No Gov, No Regulation, no Taxes and No Life.

[Windship]

well?
when?

 

[Windship]

you pll cant supply any fact at all can you. I already know that

 

[boedicca]

I get the Econ but your point was lost in a flood of words.

Wealth, like butter, is best when spread evenly.

Envious poppycock.

Wealth Spread Evenly = Everyone is Poor (except for those who do the Spreading)

 

[Windship]

why dont YOU show some facts? I can go to umpteen sources. They all say the...same...thing. Do something youve never done b4...google something educational.

 

[Windship]

I get the Econ but your point was lost in a flood of words.

Wealth, like butter, is best when spread evenly.

Envious poppycock.

Wealth Spread Evenly = Everyone is Poor (except for those who do the Spreading)

You show me where I said that. Lol, For the record, I do not support that.

 

[boedicca]

I get the Econ but your point was lost in a flood of words.

Wealth, like butter, is best when spread evenly.

Envious poppycock.

Wealth Spread Evenly = Everyone is Poor (except for those who do the Spreading)

You show me where I said that

"best when spread evenly."

Words matter. The concept underlying "Spreading Wealth Evenly" is redistribution.

 

[Kosh]

you pll cant supply any fact at all can you. I already know that

You sound like all the far left drones on this board, post a bunch of bunk and expect others to prove you wrong!

You have to be a far left drone!

 

[Windship]

You cant prove me wrong

 

[Windship]

are you saying that wanting a healthy country is far left?

 

[Windship]

you guys cant debate. Ya got no ammo. Ya run off emotion, not facts.

 

[Jack4jill]

I get the Econ but your point was lost in a flood of words.

Wealth, like butter, is best when spread evenly.

Envious poppycock.

Wealth Spread Evenly = Everyone is Poor (except for those who do the Spreading)

You show me where I said that

"best when spread evenly."

Words matter. The concept underlying "Spreading Wealth Evenly" is redistribution.

Some redistribution is appropriate. An unbalanced ship eventually sinks. First class to third? Fine, but that's all the classes allowed, no slaves or 'talking cargo'.

 

[Jack4jill]

are you saying that wanting a healthy country is far left?

At this point it is. These people are cavemen, but even less moral.

 

[Windship]

Farewell to America's Middle Class: Unions Are Basically Dead
The U.S. is one of the only rich countries that has reached the (incorrect) conclusion that organizing workers is counterproductive.

Toby Melville / Reuters
Here is some more senceless babble for those who hate reading? Simply dont.


For a group of presidential candidates who claim to be interested in the plight of the American worker, it was surprising that no one onstage for the first Democratic debate two weeks ago didn't once say the world "union." Well, technically, that's not correct—Anderson Cooper pointed out that Bernie Sanders honeymooned in the Soviet Union—but the point remains.*

A raft of research—some new, some old—suggests that it’s a shame that unions were absent in Democrats’ most publicized recent conversation. Some of that research is coming from unlikely places; the International Monetary Fund, for instance, recommended reviving unions as a way for democracies to grow their economies and boost productivity.


Unions 30 Years Ago Are Somehow Making People Richer Today

In the U.S., where less than 9 percent of private-sector workers are organized, they could use a revival. The U.S. has one of the lowest unionization rates in the world, far behind Germany and Canada, and closer to Mexico and South Korea.

The U.S.’s low unionization rates come with consequences for its workers. It leads rich nations in low-wage jobs—more than 20 percent of jobs pay less than two-thirds of the median wage. And the U.S. ranks in the bottom third of countries in terms of its work-life balance. Americans work about 1,790 hours per year on average, but workers in most wealthier nations work less than 1,600. 11.8 percent of American adults work long hours; less than 1 percent of Dutch workers put in more than 50 hours a week.


Reviving unions could be a way to counter these trends. The IMF concluded that countries with higher rates of union coverage enjoy lower rates of inequality and lower rates of poverty. Its researchers reasoned that because globalization and technology affect just about every nation, differences in unionization rates and labor regulations are more likely to explain differences in inequality across nations. The White House and the American Sociological Review, a mainstream academic journal, both came to similar conclusions about the links between declining unions and rising inequality.

In all this research, the causal link identified was pretty much the same: Unions reduce inequality by bringing up the wages of middle-income and the lowest-paid workers. And workers in unions aren’t just getting better wages—they’re also getting better compensation in general. Unionized workers are 28 percent more likely to be covered by employer-provided health insurance and 54 percent more likely to have a pension.

