Obama's Legacy: richest got richer and poorest got poorer faster than under Bush/Republicans

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, so the last time they dropped the tax rate for the wealthy was nearly 30 years ago. So what's with all this stuff that the Republicans are constantly giving the wealthy tax breaks?

They have been getting that tax break every year for the last 30 years

All in the name of trickle down prosperity. Give the "job creators" more money and wealth and prosperity will trickle down for all. For some reason, they just kept the money....who could have expected that?

So you would rather have no jobs?

Unfortunately many still have not learned that unskilled labor is just about worthless in our modern economy. True, years ago before robotics and automation were economical and practical, people did make more money because you are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

However if you do work for a company that makes all these insane profits that you speak of, then the solution is simple: invest in your own company. That's right, be more than just a worker, be a part-owner as well. Make those insane profits right along with your employer.

I love solving these simple problems.

Once again you argue on the extremes. How do we get from paying higher wages to there being no jobs?
Then you move to another extreme assuming all workers are unskilled. It is not just unskilled workers who have seen their wages frozen, in runs right up the ladder

Employees have invested in their companies. When the Great Bush Recession hit, millions were fired. Those who remained were told, times are tough, you had better pick up the slack or you will be gone too
Once the economy recovered, the executives reaped the benefit while workers were expected to retain the same conditions

First off you're assuming the economy recovered, it did not.

Secondly, I never said all workers are unskilled. But the common complaint by you on the left are those poor Walmart workers, and I was just pointing out those jobs don't pay anything because those jobs are not skills.

What I meant by "investing in your company" is to buy stock in it. If what you say is true, and there are companies paying lower wages and making these mega-profits you speak of, then it will be reflected in the company earnings. Buy their stock and make those mega-profits as well.

Minimum wage workers are just the tip of the iceberg but it is one the only wage the government has control of
It is all salaries and benefits that have not kept up wth the trillions in profits being made......for that I blame the job creators

Of course you do. It can't be the fault of the individual who doesn't apply themselves and try to advance in the company. It can't be the fault of the individual because they did not learn a skill or get an education. It's the employers fault because the employer should overpay all his employees. It's the employers social obligation, isn't that right? It's societies money--not the employers after all.

 

[rightwinger]

They have been getting that tax break every year for the last 30 years

All in the name of trickle down prosperity. Give the "job creators" more money and wealth and prosperity will trickle down for all. For some reason, they just kept the money....who could have expected that?

So you would rather have no jobs?

Unfortunately many still have not learned that unskilled labor is just about worthless in our modern economy. True, years ago before robotics and automation were economical and practical, people did make more money because you are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

However if you do work for a company that makes all these insane profits that you speak of, then the solution is simple: invest in your own company. That's right, be more than just a worker, be a part-owner as well. Make those insane profits right along with your employer.

I love solving these simple problems.

Once again you argue on the extremes. How do we get from paying higher wages to there being no jobs?
Then you move to another extreme assuming all workers are unskilled. It is not just unskilled workers who have seen their wages frozen, in runs right up the ladder

Employees have invested in their companies. When the Great Bush Recession hit, millions were fired. Those who remained were told, times are tough, you had better pick up the slack or you will be gone too
Once the economy recovered, the executives reaped the benefit while workers were expected to retain the same conditions

First off you're assuming the economy recovered, it did not.

Secondly, I never said all workers are unskilled. But the common complaint by you on the left are those poor Walmart workers, and I was just pointing out those jobs don't pay anything because those jobs are not skills.

What I meant by "investing in your company" is to buy stock in it. If what you say is true, and there are companies paying lower wages and making these mega-profits you speak of, then it will be reflected in the company earnings. Buy their stock and make those mega-profits as well.

Minimum wage workers are just the tip of the iceberg but it is one the only wage the government has control of
It is all salaries and benefits that have not kept up wth the trillions in profits being made......for that I blame the job creators

Of course you do. It can't be the fault of the individual who doesn't apply themselves and try to advance in the company. It can't be the fault of the individual because they did not learn a skill or get an education. It's the employers fault because the employer should overpay all his employees. It's the employers social obligation, isn't that right? It's societies money--not the employers after all.

