The Shrinking Middle Class and Perhaps a Manic Appeal to my Conservative Friends.

• isadore

  BGFalcons82;437638 wrote:Welcome back. This just in....breaking news....Hoover is dead and can't do anything about today's mess, except give us the experience of what NOT to do...like raise taxes on 1-1-2011. But I digress.
  
  Yeah, I guess we are in the midst of a great economic tsunami. The likes of which have never ever been seen before by anyone. What was that...2.4% GDP growth? Truly amazing number there. It will allow for millions of Americans to be hired by...hmmm...let me think here...ummm...the government? Oh that's right, we are in the Summer of Recovery, so all is candy canes and gummi bears. Who am I to question the naked emporer?
  
  Obama is likely the most unqlualified and inexperienced President of all time. He's learned all he knows from radicals, his marxist father, community agitating, and from textbooks. He never met a payroll, doesn't know what a payroll looks like, has no concept of how to run a business, and yet, he's telling auto companies how to run their corporations. He's an ideologue through and through and has ZERO real world experience in anything economic. But he sure can deliver a great speech as a candidate. BTW - where is the hope, optimism, and joy he spoke of if he were to be elected? Don't see it and sure as hell don't hear about it from him anymore.

  The historical illiteracy of some Bowling Green graduates is breathtaking. What does Hoover and Bush the younger show, that having business experience does not necessarily qualify someone to make economic decisions as President of the United States. The fact that the Great Depression and the Great Recession two of the worst economic times in our nation’s history happened on their watches would be outstanding proof but not of course to the historical illiterate.
  Oh 2.4 growth rate with any hiring would have looked awfully good to either of them in the times of their presidency after each had plunged us over the economic abyss.
  Gosh a president who had been trained as a lawyer, who had served in the Illinois legislature, who had only a couple of years experience in Congress. How could that prepare anyone for the Presidency. Oh yeh, that is not just Obama’s resume, its Abraham Lincoln’s. As anyone but the historically illiterate would know. I guess that would make Lincoln qualify for your statement as “the most unqualified and inexperienced President of all time.” But he could as can Obama give a good speech. He dug us out of a hole that experienced and qualified leaders like James Buchanan put us in. And now Obama is doing the same, no matter what social Darwinian adherents of plutocracy have to say about him.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Isadore can you explain how Obama is doing any positive digging? Deficits are increasing, and the employment situation is worse. Serious question, is there a point in time where you would criticize this administration? Many Americans are feeling foolish now, is there a chance you'll ever join that group?
• sjmvsfscs08

  isadore;437595 wrote: And what is happening to these children born in the United States
  ‘The poverty rate for children is higher than for any other age group. In fact, U.S. children are nearly twice as likely as adults to be poor. The overall figures are staggering. In 2008, over 14 million children—19 percent of all children in this country—were living below the poverty line.”
  
  I am an American and as opposed to you and your fellow social Darwinist, I want to see my country adopt policies that will help those in need, not punish them and reward the greedy.

  
  In my experiences, this may be because poor communities are rewarded with having babies with large government checks. I mentioned earlier that it was the norm at the inner-city high school where I coached for girls to get pregnant and convince the government their babies were retarded. To them, it is as much a source of income and career as an actual job is for others. Too many times I have seen poor families with 5+ kids with huge TVs, air conditioning, etc. and on welfare.....QUIT HAVING SO MANY BABIES!!! Oh wait, we reward them and thus punish the child because he was born into a shithole when he simply shouldn't have been.
• Prescott

  Oh yeh, that is not just Obama’s resume, its Abraham Lincoln’s

  While your point may be accurate, it is obvious that these are more complex time with more complex issues.
• Footwedge

  BGFalcons82;437546 wrote:I have heard this idea floated many times, usually by "moderates" that think it intertwines tax credits with a stimulus and voila, an expanding economy.

  I have never seen it anywhere...let alone many times.
  

  It does not answer the fundamental question, however. Using your $10/hr wage, that equals $20,800 per year. Can anyone explain why a business should spend +$20K to receive a $2K return?