Who covers these raises? Managers’ and executives’ wages tend to be slightly lower at businesses with unionized workforces. Sometimes, though, no one’s taking pay cuts—unions have also been shown to boost workers’ productivity, bringing in more money for the firm overall. Unions appear to raise productivity for an interesting reason: Employers of unionized workers tend to spend more on updating their machines and computers and training their workers. They’re more incentivized to do so when an hour of work is relatively more expensive, and this raises productivity overall. This boost also goes toward explaining why unions have no discernible detrimental effect on unemployment.

And that’s only what happens at a single company. When unions represent their workers, they often push for things—higher taxes on the wealthiest, Social-Security benefits increases, and better public education, to name a few—that benefit even non-unionized workers. It’s been shown that poorer kids have a better chance of being upwardly mobile if their parents are in unions or they live in areas with high union-membership rates. So it’s no wonder that in the relative absence of unions, there is more income inequality.

 

[Norman]

Seems to me, these boards are just loaded with shills. Ya know...ya just can have that many ppl so blindly ignorant and unreasonable. I mean, we're humans. We all, pretty much, have abilities to reason but some tune this ability out. And why. Well, we all know why. Its simple, like politics. Its money. And some ppl will do absolutely anything for it. Including lying, cheating, stealing, killing and maiming....including shifting the entire path of a healthy country ad millions and millions of ppl's lives to suit their own and in the meantime ruining the host. all the while slinging so much fucking propaganda to support they're interests while ppl who take words for face value, do no research,( in my opinion, is almost traitorous in itself),Oh yeah...and its alive and well here too.
To have a healthy country, you need capitalism and you need labor.. But thats not enough. The working, being by far the larger part of the population, need to be paid well. They need to be able to aquire credit and spend....needs to be treated well...needs to have safe working conditions needs at least 40 hrs with OT after 40 hrs, holidays...but you have to have capitalism and labor. I did not make this up. The right wing shills here or anywhere, will not tell you this. They want you to be a slave. Owned by the corporations. Being paid nothing and working 18 hour days.
Dont believe it? Ok, look at The Country in 1900. Have you got any idea of how working ppl were treated? Look it up unless you dont want to know. Now look at the "Industrial Revolution". Workers organised and created unions and guess fuckin what...it fuckin worked!! It did. Dont believe me? ok....Now, look at The Country from say 1915 to 1970. See what happened? Workers were paid and treated well and everyone made money and all were happy. The Country was very healthy and became the Number One World Power. Wow! Unions did that!! Fuck me!!
Ok, so, now,...look at from 1970 to present. Yeah. I know.
We have given our jobs to the third world cheap labor no bennies or epa or unions. We have let in over 20 million illegals and what the low tech illegal market doesnt get, for jobs, the H1B1 high tech visa's get on the other side!See?
Now...the top .8% own 92% of the wealth. And they got there by paying off the gov, kicking back the gov and dumping on the workforce.
Check this:


CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The U.S. Income Distribution and Mobility: Trends and International Comparisons Linda Levine Specialist in Labor Economics November 29, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42400 The U.S. Income Distribution and Mobility: Trends and International Comparisons Congressional Research Service Summary The historically slow rebound in the labor market from the 2007-2009 recession appears to be partly responsible for the current focus of some within the public policy community on the unequal distribution of the benefits of economic growth (e.g., higher national income) across U.S. households. This report examines changes over time and across countries in the shape of the income distribution to afford Members of Congress a broader perspective when deliberating such policy issues as the progressivity of income tax rates, the generosity of social insurance programs, and the level of the minimum wage. If income were equally divided across households, each quintile (fifth) of households would account for 20% of total income. Inequality is the term commonly used to describe an income distribution in which one or more quintiles account for less (more) than 20% of aggregate income. The Congressional Budget Office and others have documented that the bottom fifth has long accounted for much less than its proportionate share (20%) of total income. The bottom quintile’s share of income has remained little changed for the past few decades at less than 4%, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. The middle class, defined as the middle 60% of households, received a disproportionately smaller share of the total economic pie in 2011 (45.7%) than in 1968 (53.2%). Over the same period, the disproportionately large income shares of the top 20% and the top 5% of households have trended upward. The top fifth’s share of total household income rose from 42.6% in 1968 to 51.1% in 2011; the top 5%’s share rose from 16.3% to 22.3%. Estimates derived from federal income tax data, which allow researchers to look within the top 5% of the U.S. income distribution, suggest that those at the very top have reaped disproportionately larger gains from economic growth. These, among other measures of income dispersion, have led analysts to conclude that inequality has increased in the United States as a result of high-income households pulling further away from those lower in the distribution. Based on the limited data that are comparable across nations, the U.S. income distribution appears to be among the most unequal of all major industrialized countries and the United States appears to be among the nations experiencing the greatest increases in measures of income dispersion. Three leading explanations are put forth for these cross-country differences: (1) other advanced economies devote a larger share of national output to transfers, which tends to equalize income across households; (2) the progressivity of tax rates varies by country and thus has different effects on the distribution of after-tax income; and (3) equality in the distribution of earnings, which account for most household income, varies substantially across countries. The extent to which countries undertake policies that affect their income distributions may reflect national differences in perceptions about the degree of income mobility. In the United States, a longstanding argument against redistributionary policies has been that each person has an equal opportunity to move up the income ladder. Research raises questions about whether Americans’ perceptions of their likelihood of upward mobility are exaggerated. Empirical analyses estimate that the United States is a comparatively immobile society, that is, where one starts in the income distribution influences where one ends up to a greater degree than in several advanced economies. Children raised in families at the bottom of the U.S. income distribution are estimated to be especially less likely to ascend the income ladder as adults.