30 million working people need some sort of government assistance. Stop covering for low wages and blaming it on a lack of initiative

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you would rather have no jobs?

Unfortunately many still have not learned that unskilled labor is just about worthless in our modern economy. True, years ago before robotics and automation were economical and practical, people did make more money because you are only worth as much as the next person willing to do the same job.

However if you do work for a company that makes all these insane profits that you speak of, then the solution is simple: invest in your own company. That's right, be more than just a worker, be a part-owner as well. Make those insane profits right along with your employer.

I love solving these simple problems.

Once again you argue on the extremes. How do we get from paying higher wages to there being no jobs?
Then you move to another extreme assuming all workers are unskilled. It is not just unskilled workers who have seen their wages frozen, in runs right up the ladder

Employees have invested in their companies. When the Great Bush Recession hit, millions were fired. Those who remained were told, times are tough, you had better pick up the slack or you will be gone too
Once the economy recovered, the executives reaped the benefit while workers were expected to retain the same conditions

First off you're assuming the economy recovered, it did not.

Secondly, I never said all workers are unskilled. But the common complaint by you on the left are those poor Walmart workers, and I was just pointing out those jobs don't pay anything because those jobs are not skills.

What I meant by "investing in your company" is to buy stock in it. If what you say is true, and there are companies paying lower wages and making these mega-profits you speak of, then it will be reflected in the company earnings. Buy their stock and make those mega-profits as well.

Minimum wage workers are just the tip of the iceberg but it is one the only wage the government has control of
It is all salaries and benefits that have not kept up wth the trillions in profits being made......for that I blame the job creators

Of course you do. It can't be the fault of the individual who doesn't apply themselves and try to advance in the company. It can't be the fault of the individual because they did not learn a skill or get an education. It's the employers fault because the employer should overpay all his employees. It's the employers social obligation, isn't that right? It's societies money--not the employers after all.

30 million working people need some sort of government assistance. Stop covering for low wages and blaming it on a lack of initiative

Then it begs the question why they need government assistance? Why don't I need government assistance and 30 million people do? I have an employer too you know. I don't make the best money and my employer lives a much better life than I.

Here's a far fetched concept: could it be because I made better decisions in life than those 30 million? Could it be because I'm from a two parent family and taught personal responsibility and work ethic? Could it be because I took the initiative to better myself and make my services to an employer more valuable than a shelf stocker at Walmart?

Nah, it certainly couldn't be that.

 

[leftwinger]

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

The Surplus has been debunked here on USMB by many. The DEBT rose each year. It was tricks and gimmicks...........no I will not search the board and find it. Do you own work, I am upset by Muslim.
the increase in debt each year was agreed.......much less than 09-XX

09/30/2015 18,150,604,277,750.63
09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42


Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015

 

[NotfooledbyW]

num_nut 12805774

The Surplus has been debunked here on USMB by many

The annual surpluses that Bush inherited can not be debunked. It is impossible. You are citing numbers that do not refute the reality that Clinton left Bush a surplus wherein the federal government for three years took in more money annually than it was actually spending during that very same year. What debunks your argument is that the debt cieling did not need to be raised until Bush43 started spending more and taking in less tax revenue

Citing the federal government's gross debt/borrowing data as you have done has nothing to do with annual revenue/income compared to annual spending. Those figures are not tracking actual outlays versus actual revenue during a one year period. Those figures are tracking gross accumulated debt.

Say you have a thirty year mortgage for $100,000 and you are in the first and second year. You have no other debt. You made $50,000 during the first year and you spent (including $12000 in mortgage payments) a total of $40000 during that first year. You had a surplus of 10,000. But only $1000 of your house payments went to principle so your debt was reduced to 99,000. The next year you got a raise of $5000 so you spent the same as year one but you spent $4,000 of your raise on a vacation You still had a surplus of $11,000. But your total debt is only reduced to $97,000.

What you are doing is adding your debt to your annual spending.

Year One $40,000 + $99,000 = $139,000,
Year Two $44,000 + $97,000 = $141,000

With the surplus added in:
Year One = $129,000
Year Two = $130,000

You had surpluses but adding gross debt to your annual operating budget does not show them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Those were all projected surpluses--not surpluses with cash on hand. Plus the fact it was the Republican Congress that created those projected surpluses--not Clinton.

