BudSniffer

Workers’ share of national income plummets to record low - Yahoo! News

Gee, I don't see how this could be, with companies CEO's pay rising every year, while we are forced to do multiple jobs for the same amount of pay or less. Where is all the money going?

__________________
"Nobody thinks the way that I do, I guess nobody dares. My head's so full of things, I set my mind free of them. I'm breaking the rules, breaking all the rules. " -Ozzy Osbourne

stoneric

A contradiction, in a way, to j-wonders thread about the distribution of wealth in this country and a truer indication of reality, imo.

John F. Kerry

yea because of course you wouldnt prefer the source that reinforces your position.



but interesting anyway, i was trying to figure out what that meant for a few minutes, its got some "calculation" that they are measuring... but its not like amount of money or percentage of wages or something simple like that, but some crazy statistic that is probably so abstract that people can debate how true it is.

like stoneric said, there are other studies that seem to show the opposite.

if they had something that showed it in a clear way, and didnt have to use an index that rates things between 90.2 and 112.5 it seems like they probably would have showed the simpler more easy to understand data- that is, if that data showed the point they are trying to make as well as this one did.


thanks for posting tho. now i want to find out how its calculated.

__________________
Nasa under Obama

stoneric

Just open your eyes, you'll see how it's calculated. I've lived it.

OldMan&TheWeed

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, president when the top tax bracket for the richest people in this country was 92 percent. President Eisenhower defended that tax bracket. He said we cannot afford to reduce taxes until, quote, "the factors of income and outgo will be balanced." Eisenhower insisting there must be a balanced budget and that taxes on the rich are the way to balance the budget. The Republican Party platform of Eisenhower's 1956 called for expansion of Social Security, broadened unemployment insurance, and better health protection for all of our people.

If he were running today, John F Kerry would label him a radical Communist.

__________________
Nintey-three percent of what I say is brilliant, factual information and seven percent is complete bullshit. Have fun deciding which is which.

John F. Kerry

these arguments are pretty weak you know.

every time we have a hole, or something liberals want to fund, they always talk about how taking from the rich would be easier. possibly because its true, it would be easier for the rich to pay more, even than the 60+% they already pay.... but just because some people want shit, and its easier for someone else to pay for it, doesn't give those people any right to take away what someone else has.... rich people didn't steal their money, they followed the system just like everyone else... so thats the first part


the 2nd part, is that during the eisenhower administration there were 10 workers for every 1 person drawing medicare benefits. So, under those circumstances, it took 90% income brackets or whatever- to ballance the budget.... CLEARLY today, when there are 2 workers for every 1 drawing benefits...and in future years when it will go in the reverse.... that 90% tax rates wouldn't even pay for it all... because in eisenhower days the wellfare state was much smaller and less people were on it... so the argument that taxes alone can save these bloated programs that are like a cash machine for around 70% of americans. They get more out then they EVER pay in, in their ENTIRE LIFETIMES... think about that... thats the system that liberals want to keep going and they are gonna do it by taxing more...but to anyone with the least imagination, we can see how 10 years down the line, 90% wont be enough....we will need to make it 99% to keep the programs that are STRUCTRUALLY UNSUSTAINABLE going for a few more years... then we will have no money and a bunch of services given to a generation that didnt pay for it and no investment in the future. So basically have no money and nothing to show for it.

Thats how I get from thinking its "moral" to raise taxes, which seems at first to be a fair idea, i mean rich get more they should pay more... OF COURSE! they DO... in fact, 70% of people use government, as i said, like a cash machine that is funded by the other 30%.

The idea that topping it off with more tax money and higher rates is anything better than a 6 month duct tape fix, is absurd.

__________________
Nasa under Obama

John F. Kerry

how is it fair for your average person born in 1955 to get 1 million dollars in social security and medicare payments over their average lifetime when the average worker only put in 100k over their career. ? How is that fair? I appreciate that those people vote a lot, and think themselves entitled... but the fact is its comming out of MY generation... not some fat cat, taxing bill gates isnt the problem...its the $900,000 that person never earned but expects back that is the problem.... x 250 million.

__________________
Nasa under Obama

SageTree

__________________

Center

want shit? like what? healthy care, education, food? In other words those things which prevent their minds and bodies from being permanently destroyed forever. The problem is the system which you speak of. It's not like it's been perfectly tuned for fairness or by another other measure yet (although probably can never be really achieved...)

Unfortunately for millions of people in our world, they are the unlucky owners of biological/sociological/etc systems that necessarily prevent them from ever entering the middle class or higher. And that's a problem when even today's middle class consistently reminds us of the trouble they have providing the essentials for an even moderate sized family. But you know, fuck those guys...cause the rich people earned all their money right? I mean, they obviously are completely independent entities that don't rely on the actions of others for anything. Or for that matter the very system which was put in place by every other person who lived before them...

Your arguing on behalf on whats fair? But whats more fair? Making sure the rich people don't have to have stolen (yes ill give you this) a percentage of their income or to make sure innocent members or our society don't fade into the oblivion of death due to circumstances which are in vast majority not of their own creation, or at best not at all of their own creation...

I'll admit this is purely moral argument, however it seems to me that's the context were speaking within

__________________
"As an organizer I start where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be — it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." - Saul Alinsky

Roach

Governors brace for inevitable cuts to states as debt debate rages on
'No matter what happens, states are going to get less money from the federal government,' Miss. governor says


NYT: Governors brace for inevitable cuts to states - politics - The New York Times - msnbc.com

exerpt...