I dont make this stuff up. Any economist will say the same thing.

Ouch my eyes. I can guarantee that whatever this individual thinks, the economists won't agree. I could formulate why that is, if the message was readable.

Most likely it is because the wall of text is almost certainly incoherent Marxist nonsense.

 

[Norman]

All right, it appears the OP is concerned with history.

Here is some history for you, which explains why the economy is a mess:

That is the percentage people are taxed on average. Liberal regressives such as the OP are not taxed at all of course, they rake in the benefits. So no it is not the lack of unions or regressive ideology that is the cause here, quite the contrary. This explains in one picture, why the OP has the opinion it has, and also what is wrong with the current economy.

High taxes = Death of an economy, turns out it's the opposite what the title claims as taxes have gone ONLY upwards. The same is true of regulation.

 

[Flash]

Nobody has any problem with funding minimum necessary government functions like defense, courts, police etc.

If we are going to have roads then we need to pay for them through a user fee like the fuel tax. After all there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Most people wouldn't mind paying for community education providing it not being used for social engineering or to line the pockets of the greedy unions.

The problem comes when the filthy ass government takes the money that is earned by one person and gives it away to another person, who never earned the money. This can take the form of welfare, entitlements, bailouts and subsidies.

Free men also don't like being told what to do by a bunch of assholes, elected by special interest groups. For instance, I don't need to be told how much wage I have to pay my workers or how many handicap spaces I must provide in my parking lot or that I can't enjoy my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

We have lost our Liberty because of big government in addition to constraining economic growth.

Liberals that support the concept of big government are very confused about free market economics and quite often the greedy despicable little bastards are on the receiving end of government transfer payments.

 

[leftwinger]

Asian competition........

 

[LoneLaugher]

ummm...flood of facts u mean...there is nothing there that is not fact. If it seems busy to you maybe you should work on your attention span.

Maybe you should work on being thoughtful, and concise?

Never say in 50 words what you can say in ten.

Paragraph breaks are your friend.

Im not here for english lessons. If you dont like the facts, cloud the issue. Good job. You dont address the topic because you have an agenda and its not Our Country.

Listen, please.

I very much want to read what you have to say. But you presented your info so poorly that I couldn't.

Do you understand? We aren't giving you English lessons. We are trying to help you communicate.

Either take the good advice or go unheard.

 

[Norman]

This is what science has to say about regulation. Possibly even worse than high taxes:

"The growth of federal regulations over the past six decades has cut U.S. economic growth by an average of 2 percentage points per year, according to a new study in the Journal of Economic Growth. As a result, the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually than it would have gotten in the absence of six decades of accumulated regulations—a median household income of $330,000 instead of the $53,000 we get now."
Federal Regulations Have Made You 75 Percent Poorer

Here is the study for those genuinely interested (obviously, not regressives, they don't read. If they did this thread would not exist, or the position would be the reverse of what it is):

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjseater/regulationandgrowth.pdf

Even though the figure seems a bit high even for me, it's clear regulations have increased drastically, so the regressives can shut up about the lack of regulation now. They call them the "10,000" commandments of regressive religion. As an atheist I rather choose Christianity. 10 sensible ones beat 10,000 stupid ones any day. I am certain that the OP writer could not name even one of those ten thousand though...

 

[Flash]

A Liberal thinks a politician, elected by special interest groups, is going to make his life better by stealing money from other people on his behalf.

A Conservative thinks his life will be better if he works harder and the filthy ass politician (elected by the Libtards) would just leave him alone.