 

[rightwinger]

Once again you argue on the extremes. How do we get from paying higher wages to there being no jobs?
Then you move to another extreme assuming all workers are unskilled. It is not just unskilled workers who have seen their wages frozen, in runs right up the ladder

Employees have invested in their companies. When the Great Bush Recession hit, millions were fired. Those who remained were told, times are tough, you had better pick up the slack or you will be gone too
Once the economy recovered, the executives reaped the benefit while workers were expected to retain the same conditions

First off you're assuming the economy recovered, it did not.

Secondly, I never said all workers are unskilled. But the common complaint by you on the left are those poor Walmart workers, and I was just pointing out those jobs don't pay anything because those jobs are not skills.

What I meant by "investing in your company" is to buy stock in it. If what you say is true, and there are companies paying lower wages and making these mega-profits you speak of, then it will be reflected in the company earnings. Buy their stock and make those mega-profits as well.

Minimum wage workers are just the tip of the iceberg but it is one the only wage the government has control of
It is all salaries and benefits that have not kept up wth the trillions in profits being made......for that I blame the job creators

Of course you do. It can't be the fault of the individual who doesn't apply themselves and try to advance in the company. It can't be the fault of the individual because they did not learn a skill or get an education. It's the employers fault because the employer should overpay all his employees. It's the employers social obligation, isn't that right? It's societies money--not the employers after all.

30 million working people need some sort of government assistance. Stop covering for low wages and blaming it on a lack of initiative

Then it begs the question why they need government assistance? Why don't I need government assistance and 30 million people do? I have an employer too you know. I don't make the best money and my employer lives a much better life than I.

Here's a far fetched concept: could it be because I made better decisions in life than those 30 million? Could it be because I'm from a two parent family and taught personal responsibility and work ethic? Could it be because I took the initiative to better myself and make my services to an employer more valuable than a shelf stocker at Walmart?

Nah, it certainly couldn't be that.

Yes, we are all proud of the decisions you have made

OK, let's talk about the stupid, gullible and lazy in our midst. Average IQ is 100. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist if they buckle down and try hard. 20% will have an IQ of around 80 and they will struggle in any society.
What do we do with them? They are best suited for low paying, menial jobs. Used to be they could get a job on which they could eke out an existence...no more
Even those at 50% who used to be able to obtain jobs on which they could raise a family, buy a house, send their kids to college ...no longer can

 

[rightwinger]

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

The Surplus has been debunked here on USMB by many. The DEBT rose each year. It was tricks and gimmicks...........no I will not search the board and find it. Do you own work, I am upset by Muslim.
the increase in debt each year was agreed.......much less than 09-XX

09/30/2015 18,150,604,277,750.63
09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42


Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015

You are sadly mistaken

Bush had such a large surplus that he used it as justification for a massive tax cut for the wealthy

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

First off you're assuming the economy recovered, it did not.

Secondly, I never said all workers are unskilled. But the common complaint by you on the left are those poor Walmart workers, and I was just pointing out those jobs don't pay anything because those jobs are not skills.

What I meant by "investing in your company" is to buy stock in it. If what you say is true, and there are companies paying lower wages and making these mega-profits you speak of, then it will be reflected in the company earnings. Buy their stock and make those mega-profits as well.

Minimum wage workers are just the tip of the iceberg but it is one the only wage the government has control of
It is all salaries and benefits that have not kept up wth the trillions in profits being made......for that I blame the job creators

Of course you do. It can't be the fault of the individual who doesn't apply themselves and try to advance in the company. It can't be the fault of the individual because they did not learn a skill or get an education. It's the employers fault because the employer should overpay all his employees. It's the employers social obligation, isn't that right? It's societies money--not the employers after all.

30 million working people need some sort of government assistance. Stop covering for low wages and blaming it on a lack of initiative

Then it begs the question why they need government assistance? Why don't I need government assistance and 30 million people do? I have an employer too you know. I don't make the best money and my employer lives a much better life than I.