  It's called incentive to expand a business...I never said that businesses would hire someone just to hire them. And I'm not claiming this idea to be a panacea for our economic woes. And I'm not even saying that I'm for the idea either. But my guess is that ma and pa type businesses would be extremely happy with this arrangement, would definitely encourage expansion, and would reduce unemployment, which reduces the taxpayer liability for UC, and would put more money in the pockets of consumers. When consumers have more money, then small businesses will have more successful businesses. Are you happy to see small town businesses fail? I'm not.
  

  Why would any business make a conscious decision to throw away money just to employ somebody?

  Throw away money? LOLOL. The fact is....business people are reluctant to expand because the economy blows and the risk is high. Many on these boards have claimed that business people are afraid of expansion given today's environment.. Reducing costs equals reducing risk. Economics 101 really.

  As has been stated by several on here, businesses hire people because they have a need to produce more due to demand.

  
  
  I know why businesses contract or expand. Demand for goods and services increase when the consumer has more money in their pocket. Not every business is related to survival goods..like food and water.

  It is not a social welfare state and never should be.

  What does this idea have to do with social welfare exactly? Trying to incentive businesses through huge tax breaks is somehow social welfare? SMH. No, social welfare is expounded through unemployment increases, and more government give outs to keep the masses from losing everything and perhaps even starving....at the taxpayers expense.
  

  If a corporation hires somebody, they do so in hopes that the individual's contribution will allow them to either gain market share, expand their geographic presence in order to grow the business, or, God forbid, increase profitability

  And yet your entire post is counter to this when it comes to ma and pa small time America. Lemme guess...you work for corporate America, that doesn't have to compete in the true spirit of Adam Smith's free market ideology? Amirite?
  

  I remember reading last year that Obama was perplexed why businesses wouldn't be behind this idea because it made sense to him. Maybe he was flummoxed because he's never been in business his entire life, only derided and impugned it. And here we are.

  
  Tell you what. Show me a link whereby Obama presented any idea that even comes close to what I've suggested. You won't because you can't. Obama, nor any economist from the right nor the left has proposed anything close to what I've thrown on the table.
  
  Somehow you think that whatever I post is some leftist plot. I am not a leftist at all. I am a realist and I espouse the teachings of Adam smith. Was Smith a leftist? My idea is a blend of extreme right winged philosophy and some left winged thinking...but the whole idea is to reduce the corporatocracy and subsequent plutocracy that has ruined our beloved free market system as we once knew it
• isadore

  HitsRus;437661 wrote:Sorry Isadore...my facts come from the CIA 2010 statitstics...you need to get your facts straight.
  https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
  
  The fertility rates for the Scandinavian countries are in the 1.7's...Netherlands 1.66.. The U.S. is above the replacement rate at 2.06. The birth rate is almost 30% higher in the U.S. HUGE difference.
  
  I am an American too...and I oppose all the lying, deceiving politicians who make their living telling the less fortunate that rich people are to blame for all their problems, and all the elitists like you that think they know what is best for everybody. Seriuosly, if you really want to help people, then get the hell out of their way, quit lying to them, and let them help themselves instead of trapping them in a web of government dependency.
  The epiphany and the realization that the policies that you support actually hurt the people you are trying to help, cannot come too soon.

  United States is at 2.05, 2.1 would be replacement for us.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
  My math is not the greatest but the difference between 1.7 and 2.05 is not 30% but more like 17%, right?
  What is unbelievable is that you argue for high birth rate and we know a large percentage of these kids are going to be born into poverty. You are unwilling to support programs that will supply the families of these children with the food, housing, medical care and education that will give them a real chance to better themselves in our society. That will not your social Darwinian rhetoric tinged with unabiding sympathy for plutocrats.
• isadore

  Prescott;437675 wrote:While your point may be accurate, it is obvious that these are more complex time with more complex issues.

  It was so simple back then fighting massive civil war, trying to end slavery, trying to keep our economy going with the richest states leaving the union, having political fights with millions of northerners who sympathized with the rebel. Simple stuff.
• isadore

  Manhattan Buckeye;437672 wrote:Isadore can you explain how Obama is doing any positive digging? Deficits are increasing, and the employment situation is worse. Serious question, is there a point in time where you would criticize this administration? Many Americans are feeling foolish now, is there a chance you'll ever join that group?

