election factor #3

DKSuddeth said:
this explains that drop though.

still trying to determine what the cost of living has done, and are we really going to try to compare our lower class cost of living to the 'poor' in other countries?

Not so much comparing other countries, as trying to be realistic here. Some 'poor' are mentally ill-no longer institutionalized due to 'civil rights issues', thus we have people not on meds, etc. You also have the chronically addicted, what money they do make goes for their addictions. These are not people that are going to go 'up.'

On the other hand, got some 19 year old, working at the walmart-I know, I know. No plans on going to school, but starts at minimum wage and works hard. Good chance that (s)he will make lower management, have some sort of insurance, pension plan, etc. Still not well off, but living wage, after X # of years.

Also falling into 'poor' can be someone who has been out of work force for a long time, enters and updates skills as they go along. Can quickly move ahead.
 
DKSuddeth said:
The old 'Liberal mass media' excuse is really getting tiring. How long will that tired excuse be given by republicans to try and downplay or dismiss even the tinies negativity directed toward a republican?

Until it's no longer true. Got any idea when that will be? No. Neither do I. Might as well get used to hearing it.
 
DKSuddeth said:
sorry you can't make sense of it. try reading this article about the 'constitutional rights' that corporations enjoy. I also didn't realize that trying to adhere to the original meaning of the constitution meant I was exhibiting socialist tendencies, or is that the republican talking point for anyone badmouthing business?

read the above article I posted.

George bush said this in a speech somewhere, i'm trying to find it.

well no shit sherlock, I realize that corporations exist to make a profit. What I object to is the government stacking the odds in favor of corporations instead of a level playing field. You must be getting defensive about something if you are continuing to address all business related issues as 'socialism'.

The old 'Liberal mass media' excuse is really getting tiring. How long will that tired excuse be given by republicans to try and downplay or dismiss even the tinies negativity directed toward a republican?

Oh please. I'm not the one getting defensive and obnoxious. I'm just not willing to swallow an anti-corporate diatribe from someone with an obvious axe to grind.

I did read the "article" you reference. It was nothing more than an editorial statement by a lunatic. Here's another little sample of this guy's work:

Sunk!
Swift Boats weren’t meant to ride on sewage

by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/2004/sunk.htm

Readers who are already familiar with the smear job pulled by the
“Swift Boat Vets Against Kerry” will probably want to skip this piece;
you’ve already spent the last couple of days alternating between
grinning in disbelief and shaking your head in disgust. The rest of
you, gather ‘round, because Uncle Zepp is gonna tell you a story."

Okay, now that we've established his credentials, why don't you try to tell me again how reliable this man is a source? He is obviously an anti-business ideologue who grinds out unsupported editorial commentary for the consumption of those who share his view.

Apparently you base your comments on the following extract from his article:

"Those who oppose Globalization represent a wide variety of interests, and they all have different concerns that they want addressed. But it all boils down to one significant factor. The old world of nation states is dying, and being replaced with a corporate oligarchy. Whatever the benefits of such an oligarchy, the drawbacks are manifest. A new order is coming to power, one that has no laws, no justice, and only a proprietary interest in the welfare of the people. All the rights and gains fought so hard for over the past 800 years are essentially negated by this new order.

Corporations do not recognize the right of workers to unionize, or the right of people to elect representatives who will be accountable to the people. Corporations do not recognize freedom of speech save their own, and they don’t recognize the need to place society ahead of profits.

Corporations, without constitutional justification, are accorded the same rights that the constitution recognizes in human beings living in America. From that bizarre notion has come the utterly lunatic notion that corporations have the constitutional right to compete with average citizens for the ear of elected officials, and may spend whatever it takes, in virtually any way they chose, to do so."

This guy needs to seek some psychiatric help for his advanced case of paranoia. His assertions are merely his opinions. He's entitled to them and he's entitled to post them. Just don't expect me to be blind enough to accept them as gospel just because you say so.

And as far as your last comment - where have you been the last couple of decades? If you don't think there is a liberal media bias then there is no point in carrying this discussion any further. Anyway, I'll pick the article apart in more detail if I have time after work. The folks who employ me are rather unreasonable in that they do occasionally expect me to do something.
Damn those greedy corporations.
 