Here's a far fetched concept: could it be because I made better decisions in life than those 30 million? Could it be because I'm from a two parent family and taught personal responsibility and work ethic? Could it be because I took the initiative to better myself and make my services to an employer more valuable than a shelf stocker at Walmart?

Nah, it certainly couldn't be that.

Yes, we are all proud of the decisions you have made

OK, let's talk about the stupid, gullible and lazy in our midst. Average IQ is 100. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist if they buckle down and try hard. 20% will have an IQ of around 80 and they will struggle in any society.
What do we do with them? They are best suited for low paying, menial jobs. Used to be they could get a job on which they could eke out an existence...no more
Even those at 50% who used to be able to obtain jobs on which they could raise a family, buy a house, send their kids to college ...no longer can

So employers should be obligated to pay them more than they are worth?

I've seen physically disabled people make a living and able to support themselves. We have people where I work that are as dumb as a box of rocks, yet they come to work everyday.

It's like my father always said: making money is easy. An idiot can make money. It's what you do with that money that counts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

The Surplus has been debunked here on USMB by many. The DEBT rose each year. It was tricks and gimmicks...........no I will not search the board and find it. Do you own work, I am upset by Muslim.
the increase in debt each year was agreed.......much less than 09-XX

09/30/2015 18,150,604,277,750.63
09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42


Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015

You are sadly mistaken

Bush had such a large surplus that he used it as justification for a massive tax cut for the wealthy

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[rightwinger]

Minimum wage workers are just the tip of the iceberg but it is one the only wage the government has control of
It is all salaries and benefits that have not kept up wth the trillions in profits being made......for that I blame the job creators

Of course you do. It can't be the fault of the individual who doesn't apply themselves and try to advance in the company. It can't be the fault of the individual because they did not learn a skill or get an education. It's the employers fault because the employer should overpay all his employees. It's the employers social obligation, isn't that right? It's societies money--not the employers after all.

30 million working people need some sort of government assistance. Stop covering for low wages and blaming it on a lack of initiative

Then it begs the question why they need government assistance? Why don't I need government assistance and 30 million people do? I have an employer too you know. I don't make the best money and my employer lives a much better life than I.

Here's a far fetched concept: could it be because I made better decisions in life than those 30 million? Could it be because I'm from a two parent family and taught personal responsibility and work ethic? Could it be because I took the initiative to better myself and make my services to an employer more valuable than a shelf stocker at Walmart?

Nah, it certainly couldn't be that.

Yes, we are all proud of the decisions you have made

OK, let's talk about the stupid, gullible and lazy in our midst. Average IQ is 100. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist if they buckle down and try hard. 20% will have an IQ of around 80 and they will struggle in any society.
What do we do with them? They are best suited for low paying, menial jobs. Used to be they could get a job on which they could eke out an existence...no more
Even those at 50% who used to be able to obtain jobs on which they could raise a family, buy a house, send their kids to college ...no longer can

So employers should be obligated to pay them more than they are worth?

I've seen physically disabled people make a living and able to support themselves. We have people where I work that are as dumb as a box of rocks, yet they come to work everyday.

It's like my father always said: making money is easy. An idiot can make money. It's what you do with that money that counts.

That is where the government needs to step in

What they are worth is what supply and demand dictates. If there are three workers available for every opening, the employer gets to dictate terms
Employees are forced to accept terms where the government has to step in and make up the difference. The employer keeps the profit

Now, I know you will come up with another "I know a guy" anecdote but you can't apply it to 30 million people needing assistance
Buckle down and try harder can work for an individual...not for 30 million individuals

 

[rightwinger]

Which would any President and Congress prefer at the start of a new Presidential term?

Based on the chart you provided would it be a nearly $200 bn annual surplus (2001) or a nearly $1 trillion annual deficit (2009)?


Would it be a time with no major U.S. Involvement in wars (2001) or two major wars needing to be ended during major recession (2009)?

Yet look at the title of this thread!!!!!!!!


It's as if both Prez's started on the same playing field which is obviously absurd.