  
  The employment situation is better than when he came into office, the GDP situation is better than when he came into office and we could start to do something about the deficit when the taxes breaks for the rich are gone.
  and Republican congress member popularity is far, far below the President's.
• Con_Alma

  What was the positive digging again?
• isadore

  sjmvsfscs08;437674 wrote:In my experiences, this may be because poor communities are rewarded with having babies with large government checks. I mentioned earlier that it was the norm at the inner-city high school where I coached for girls to get pregnant and convince the government their babies were retarded. To them, it is as much a source of income and career as an actual job is for others. Too many times I have seen poor families with 5+ kids with huge TVs, air conditioning, etc. and on welfare.....QUIT HAVING SO MANY BABIES!!! Oh wait, we reward them and thus punish the child because he was born into a shithole when he simply shouldn't have been.

  Gosh I wish you rightwingers would get together. We got one of you touting our birthrate and we got another wanting to cut it. Oh well consistency in the enemies of the needy is hardly expected. We all of course know the great value given to anecdotal evidence, especially filtered through the eyes of a social Darwinist. These unworthy poor need punished and we do this by taking away their benefits, That will sure help their kids
• Con_Alma

  Not all right-wingers have the same degree of conservatism in their veins. They don't come together on all issues.
• HitsRus

  

  The birth rate is different from the fertility rate... the birth rate for the US is 13/1000....for you Scandanvian brethren it is 9/1000...30% less. I argue that the low unemployment that you cite for these countries is due for the most part, to a less than replacement rate in the number of births. These countries. have aging populations and able bodied workers are in demand in order to service that population. YOU brought up low unemployment in these countries that YOU cited as examples we should emulate. Moreover, higher birth rates exists in poverty areas...area that we reward with government checks. The demographic areas that we tax have low birth rates....HMMMMM
  
  
  What exactly do you think needs to be done that is not already being done? Poverty level families already receive medical care, public housing, food stamps, aid for higher education.?????What do you want to raise taxes for??? Why do you want to continue to kill the middle class? Have you read anything that I have written? Taxes affect the middle class...they don't affect the poor.
• Prescott

  Simple stuff.

  
  
  Comparatively speaking the times and issues are much complex in part because Obama is dealing with 10 times the population.
• isadore

  HitsRus;437722 wrote:The birth rate is different from the fertility rate... the birth rate for the US is 13/1000....for you Scandanvian brethren it is 9/1000...30% less. I argue that the low unemployment that you cite for these countries is due for the most part, to a less than replacement rate in the number of births. These countries. have aging populations and able bodied workers are in demand in order to service that population. YOU brought up low unemployment in these countries that YOU cited as examples we should emulate. Moreover, higher birth rates exists in poverty areas...area that we reward with government checks. The demographic areas that we tax have low birth rates....HMMMMM
  
  
  What exactly do you think needs to be done that is not already being done? Poverty level families already receive medical care, public housing, food stamps, aid for higher education.?????What do you want to raise taxes for??? Why do you want to continue to kill the middle class? Have you read anything that I have written? Taxes affect the middle class...they don't affect the poor.

  You can argue anything you want, that is not necessarily proof, What can be shown is that in these haven of “socialism” the present unemployment rate is far below that of the United States.
  Oh and the poor are so lucky. Their medical care is only the best, the educational opportunities unbounded, their diet some only a gourmet could wish, there cup runneth over. I can tell how well they are doing by the lines at the food pantries in ohio, the families living in shelters, the infant mortality rate among the poor. Hell those food stamps runout about the third week of the month, but hell we are spoiling them any how. And what do you want to do for them, why not stop extensions of unemployment insurance so they can have more company. Taxes effect people, but starvation and homelessness effect them more. Despite what state legislatures and the Supreme Court say, a corporation is not a person, it is an artificial entity given life by the state through charter. And for that privilege it should pay heartily. Some boobs on this site seem surprised the poor don’t pay taxes, wow. To paraphrase the Bible and a guy on this thread who has no understanding of the meaning, from those who are given much, much is expected. Paying some more taxes to support this nation and those of our fellow citizens is need should be part of what is expected.
• isadore

  Prescott;437747 wrote:Comparatively speaking the times and issues are much complex in part because Obama is dealing with 10 times the population.