Okay, I have a minute. This is why I called the basic article a poorly researched hatchet job. They simply presented statistics showing an increasing disparity in earned income. They made no attempt whatever to present causal factors for their piece, leaving the reader to extrapolate whatever conclusions fit his or her personal prejudices.

What jumps out at me immediately was the fact that education probably plays a significant role in the figures presented, but it was never mentioned in the article. Instead, it inferred that somehow government failure was the cause for the income gap and that government was once again catering to corporate America and to the rich while middle class suffering increases under an onerous tax burden. (right, there's no bias there)

Our job market is becoming increasingly technical. To compete for technical jobs, the prospective employee must possess a competent education. A little cursory research disclosed the following item by Jay P. Greene, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

excerpt:

"The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) finds a national high school completion rate of 86% for the class of 1998. The discrepancy between the NCES’ finding and this report’s finding of a 71% rate is largely caused by NCES’ counting of General Educational Development (GED) graduates and others with alternative credentials as high school graduates, and by its reliance on a methodology that is likely to undercount dropouts."

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm

Now plug those figures into the equation presented in your basic article and a more accurate picture begins to emerge. Perhaps the cause of this income disparity is that there are very few high paying jobs available for high school dropouts. Generally speaking, the jobs available to poorly educated Americans are those at the low end of the income spectrum. Increases in the high school dropout rate will be reflected a few years later as the income gap cited by the basic article.

Just another example of how the media doesn't tell the whole truth. Either through intentional obfuscation or through sloppy laziness. You pick which. Either way, the result is the same.
 
DKSuddeth said:
asked you first.

RE: "If the poor illegal immigrants were not included I'd bet the figures would read differently."

OK, the reason I believe that illegals with their low-paying jobs are included in your chart and thus skews the chart to include our 3rd world neighbors - is because the chart is based on Census Bureau reports.

The Census bureau asks only a person's place of birth, not their legal status as a citizen.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
RE: "If the poor illegal immigrants were not included I'd bet the figures would read differently."

OK, the reason I believe that illegals with their low-paying jobs are included in your chart and thus skews the chart to include our 3rd world neighbors - is because the chart is based on Census Bureau reports.

The Census bureau asks only a person's place of birth, not their legal status as a citizen.

and I don't believe that illegals were considered because the chart shows figures and stats for every two years. Census bureaus are conducted every 10 years, if I'm not mistaken.
 
DKSuddeth said:
and I don't believe that illegals were considered because the chart shows figures and stats for every two years. Census bureaus are conducted every 10 years, if I'm not mistaken.

Hmm, I could swear the chart says: Source: Census Bureau
 
DKSuddeth said:
it does, but how do they gather stats for 2 year increments on a census bureau?

I do think that they take sample surveys during non Census years for certain statistics.
 
freeandfun1 said:
I do think that they take sample surveys during non Census years for certain statistics.

reasonable to assume that they're not asking if they're legal or not i'm guessing.
 
DKSuddeth said:
reasonable to assume that they're not asking if they're legal or not i'm guessing.

even if they DID ask, since we do not carry National ID cards, how would you know if somebody is telling the truth or not?

Most of this info is taken from payroll statistics anyway. Payroll statistics ASSUME the employer has done all the necessary background checks into somebody's right to work or not in this country. I believe it is pretty safe to assume ourselves that the stats cover legal and illegal workers.
 
Wonderin' when this debate was gonna happen.

DK, i encourage to read two books: "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and "The Millionaire Next Door." especially the later. It will turn everything you think about rich peope on its ear.

From just my own personal experience i have my opinions as to why the bottom 20% you refer to isn't keeping up. I am 23 and currently work in a low paying job(7/hr). I work in call center with a couple dozen other people all making about the same amount of money. I still consider myself a 'have' as I live with my parents who most others also consider 'haves.'

The difference between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' are blatantly obvious to me. In most cases it boils down to attitude. The majority of my coworkers have absolutley the worst attitude and most extreme lack of professionalism that i have ever seen. This is what ultimatley keeps them from getting anywhere. It has zero to do with companies screwing people over.

That 20% is where they are ultimatley because that is where they choose to be
 
I'll agree that it's bad, but the Dems would just make it worse. Raising taxes on the rich just makes it harder to climb the ladder, since every time to cross into a new bracket, you get to keep so much less money.
 