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

The Surplus has been debunked here on USMB by many. The DEBT rose each year. It was tricks and gimmicks...........no I will not search the board and find it. Do you own work, I am upset by Muslim.
the increase in debt each year was agreed.......much less than 09-XX

09/30/2015 18,150,604,277,750.63
09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42


Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015

You are sadly mistaken

Bush had such a large surplus that he used it as justification for a massive tax cut for the wealthy

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

You mean Bush gave tax cuts to billionaires for no reason?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course you do. It can't be the fault of the individual who doesn't apply themselves and try to advance in the company. It can't be the fault of the individual because they did not learn a skill or get an education. It's the employers fault because the employer should overpay all his employees. It's the employers social obligation, isn't that right? It's societies money--not the employers after all.

30 million working people need some sort of government assistance. Stop covering for low wages and blaming it on a lack of initiative

Then it begs the question why they need government assistance? Why don't I need government assistance and 30 million people do? I have an employer too you know. I don't make the best money and my employer lives a much better life than I.

Here's a far fetched concept: could it be because I made better decisions in life than those 30 million? Could it be because I'm from a two parent family and taught personal responsibility and work ethic? Could it be because I took the initiative to better myself and make my services to an employer more valuable than a shelf stocker at Walmart?

Nah, it certainly couldn't be that.

Yes, we are all proud of the decisions you have made

OK, let's talk about the stupid, gullible and lazy in our midst. Average IQ is 100. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist if they buckle down and try hard. 20% will have an IQ of around 80 and they will struggle in any society.
What do we do with them? They are best suited for low paying, menial jobs. Used to be they could get a job on which they could eke out an existence...no more
Even those at 50% who used to be able to obtain jobs on which they could raise a family, buy a house, send their kids to college ...no longer can

So employers should be obligated to pay them more than they are worth?

I've seen physically disabled people make a living and able to support themselves. We have people where I work that are as dumb as a box of rocks, yet they come to work everyday.

It's like my father always said: making money is easy. An idiot can make money. It's what you do with that money that counts.

That is where the government needs to step in

What they are worth is what supply and demand dictates. If there are three workers available for every opening, the employer gets to dictate terms
Employees are forced to accept terms where the government has to step in and make up the difference. The employer keeps the profit

Now, I know you will come up with another "I know a guy" anecdote but you can't apply it to 30 million people needing assistance
Buckle down and try harder can work for an individual...not for 30 million individuals

You say 30 million "that need" assistance and I will tell you that's not the case.

In fact I don't know many people that work six days a week or has a second job anymore. Today, if you can't make it on 40 hours or less, go on government assistance. What's the point of trying when government will make everything alright?

When I was younger I always worked 6 days a week (or more at times) and even then had a second part-time job. I was not alone, a lot of people did the same thing.

While there may be a few that actually "need" government assistance, most of them are scamming the system or otherwise made a lot of bad decisions in their life--mostly starting a family before they could afford one.

But somehow that's not the individuals fault and the employers problem to fix. That's the premise that I'm totally against.

I have plenty of empathy for people that try, do the right things in life, but somehow fail. I'm all for helping those people. But when I get behind a food stamp person at the grocery store, see them in the parking lot stuffing their belongings into an SUV I wish I could afford, I'm sorry, but my empathy goes right out of the window.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

The Surplus has been debunked here on USMB by many. The DEBT rose each year. It was tricks and gimmicks...........no I will not search the board and find it. Do you own work, I am upset by Muslim.
the increase in debt each year was agreed.......much less than 09-XX

09/30/2015 18,150,604,277,750.63
09/30/2014 17,824,071,380,733.82
09/30/2013 16,738,183,526,697.32
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42


Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015

You are sadly mistaken

Bush had such a large surplus that he used it as justification for a massive tax cut for the wealthy

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

You mean Bush gave tax cuts to billionaires for no reason?

Bush gave tax cuts to just about everybody.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray 12807197

Those were all projected surpluses--not surpluses with cash on hand. Plus the fact it was the Republican Congress that created those projected surpluses--not Clinton.

It certainly was cash on hand. That is why the debt ceiling did not have to be raised during the latter part of Clinton's term and the first couple years of Bush43's term. They had enough discretionary extra cash to pay bills and debts that the Treasury did not have to raise its borrowing limit.

