enormous amounts of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. The result -- by design - has been to squeeze working and middle class families, who have seen wage stagnation or decline for decades.
The U.S. now has, by far, the worst income inequality in the developed world, and upward mobility in this country now trails France, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Finland, Canada, Norway and Denmark.
Who are we still beating? Try Argentina, Chile, Brazil, China and Peru -- and we're just about tied with Pakistan.
Is that your version of the American Dream?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobi...
Wrong. Government pulling funding out of our income and/or deficit spending has/have negative impact on our economy. Free enterprise stimulates the economy by supplying the demands of what we want to buy, what we want badly enough to work for. Giving things away does the opposite and assaults economic expansion. Deficit spending results in money printing and devaluation of our wealth.
Our population is declining because so many Americans are hesitant to have kids they cannot support--while illegals invade and chuck out lots of anchor babies. Sure, SOME Americans have kids they can't and won't support but those Americans who participate in American values and culture, do NOT.
Stan opens with "I don't see how our elected officials can get the solution to our anemic economy so wrong."
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that one of our political parties has decided to subordinate its members mandatory oaths of office with a purely voluntary oath to Grover Norquist.
One party has decided that drastic spending cuts are the ONLY possible way to fix our economy and is willing to execute a scorched earth, take no prisoners policy to achieve that aim with no regard to the effects of their actions on the country overall, and without regard to the fact that other countries with ailing economies have tried the same path and found it leads only to ruin. That party has a voting majority in one house of Congress - the only one permitted to initiate revenue increases - and a minority in the other house that has proven it willingness and ability to to throttle any action.
I won't argue whether spending cuts are possible, or desirable, or not. I will simply note that multiple actions increase the chance that at least some of them will help. I will also note that, if our national debt is too great a percentage of our GDP, there are at least FOUR ways to fix that - cut spending, raise revenue, actually do something to raise our GDP as we did to clear our horrendous debt from WWII, or (probably the best option) some combination of all three. That, of course, would violate the oath to Norquist taken by members of one party, even though it would uphold their oaths of office in the process.
Emthree,
How much Angels outfielder Josh Hamilton, Britney Spears, an auto repair shop owner earn are not determining factors on your yearly income.
The top fifth of the income distribution now receive about 12 times as much income as the bottom fifth. But that's mainly because the top fifth spends vastly more time in the labor market earning a living. In fact, if you divide income by the number of weeks of work, the difference between the top and bottom fifth is only 2 to 1.
Most families in the top fifth of the income distribution had two full-time workers, while most families in the bottom fifth had no full time worker,
Specifically, in the top fifth there were 2.2 workers per household, on the average; in the bottom fifth, there were 0.7.
Less than one-third of families in the bottom fifth had a head of household working full time; in the top fifth, three-fourths of families did.
Adults in the bottom fifth tend to be either very young or very old. The very young are the ones starting out in life who have yet to learn the job skills that will produce a high income. The very old are the ones who are retired. By contrast, the people in the top fifth tend to be people in their peak earning years.
In the bottom fifth of the income distribution, only one-third of households are headed by someone age 35 to 54; whereas in the top quintile, more than half of household heads are in that age range.
The bottom group also has a much larger proportion of household heads older than 75 years of age -- 11.5 percent versus 2.3 percent for the top group.
When reviewing income inequality, two major factors are the number of adults working in the household AND the age of the adult workers. Real young workers and older retired people are expected to earn less than those in the prime of their earning potential years of 35 to 54 years old. These factors will affect the income spread between upper and lower income groups.
Rusty said:
"New ObamaCare/FrankenDodd regulations along with the EPA will kill off any economic growth for the next 4 years. The class warfare rheotoric has produced the most anemic 'recovery' since the great depression."
Hmmmmmmm....I wonder how Rusty came to that conclusion? Actually, the opposite will be true. The economy will continue to improve and the out look for a complete recovery will remain bright.
When you consider the fact that the GOP has done anything & everything they can do to oppose everything that Obama has tried merely gives credence to Obama's recovery plan... In other words, Obama has been very successful with his approach.
If you don't believe me, look at the automobile industry. Things are moving forward with the monthly sale of cars & the government loans are being paid back ahead of schedule.
Of course, most conservatives were very much against Obama's plan to "bail out" the automobile industry. Obama went ahead with his plan and millions & millions of jobs were saved....
It appears to me that people such as Rusty are keeping their fingers crossed and hoping that the economy does not continue to improve.
A continuing improved economy will make it impossible for the GOP to win back the White House & maintain control of the House...
The GOP and their backers are not interested in doing what is best for the country. They're interested only in regaining power......
The only groups building substantial wealth are families earning over 250K a year. We are in the neighborhood of Chile and Turkey in terms of how the countries wealth is distributed. If we don't get people earning and saving more our economic model will collapse. Half the elderly die broke. Millions of young and elderly live in poverty.
We spend way too much time worrying about the wealthiest and not enough time preparing the youngest for a competitive world.
In Germany kids come out of high school with skills to land a 50K job. Here it's McDonald's and Walmart at 8 bucks an hour.
gerry hageman said:
"The only groups building substantial wealth are families earning over 250K a year. We are in the neighborhood of Chile and Turkey in terms of how the countries wealth is distributed. If we don't get people earning and saving more our economic model will collapse. Half the elderly die broke. Millions of young and elderly live in poverty."