  Lincoln was leading the fight in the bloodiest war in American history raising an army of millions, actually bigger than our present military and arming it. He was raising the money to support that war effort. He was supporting the beginning the most important transportation project in our history, the transcontinental railroad. He was completely restructuring our monetary system with the issuance of greenbacks and our financial system with the establishment of national banks. His administration pushed through the homestead act leading to settlement of the west. He was dealing with a fractured nation, states leaving the union, millions of questionable loyalty remaining. He was leading a very divided Republican party and trying to keep a steady course between that party's conservatives and radicals. He was trying to make alliances with Democrats who supported the war and keep peace democrats from undermining the war effort. He was running for reelection in the middle of the war. And he had the race question, how to end slavery, how to push abolition when a large part of the northern population opposed it and what to do with the blacks once freed. Simple stuff.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Footwedge - the idea was touted as a panacea to the blue dogs during the porkulus debate. Obama liked it because he thought it would garner him the blue dogs he so desperately wanted for passage. You still didn't answer the fundamental question as to why a business would make a conscious decision to lose money, in your example it would be $18,800 x up to 10 people. If the additional personnel is not required in order to satisfy demand, replace a lost worker, expand market share, or eeee-gad create additional profits, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to hire somebody. Why would your ma and pa be excited to torch nearly $20,000 as they don't need the help? IF they need the help, then that's a different story. In your scenario, you think businesses should hire people just because it's the socially right thing to do and to reduce unemployment. How does that increase profits or market share? Your "incentive" to possibly lose up to $20K per person isn't an incentive at all, but possibly could be called extortion or threat. That's how they roll in Chicago, isn't it? That's what Paulson did to the banks in October, 2008 as well. Don't waste your time on the R or Bush argument, Paulson was and is a Democrat.
  
  I have partially owned 2 businesses in my life and I work for a privately-held company now. I have never worked for "corporate America", so sorry to burst your assumption. I compete every day for new work and the bidding environment is as tough and nasty as I've ever seen it in my 33 years in the business. Guess what...we aren't hiring any help until we see some improvement in the economy, more opportunities to keep our people busy, and the cash in the bank to pay for them.
  
  I am more of a follower of Milton Friedman, although I would take Adam Smith over John Maynard Keynes 24/7/365.
• HitsRus

  

  What can be shown is that in these haven of “socialism” the present unemployment rate is far below that of the United States.

  ...and I gave you the reason.
• isadore

  you gave me a reason, not THE reason
  other nations have low birth rate and still do not have an unemployment rate as low as these "socialist" nations.
• BGFalcons82

  

  isadore - BG served me very well and I've made a comfortable living since graduating, so I learned something at least, eh?!
  
  If good businessmen automatically made good presidents, wouldn't Ross Perot be the penultimate President of all time? I don't think Hoover and Bush took over the banking, automobile, health care, and financial industries, did they? If they had, maybe billions of bailouts wouldn't have been necessary? Who knows, right? Hypotheticals can go any direction. Go back and check GDP growth after the Clinton recession, dot-com bubble burst, and 911. You might want to put a little salt and pepper on your crow. Gee...what coincided with that growth....hmmmm....here's a hint....they are going to expire in 5 months.
  
  You are very clever to equate Obama to Lincoln. They don't go together, but you found a somewhat common thread. Congrats. One little difference...Lincoln didn't believe the federal government was the be-all and end-all solution for every problem.
• isadore

  ^^^^
  Wow I glad a BG business education did you some good. I don’t know if you learned much history. The biggest of the bailout took place during the Bush administration. The 800 billion dollar bailout of the financial industry, buying up troubled assets, buying share of the AIG and the others that were too big too fail. It was one your fellow supporters of plutocracy who claimed you needed to be a great business man to run successful economy, obviously not supported by the facts. Maybe you will also notice that none of the economic downturns you mentioned put us into anywhere near the hole that pro business bush did in 2008. Obama has a lot of economic garbage to clear out from the pro business Bush for our economy to forge ahead as it should. Maybe you kind missed one of the reasons for the Civil War, national v state power. Lincoln was for national.
• majorspark

  

  isadore;437541 wrote:Gosh if we look at Europe its economies unemployment rates are a mixed bag. But some of these “socialist” states are doing much better than us. Norway 3.7% unemployment, Austria 3.9%, Denmark 6.6% and that epitome of the welfare state the Netherlands 4.4%. With all those socialist programs, those high tax rates and that cradle to grave care of its citizens and still low unemployment. Populations will to be taxed to provide for their citizens in a time of need, something so different from the social Darwinian beliefs of so many on this site. Better to let people starve than to tax the wealthy or a corporation.