In any case a projected surplus that is realized or beaten is a still a surplus? Congress was for the first time considering paying down the Gross Debt until 9/11 happened - then:

A - a relatively low scale war supported by NATO and other nations was started justifiably in Afghanistan and then it was under-manned and under-equipped before the military mission was accomplished.

B - Bush cut taxes proportionally better for the two top wealthiest brackets than the low and working middle class. The wealthy already had a built in structural advantage on payroll taxes for SS and Medicare because their taxable limit was somewhere around $120,000 I believe. So Bush was the first President to lower taxes during a declared war on terror while secretly contemplating to launch a major ground invasion into Iraq over WMD while publically declaring his intent to avoid war and work through the UN.

C- UN Resolutiin 1441 was passed in November 2002 which resulted in UN inspectors returning to Iraq.

D- Bush tax cuts began going into effect. The Clinton surpluses began to shrink and the debt cieling had to be raised to pay bills.

E- in December 2002 Saddam Hussein publically offered Bush a welcome to the CIA, FBI and U.S. Military to enter Iraq peacefully to point out locations to the inspectors where the so called stockpiles of WMD were alleged to be hidden. Bush rejected the offer and no attempt was made to test to see if the offer was genuine. A huge mistake that ended up costing thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and the Taliban in Afghanistan the ability to engage in a lethal comeback and regain most of what it lost in 2002.

F. Bush stupidly forced the UN inspectors to leave Iraq in March 2003 and invaded all to paid for with borrowed cash. There was no reason to go in at that time.

G- the so called job creators with their tax cuts during war time did not create significant jobs and in no way did their increase in wealth 'trickle down' to the working class.

H- the cost of health care was rising at a devastating rate much higher than inflation on other goods and services. Iraq became a quagmire , oil went over $100/barrel and the price of gas at the pump put a heavier burden on people that drive to work and school.

I- the worst recession since the Great Depression began in 2007 culminating in a peak of one million jobs being lost per month as Obama took office.

J- Bush walked away from the horrific mess he made of things and Republicans began to blame Obama as if none of it happened. And worse than that Republicans in the Senate declared their top priority was to make sure Obama had a failed presidency which meant keeping Bush's failed wars and economy going as much and as long as possible in order to Blame Obama.

K- Obama got re-elected four years later.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray 12807197

Plus the fact it was the Republican Congress that created those projected surpluses--not Clinton.

Explain how you can argue that Republicans in Congress created budget surpluses that you also argue never existed.

Also explain how Obama is to blame for all the negative, bad and horrible things that YOU think is happening in the economy right now since Republicans took control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2012.

By your methodology on the Clinton era surpluses resulting from in large part to raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans only, Obama should not be blamed, currently at least for anything bad or anything good going on. Congress gets the blame and credit.

Besides Clinton's top rate increases were projected to destroy the economy and kill jobs by Republicans of every stripe and they were absolutely and fundamentally wrong in their forecasting. Yet you give them credit for being wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12807197

Plus the fact it was the Republican Congress that created those projected surpluses--not Clinton.

Explain how you can argue that Republicans in Congress created budget surpluses that you also argue never existed.

Also explain how Obama is to blame for all the negative, bad and horrible things that YOU think is happening in the economy right now since Republicans took control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2012.

By your methodology on the Clinton era surpluses resulting from in large part to raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans only, Obama should not be blamed, currently at least for anything bad or anything good going on. Congress gets the blame and credit.

Besides Clinton's top rate increases were projected to destroy the economy and kill jobs by Republicans of every stripe and they were absolutely and fundamentally wrong in their forecasting. Yet you give them credit for being wrong.

If not for the tech bubble they would have been absolutely correct. And again, by the advice of Newt Gingrich, Clinton dropped the capital gains taxes making it more attractive for investors to put money into the market.

One more time: the Republican Congress created a projected surplus--not a real surplus in their budget. It was a balanced budget that gave company owners faith in the future to hire people and expand operations.