“If I can use a whitewater analogy here, the two rocks we need to shoot between is, on the one side, being needlessly driven into default, which will kill the jobs recovery,” said Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, the chairman of the Democratic Governors Commission. “The other rock is massive public sector cuts, by whatever name, that would also kill the jobs recovery.”

Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a Republican, said that a default stemming from a failure to increase the borrowing limit would be “terrible” for states. But he said that states must also brace themselves for managing a new set of cuts even if the limit is raised. “No matter what happens, states are going to get less money from the federal government,” he said.

The uncertainty for states, coming just two weeks after most put new budgets into effect, was a new black cloud on the horizon for governors just when many thought they would have a moment’s respite. State tax collections are improving, but are still below their pre-recession levels, and this month the federal stimulus aid that has helped states balance their budgets in recent years dried up. Now states, already struggling to pay for Medicaid for the many people who lost their jobs and health care in the downturn, face the prospect of less federal money for it.

Employers reluctant to hire
The impact of the standoff in Washington is already being felt in states.
Moody’s Investors Service warned more than a dozen states this week that their credit ratings would be re-evaluated in light of the uncertainty in Washington, which could saddle them with higher borrowing costs. Governor O’Malley learned that Maryland was one of them when he stepped off the plane here. “This happens at a time when we’re about to go out for a bond sale,” he said.

Governors from around the country — including Christine O. Gregoire of Washington, a Democrat, and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a Republican — said that employers in their states had been reluctant to hire new workers because of the uncertainty. And Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, an Independent, said that the threat of dwindling federal aid gave him pause last week before he signed a bill in which his state agreed to pay for heating assistance for the poor that the federal government was expected to cut.

“My argument — and I did sign it — was that this was the first of many,” he said. “I don’t know how much Rhode Island taxpayers can do that.”

Roach

that number smells like the ass it was pulled from.

Terry

I would rather live in a welfare state where welfare is sometimes abused than a corptocracy led by vampires bleeding the American people dry.

__________________
I don't know but I've been told,
If you never die you'll never grow old

mothernature

We are living the end result of the trickle down or side supply theory. Tax breaks were given to the rich so that jobs would be created. So, where's the jobs???

The fat cats don't play by the same rules as the rest of us. If they don't like the rules, they hire lobbyists to change them, while the average person is struggling.

__________________
Sometimes sleep is the best revenge- Luke

The Rev

The theory behind demand side economics, is that, in essence, if you increase demand (that is, money in circulation) you will increase wealth production. Supply side takes the other side and says that the only way to increase wealth is to increase the creation of actual goods and services, so the preferred policy is tax cuts for companies and their owners.

It's definitely demand economics (the economics of Keynes) that got us where we are today. De-regulation (part of the supply side policy) only made it easier for corporations to make more money, which would be fine, except that it didn't get passed down to the workers (those actually making the products and services that made the corp richer). Now, if they DID pass it down, that would increase expenses on their balance sheet. This, in turn, translates to a less profitable period (year, quarter, whatever), which in turn, pushes investors into the hands of other, more profitable companies.

So, the problem here is not Supply side policy. It did what it was supposed to do. It's the corporate need to maximize profit at all cost, which, if ignored, means very rich men lose their jobs. So, it's not even the CEO's, it's the corporate system we have constructed. A corporate system which centers around the company as an investment, rather than an engine for creating actual, long-term wealth.

That takes us back to demand economics. Manipulating the money supply has long been the solution to economic downturns, because it works in creating economic booms (and bubbles). The problem with this is, it creates inflation, most especially in investment markets like stocks and real estate. People start investing more and more, because the increased money (demand) is running up prices, and corporations have to take notice. Making some of that boom money for the stock holders is essential, now, because everyone wants to get rich, and the stock holders can vote you out of your job.

So corporations start chasing immediate profits more and more, and ignore the fundamentals like re-investment into the company, compensating employees well to retain top talent, and long term planning which might involve short term sacrifice. And the fact that the officers, managers, and owners of the stock are not responsible, directly, for the actions of the company (thanks to corporate "personhood") the need to outperform the balance sheets of your competitors creates a growing temptation to do so in unethical ways.

And you have a perfect recipe for a self-destructive system.

So, don't blame tax cuts for rich people, blame the system. If we had a static money supply, and corporate owners and managers were held accountable, the economy would be doing what it should: creating real, tangible wealth, in the form of goods and services. And everyone would benefit, not just a few guys at the top who might as well take a huge bonus, because the shareholders don't care as long as they get the quarterly numbers they want.



The Rev

__________________

BudSniffer

and what about bull like this? Your hard earned tax dollars at work... and yet they want to cut SSI, Medicare etc, before they cut this crap! Did you know you were "committed?" White House: US suspending $800M in Pakistan aid - Yahoo! News

__________________
"Nobody thinks the way that I do, I guess nobody dares. My head's so full of things, I set my mind free of them. I'm breaking the rules, breaking all the rules. " -Ozzy Osbourne

Roach

loved this flick...

needed a little comic relief.














yea well youtube blows an removed the rest...

worth renting/downloading tho.

mothernature

I like the way Rev explains things. Thanks!

__________________
Sometimes sleep is the best revenge- Luke