DKSuddeth said:
Income_gap.gif,hsmall.jpg


Gap between haves, have-nots gets wider [when?]

You know, I kind of find it funny that this chart chooses to show the years 1968-2002. The chart clearly shows that the income gap widened steadily through bill clinton's terms, and then leveled out as George Bush took office. From what this shows the income gap has remained the same for the first half of bush's term in office.
 
nbdysfu said:
You know, I kind of find it funny that this chart chooses to show the years 1968-2002. The chart clearly shows that the income gap widened steadily through bill clinton's terms, and then leveled out as George Bush took office. From what this shows the income gap has remained the same for the first half of bush's term in office.

Some democrat on Hannity and COlmes was throwing this stat around last night. Since I had pointed out what you just pointed out yesterday, I was screaming at the TV. It was obvious our conservative friend had not done his own homework or he could shut the guy down quickly on this talking point.
 
has anybody stopped to ask themselves if this gap between rich and poor is even a problem? I really don't think it is.

There are plenty of reasons why rich people are rich and poor people are poor. Very few of those reasons have anything to do with unfairness in the work place or screwing people over or bad breaks or whatever. Like most things in life it just boils down to the choices we make. Alot of it also has to do with the fact that most people in this country our financially illiterate. They simply don't understand how many works.

Poor people, believe it or not, are usually heavy consumers while the avg millionaire lives well below his/her means. Studies have proven this.

Start looking at the big picture people. This isn't a problem and it certainly isn't govt's job to solve it.
 
Until recently, envy was viewed as a negative character trait. Yet, the Democrats have found a way to make a living on it.

Financial status is not a zero/sum game. If I'm less than well-off and you're doing OK, those two facts are unrelated. I don't lack money because you have it. If I put pandering politicians in office because they will penalize you for your success, I gain nothing - except the spiteful satisfaction of knowing that YOU will have less. Sadly, that's enough for some people.
 
dilloduck said:
Time for the class wars to begin, ya reckon?

Nope. Because what these reports always fail to mention is that class mobility is still high in the US. The people in the bottom are often 5 years from now in the middle. Some from the middle drop to the bottom, others rise to the top. Because we still have an essentially capitalist society (despite Bush's socialist tendencies) people always feel they can become rich and often do. It is hard to start a class war when the 'class' you belong to can and does change so often.

Travis
 
DKSuddeth said:
and yet again, I have no problem with a business making a profit. I have issue with the government favoring their ability to do so at the peoples expense, like airline and rail bailouts for example.

I agree. Corporate welfare is an outrage that both the D's and R's support all too often. Badnarik has come out strongly opposed to corporate welfare and things like the WTO and NAFTA which he calls 'managed trade' rather than 'free trade' which he supports.

If you want to learn more about Badnariks refreshing positions on corporate welfare as well as the heavy regulation on business that hurts poor consumers. Both of these play an important role in the widening gap between rich and poor, check out these issue papers...

http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/FreeTrade.php
http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/Unemployment.php
 
musicman said:
Until recently, envy was viewed as a negative character trait. Yet, the Democrats have found a way to make a living on it.

Financial status is not a zero/sum game. If I'm less than well-off and you're doing OK, those two facts are unrelated. I don't lack money because you have it. If I put pandering politicians in office because they will penalize you for your success, I gain nothing - except the spiteful satisfaction of knowing that YOU will have less. Sadly, that's enough for some people.

Well put, however I think you would also be surprised to learn that the avg millionaire really doesn't worry to much about govt regulation because they tend to keep their realized income (what the govt can tax) extremely low.

One book I read gave the example of Ross Perot compared to the avg American who has an avg taxable income of about 89%. 89% of what the avg American makes is subject to tax. Ross Perot has an annual pretax income of about 230 billion. The percentage of which is realized(taxable) is 9.6%. The real kicker though is that the avg American only has a net worth(1/10 age x annual income) of about $36,600 and about 13% of that is taxed. Ross Perot has a net worth of 2.4 billion. His tax as a percent of Net Worth is only .8%.

The point is unless the gov't drastically changes its laws the financially literate rich in this country have very little to worry about.
 

Forum List

Back
Top