As far as DumBama is concerned, he spent most of our money during the Democrat Congress. For the Republican Congress, his never ending threat to shut down the government stifles the actions they would love to take. The would love to get rid of Obama Careless. They would love to slash social programs that's helping us to maintain our record high number of people not looking for a job. They would love to lower our corporate tax rates so that we don't have the highest in the industrialized world. They would love to do a lot of things that the Democrats won't go for.

 

[rightwinger]

30 million working people need some sort of government assistance. Stop covering for low wages and blaming it on a lack of initiative

Then it begs the question why they need government assistance? Why don't I need government assistance and 30 million people do? I have an employer too you know. I don't make the best money and my employer lives a much better life than I.

Here's a far fetched concept: could it be because I made better decisions in life than those 30 million? Could it be because I'm from a two parent family and taught personal responsibility and work ethic? Could it be because I took the initiative to better myself and make my services to an employer more valuable than a shelf stocker at Walmart?

Nah, it certainly couldn't be that.

Yes, we are all proud of the decisions you have made

OK, let's talk about the stupid, gullible and lazy in our midst. Average IQ is 100. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist if they buckle down and try hard. 20% will have an IQ of around 80 and they will struggle in any society.
What do we do with them? They are best suited for low paying, menial jobs. Used to be they could get a job on which they could eke out an existence...no more
Even those at 50% who used to be able to obtain jobs on which they could raise a family, buy a house, send their kids to college ...no longer can

So employers should be obligated to pay them more than they are worth?

I've seen physically disabled people make a living and able to support themselves. We have people where I work that are as dumb as a box of rocks, yet they come to work everyday.

It's like my father always said: making money is easy. An idiot can make money. It's what you do with that money that counts.

That is where the government needs to step in

What they are worth is what supply and demand dictates. If there are three workers available for every opening, the employer gets to dictate terms
Employees are forced to accept terms where the government has to step in and make up the difference. The employer keeps the profit

Now, I know you will come up with another "I know a guy" anecdote but you can't apply it to 30 million people needing assistance
Buckle down and try harder can work for an individual...not for 30 million individuals

You say 30 million "that need" assistance and I will tell you that's not the case.

In fact I don't know many people that work six days a week or has a second job anymore. Today, if you can't make it on 40 hours or less, go on government assistance. What's the point of trying when government will make everything alright?

When I was younger I always worked 6 days a week (or more at times) and even then had a second part-time job. I was not alone, a lot of people did the same thing.

While there may be a few that actually "need" government assistance, most of them are scamming the system or otherwise made a lot of bad decisions in their life--mostly starting a family before they could afford one.

But somehow that's not the individuals fault and the employers problem to fix. That's the premise that I'm totally against.

I have plenty of empathy for people that try, do the right things in life, but somehow fail. I'm all for helping those people. But when I get behind a food stamp person at the grocery store, see them in the parking lot stuffing their belongings into an SUV I wish I could afford, I'm sorry, but my empathy goes right out of the window.

In what I like to call...the good ole days
Want to work OT? There is plenty to be had
Need a second job? Step right up

I don't know of any poor people right now turning down time and a half. I don't see 30 million part time jobs going unfilled

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then it begs the question why they need government assistance? Why don't I need government assistance and 30 million people do? I have an employer too you know. I don't make the best money and my employer lives a much better life than I.

Here's a far fetched concept: could it be because I made better decisions in life than those 30 million? Could it be because I'm from a two parent family and taught personal responsibility and work ethic? Could it be because I took the initiative to better myself and make my services to an employer more valuable than a shelf stocker at Walmart?

Nah, it certainly couldn't be that.

Yes, we are all proud of the decisions you have made

OK, let's talk about the stupid, gullible and lazy in our midst. Average IQ is 100. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist if they buckle down and try hard. 20% will have an IQ of around 80 and they will struggle in any society.
What do we do with them? They are best suited for low paying, menial jobs. Used to be they could get a job on which they could eke out an existence...no more
Even those at 50% who used to be able to obtain jobs on which they could raise a family, buy a house, send their kids to college ...no longer can

So employers should be obligated to pay them more than they are worth?

I've seen physically disabled people make a living and able to support themselves. We have people where I work that are as dumb as a box of rocks, yet they come to work everyday.

It's like my father always said: making money is easy. An idiot can make money. It's what you do with that money that counts.