  These socialist wonderlands you speak of are a far cry from the social and political make up of the USA. They have small populations. Their people are homogeneous. For the most part they think alike when it comes to their political structure. They have smaller land and infrastructure to maintain. And lets not forget with the exception of Austria, they fall under the defense umbrella of the USA allowing them to spend less on defense needs.
  
  Norway 4.8 million 83% Norwegian
  Denmark 5.5 million 90.5% Danes
  Netherlands 16.6 million 80.9% Dutch
  Austria 8.3 million 82.5% Germanic
  
  The USA is a country of over 300 million. The population is diverse. We don't think alike, especially concerning the political structure. The USA has large amounts of land and infrastructure to maintain. And of course we take on the role of world protector. Military bases to maintain around the world. Billions of cash to dole out to foreign governments.
  
  Try taking one on these socialist wonderlands and apply it to the whole EU and its 500 million diverse people. It would never work. When it comes to bringing those trapped in the depths of poverty a chance to escape, Social control of the masses by a central government as political system can't even lick the boots to one based on capitalism. No system of government in the history of this world has allowed more of those trapped in poverty and despair to escape its grip than a political system based in capitalism and freedom.
• HitsRus

  

  the top corporate tax for the Netherlands is 25.5%...personal tax ranges from 0-52% and a VAT tax of 6 to 19
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
  
  
  In the US the top corporate rate is 35% but then the state adds as much as 12% also. Personal tax tops out at 35%, with the state adding up to 10%.... and there is an additional 15% payroll tax. Typical state sales taxes are in the 6-8% range.
  
  
  Tax advantage?...ugh Netherlands. Maybe if living in the Netherlands is so wonderful, we should try lowering taxes on corporations!
  
  
  Look, I'm tired of the obfuscation and all the side tracking....
  The thread is about the shrinking middle class and the cause.
  Do you understand the concept, that business does not 'pay' tax...that it passes it on to it's consumers, who pay for the tax in the increased cost. The business then collects it for the government? Yes or no?... or if you disagree with that assertion, tell me what you disagree with. Please try to stick to topic and eliminate the socialist, elitist rhetoric and not sidetrack or obfuscate.
  
  I have to go, so I might not be able to respond till tomorrow.
• believer

  

  HitsRus;437830 wrote:Look, I'm tired of the obfuscation and all the side tracking....
  The thread is about the shrinking middle class and the cause.
  Do you understand the concept, that business does not 'pay' tax...that it passes it on to it's consumers, who pay for the tax in the increased cost. The business then collects it for the government? Yes or no?... or if you disagree with that assertion, tell me what you disagree with. Please try to stick to topic and eliminate the socialist, elitist rhetoric and not sidetrack or obfuscate.

  
  I understand what you're saying. But some of this "rhetoric" about socialism, etc. does indeed have a bearing on the cause of the shrinking American middle class. Businesses have been duped into becoming free tax collectors for Big Government and we all know that one of the principle aims of Big Government is redistribution of wealth generated by those eeeeevil capitalist businesses who employ the people who pay the taxes. It's a vicious circle.
  

  majorspark;437824 wrote:Try taking one on these socialist wonderlands and apply it to the whole EU and its 500 million diverse people. It would never work. When it comes to bringing those trapped in the depths of poverty a chance to escape, Social control of the masses by a central government as political system can't even lick the boots to one based on capitalism. No system of government in the history of this world has allowed more of those trapped in poverty and despair to escape its grip than a political system based capitalism and freedom.

  Despite its shortcomings, reasonably free market capitalism has provided far, far more people to live a decent life than socialism ever hopes to achieve. I say reasonably free because we all know that true free market capitalism does not exist.
  