Good post over-all. Along the same line of thinking....it should be pointed out that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy did NOTHING for the economy.
"Trickle down" doesn't work! The GOP continues to push that concept but there's no proof out there that validates that....
Obama wants to invest in our economy by re-building our infrastructure and re-training our work force which will enable American workers to be become more competitive in the global economy.....
Of course, the GOP is opposed to doing that.
Taking this country back to 1901 will not move this country forward...
You can't move forward by going backwards!!!!!!
Stan......Good letter.
YES, we need to spend money on our infrastructure
and education and training our workers.
And republicans need to pull their heads out of
their rear-ends and start helping out.
PRESIDENT OBAMA is doing a great job and the
stock market just hit an all time high under
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S economy.
Now average Americans need a raise in pay and
more new jobs.
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!
Carmine......
You said maybe the GOP has it right?
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA.
The GOP never has it right.
You should know that by now.
I shouldn't have to tell you.
That's why the GOP lost two presidential elections
in a row.
And PRESIDENT OBAMA is in the White House.
THANK GOD!
"Carmine......
You said maybe the GOP has it right?
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA.
The GOP never has it right." Teamster
A broken clock is right twice a day. A blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile if it digs long and hard enough. You're a one trick horse. You can't accept reality because you are a one party loyalist.
CarmineD
"In Germany kids come out of high school with skills to land a 50K job. Here it's McDonald's and Walmart at 8 bucks an hour." Gerry Hageman
Gerry
The US should follow the German lead and teach more trades before, during and after High School. The graduates who don't want to go on to higher learning institutions will have a trade and a job.
80 percent of the Wal*Mart managers and executives go through the retailers' store ranks starting at little more than minimum wage. Enlisted men in the US military, especially married, earn so little to start out, they qualify for food stamps and welfare. The issue is not starting pay, it's job mobility and advancement.
CarmineD
Maxine Waters said if the sequester law goes into effect 170 million people will lose there jobs.
I heard she was hiring, Stan.
Carmine is correct with his statement that "a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile if it digs long and hard enough."
But with that being said, it must be pointed out that the Republicans don't know where to start looking for the squirrel or the nut. They simply don't get it & if they continue to allow the tea party to call the shots, they NEVER will..
Carmine calls teamster a "one trick pony." That's funny considering the hundreds & hundreds of bane-less conservative crap that a certain poster prints daily on this board.
President Obama has out-maneuvered the Republicans a thousand times and will continue to do so as long as the Republicans continue to offer NOTHING that a majority of Americans want or believe in....
Carmine also believes that Congress is going to shape up & come around in terms of doing what is best for the country. Actually, he's half right! The Democrats in Congress have been doing that for a long, long time...
Carmine said:
"80 percent of the Wal*Mart managers and executives go through the retailers' store ranks starting at little more than minimum wage."
Hmmmmm..I have to ask! Link please! I have never heard that or read that before......80%?
Carmine said:
"The US should follow the German lead and teach more trades before, during and after High School. The graduates who don't want to go on to higher learning institutions will have a trade and a job."
Carmine might have something there with his statement if the USA was still a nation that led the world in manufacturing, the way we once did...
That was before millions & millions & millions of jobs were taken off shore by greedy capitalists...
Oh, by the way! I wonder if Carmine knows that unions are alive & well In Germany. Probably not. One would have to listen & watch something other than FIXED NEWS or Rush Limbaugh to find that out!
RefNV (Re Freeman) at 4:04 p.m. you compared the "top 20%" to the "bottom 20% in "family income." Why the changes? Most common comparisons are between the per capita income of the top 1% or even the top 0.1% vs the rest of us. You don't include your sources so I can't check - but is it possible that restricting yourself to the per capita income of the top 1% would not have returned the results you need?
Carmine......
I live reality.
You republicans live in la-la land.
We union workers are the salt of the earth.
And the majority of German workers are
UNION MEMBERS!
UNIONS FOREVER!
El_Lobo.....
It looks like Carmine needs another reality check.
Not a surprise.
"Oh, by the way! I wonder if Carmine knows that unions are alive & well In Germany." El Lobo
Germany has about 80 million people. The USA has 215 million. Big difference.
CarmineD
Correction: 315 Million.
CarmineD
"We union workers are the salt of the earth." Teamster
I agree. I was one. Chief Steward for AFSCME. Their leadership leaves alot to be desired in the "smarts" department. The reason in part the union membership is at an all time low in the US and still declining. Losing the fight for jobs to right to work States, public opinion, and employees. Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and soon Michigan.
BTW, how's the "GM is alive" bumper sticker working for Detroit?
CarmineD
Carmine.....
What's your point? Oop's, I'm sorry! You don't have one....
For a guy who CLAIMS to have been an important cog with in the union, you sure spend a lot of time knocking unions......
"For a guy who CLAIMS to have been an important cog with in the union, you sure spend a lot of time knocking unions......" El Lobo
Wrong. I knock the union leadership. I earned the right.
CarmineD
There's nothing wrong with union leadership and
GM and Chrysler are doing great.
As long as there are workers, unions will be
here.