That is where the government needs to step in

What they are worth is what supply and demand dictates. If there are three workers available for every opening, the employer gets to dictate terms
Employees are forced to accept terms where the government has to step in and make up the difference. The employer keeps the profit

Now, I know you will come up with another "I know a guy" anecdote but you can't apply it to 30 million people needing assistance
Buckle down and try harder can work for an individual...not for 30 million individuals

You say 30 million "that need" assistance and I will tell you that's not the case.

In fact I don't know many people that work six days a week or has a second job anymore. Today, if you can't make it on 40 hours or less, go on government assistance. What's the point of trying when government will make everything alright?

When I was younger I always worked 6 days a week (or more at times) and even then had a second part-time job. I was not alone, a lot of people did the same thing.

While there may be a few that actually "need" government assistance, most of them are scamming the system or otherwise made a lot of bad decisions in their life--mostly starting a family before they could afford one.

But somehow that's not the individuals fault and the employers problem to fix. That's the premise that I'm totally against.

I have plenty of empathy for people that try, do the right things in life, but somehow fail. I'm all for helping those people. But when I get behind a food stamp person at the grocery store, see them in the parking lot stuffing their belongings into an SUV I wish I could afford, I'm sorry, but my empathy goes right out of the window.

In what I like to call...the good ole days
Want to work OT? There is plenty to be had
Need a second job? Step right up

I don't know of any poor people right now turning down time and a half. I don't see 30 million part time jobs going unfilled

How about full-time jobs? There are plenty in my industry. They are begging people to get off their Obama phones and come to work:

ATA: ‘Driver Shortage’ Likely To Reach 48,000 By The End of The Year

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, we are all proud of the decisions you have made

OK, let's talk about the stupid, gullible and lazy in our midst. Average IQ is 100. Not everyone is going to be a rocket scientist if they buckle down and try hard. 20% will have an IQ of around 80 and they will struggle in any society.
What do we do with them? They are best suited for low paying, menial jobs. Used to be they could get a job on which they could eke out an existence...no more
Even those at 50% who used to be able to obtain jobs on which they could raise a family, buy a house, send their kids to college ...no longer can

So employers should be obligated to pay them more than they are worth?

I've seen physically disabled people make a living and able to support themselves. We have people where I work that are as dumb as a box of rocks, yet they come to work everyday.

It's like my father always said: making money is easy. An idiot can make money. It's what you do with that money that counts.

That is where the government needs to step in

What they are worth is what supply and demand dictates. If there are three workers available for every opening, the employer gets to dictate terms
Employees are forced to accept terms where the government has to step in and make up the difference. The employer keeps the profit

Now, I know you will come up with another "I know a guy" anecdote but you can't apply it to 30 million people needing assistance
Buckle down and try harder can work for an individual...not for 30 million individuals

You say 30 million "that need" assistance and I will tell you that's not the case.

In fact I don't know many people that work six days a week or has a second job anymore. Today, if you can't make it on 40 hours or less, go on government assistance. What's the point of trying when government will make everything alright?

When I was younger I always worked 6 days a week (or more at times) and even then had a second part-time job. I was not alone, a lot of people did the same thing.

While there may be a few that actually "need" government assistance, most of them are scamming the system or otherwise made a lot of bad decisions in their life--mostly starting a family before they could afford one.

But somehow that's not the individuals fault and the employers problem to fix. That's the premise that I'm totally against.

I have plenty of empathy for people that try, do the right things in life, but somehow fail. I'm all for helping those people. But when I get behind a food stamp person at the grocery store, see them in the parking lot stuffing their belongings into an SUV I wish I could afford, I'm sorry, but my empathy goes right out of the window.

In what I like to call...the good ole days
Want to work OT? There is plenty to be had
Need a second job? Step right up

I don't know of any poor people right now turning down time and a half. I don't see 30 million part time jobs going unfilled

How about full-time jobs? There are plenty in my industry. They are begging people to get off their Obama phones and come to work:

ATA: ‘Driver Shortage’ Likely To Reach 48,000 By The End of The Year

OK...that is 48,000 once we get hem trained
What about the other 29,999,942 jobs we need?