  While socialism may have its Utopian appeal in theory, reality is that redistribution of wealth stifles creativity, discourages productivity, and retards true economic growth. Capitalism, despite its warts, does the exact opposite including promotion and creation of a healthy and robust MIDDLE CLASS.
  
  If capitalism is so terrible, why is it the Communist Chinese have embraced its principles to rapidly become the world's second largest economy? Look at their people. Millions are being pulled out of third world status and starting to enjoy the material comforts and benefits. Hence, the Chinese are beginning to slowly see the rise of a modified middle class.
  
  It amazes me how socialism has failed miserably worldwide yet some Americans, who have enjoyed the fruits and benefits of American-style capitalism all their lives, seem to think we need to head that direction. It's that precise thinking (or lack thereof) that has contributed greatly to the shrinking American middle class.
• sjmvsfscs08

  isadore;437711 wrote:Gosh I wish you rightwingers would get together. We got one of you touting our birthrate and we got another wanting to cut it. Oh well consistency in the enemies of the needy is hardly expected. We all of course know the great value given to anecdotal evidence, especially filtered through the eyes of a social Darwinist. These unworthy poor need punished and we do this by taking away their benefits, That will sure help their kids

  
  It's funny that you do not hesitate to call me a right winger and yet I'm not the one on here who said we should go after huge corporations, break them up, and even proposed a 49% income tax on the super rich.
  
  You're beginning to sound like a fool. I don't mean to get all ad hominem on you be Jesus Lord you didn't even respond to my theory haha you just said I was a rightwinger and thus hate the poor.
  
  
  
  Is it or is it not, possible, if at all likely, that because we take such great care of our poor that there could actually be an incentive to have more and more children for the added financial assistance? Yes or no, wise guy. A program that was designed to help out families with an unexpected pregnancy in dire circumstances has more or less turned into an intentional operation to get a fatter monthly check.
• isadore

  majorspark;437824 wrote:These socialist wonderlands you speak of are a far cry from the social and political make up of the USA. They have small populations. Their people are homogeneous. For the most part they think alike when it comes to their political structure. They have smaller land and infrastructure to maintain. And lets not forget with the exception of Austria, they fall under the defense umbrella of the USA allowing them to spend less on defense needs.
  Norway 4.8 million 83% Norwegian
  Denmark 5.5 million 90.5% Danes
  Netherlands 16.6 million 80.9% Dutch
  Austria 8.3 million 82.5% Germanic
  The USA is a country of over 300 million. The population is diverse. We don't think alike, especially concerning the political structure. The USA has large amounts of land and infrastructure to maintain. And of course we take on the role of world protector. Military bases to maintain around the world. Billions of cash to dole out to foreign governments.
  Try taking one on these socialist wonderlands and apply it to the whole EU and its 500 million diverse people. It would never work. When it comes to bringing those trapped in the depths of poverty a chance to escape, Social control of the masses by a central government as political system can't even lick the boots to one based on capitalism. No system of government in the history of this world has allowed more of those trapped in poverty and despair to escape its grip than a political system based in capitalism and freedom.

  Wow you guys like to have it both ways. We have one you touting the fact that our birthrate is higher than that other the other advanced democracies. Another wants to cut that birthrate. Of course we have population growth because of immigration but also a high birthrate among minorities. But for you that cuts into our “homogeneity’ According to you our ethnic diversity is an argument against providing services a nations like Norway or Austria can provide their citizens. Really.
  Oh on infrastructure and its expense for the nation, the size of your population would be less important than population per square mile and the level of sophistication of that infrastructure. Well Norway whose infrastructure is as sophisticated as ours has a population density less than half ours 31 persons per square mile v 83 per square mile here. So it supports that infrastructure with much fewer voters and taxpayers per square mile, that is harder. And even with that they do a better job of taking care of their citizens than we do ours.
  To say that these nations lack political diversity is a joke. If we look at there parliaments we see a much greater range of political opinion than is represented in our nation. But even with that diversity of opinion they do a much better job of taking care of their citizens than we do ours.
  These social systems were not built overnight, these nations have not always been rich. They have set a model for other nations in their Union on how to build an economy and provide for their citizens.