The risk of income inequality

[KNB]

Record corporate profits aren't lowering the unemployment rate. Why is that? Why can't job creators create more jobs with their record profits?

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, it is my business when my government continues policies that help only the wealthy and do not deliver the jobs and prosperity to working Americans that was promised

But it's not the government job to create jobs. That's what business do if allowed by government overreach

-Geaux

Actually, yes...the government can and does create jobs

But that is not what we are talking about. We have slashed taxes, deregulated business, suppressed labor all in the name of supply side economics

The trickel down never occurred. The wealthy kept their wealth and ensured that working Anericans knew their place

Yeah, but only way the government can create a job, is by destroying another job, and more.

Every single dollar that a government employee makes, means that a dollar plus more, must be stolen from someone else. Thus every job created, results in multiple jobs destroyed.

Second, trickle down is how everything occurs. Everything in our nation, only happens by trickle down. In fact, throughout the entire world, trickle down is how everything happens.

Name one job.... ONE JOB, that would exist without trickle down? Where did that auto mechanic get the tools... the parts... or even the customer with a car to be worked on? Everything was made by a rich guy somewhere, and that wealth tickled down to the auto mechanic.

 

[Brain357]

Record corporate profits aren't lowering the unemployment rate. Why is that? Why can't job creators create more jobs with their record profits?

If they did that they wouldn't be getting so rich.

 

[KNB]

Listen to yourselves, Republicans. Rich assholes own your government. ..... Why do you defend their greed?

Earth to KNB. Most of the rich are liberal Democrats.

Just thought you might want to know.

.

The money class doesn't give a shit about Democrat or Republican. They do not hold any loyalty to your nation or your flag. The international rich only have loyalty to whoever enables them to hoard the most money. They don't have countries, they don't have religions, they don't have honor, loyalty, decency or any of the other things that you people think makes America great. They legalized torture, started wars over lies, cut welfare programs and education budgets, and use their global media empires to tell you to blame poor people. So the fuck what if they put an R or a D after their names. They aren't "liberal" or "progressive" or even decent human beings.

I ask you why you defend the greed of the rich (greed being one of the worst ten sins according to your Christian God) while demonizing poor people, and you respond with "Rich people are Democrats"?

Why do you defend the rich and claim to love America?

I didn't say anything about "more government power". All that has to happen to put Wall Street and the US Federal government in check is to actually enforce existing laws. That isn't "more" power. That's what is legal. HSBC confessed to funding terrorism against America, and the US government let them off with a fine that was worth less than 2 months' revenue for the company. NO ONE went to jail.
HSBC: Too big to jail? - Dec. 12, 2012

They can get away with treason while you're pointing your fingers at people on food stamps. Why do you defend the rich? They won't defend you.

 

[Brain357]

Listen to yourselves, Republicans. Rich assholes own your government. ..... Why do you defend their greed?

Earth to KNB. Most of the rich are liberal Democrats.

Just thought you might want to know.

.

You have any stats to back that up?

 

[Andylusion]

Record corporate profits aren't lowering the unemployment rate. Why is that? Why can't job creators create more jobs with their record profits?

Back in the 1990s, they said the same thing. Record profits are not creating jobs! Why can't job creator create more jobs with their record profits?!?

They said the same thing. We cut welfare, and kicked people off food stamps and government housing.

Want to know what happened? People went out there can got jobs.

You are making an assumption, that the reason people are collecting government hand outs, are doing so because there are no jobs. That's wrong.

The reason people are collecting hand outs, is because they can. When we changed the rules in 1995, so that they couldn't.... they got a job.

It's that simple. We've seen this in the current down turn too.

The Illinois Manufacturer's Association and received this letter from Mark Denzler Vice President & Chief Operating Officer of the IMA:

We do hear from manufacturers that they have a hard time finding employees and some have noted problems with UI. With extended UI benefits, some workers choose to delay the start of a job search which limits the pool of applicants. For example, if a worker is eligible for 26 weeks of unemployment, they may wait until week 16 or 18 to begin a job search rather than looking immediately.

I personally know of an individual (acquaintance) in Decatur who has turned down three separate manufacturing jobs in the last three months. He lost his job and has been called for manufacturing jobs that pay $13-15 per hour. I was with him on one occasion when he got the call from the temp agency. He indicated that after taxes, paying the cost of fuel (job was 20 miles away), and working the 2nd shift, he would rather stay on unemployment because it was essentially a wash.

Clear cut information, directly from employers, that they are having a hard time finding employees.

If the problem was not enough jobs, how could you possibly have high unemployment, and employers not able to find workers?

The problem is, people are choosing to live off government assistance, because they can. If you remove that, just like we did in 1995, unemployment will fall.

 

[Andylusion]

Then there were lots of jobs. Cut welfare and people could go out and get a job. Cut it now and there still aren't any jobs. And many of the ones out there are paying so poorly that people collect welfare even with a job. You cut welfare and next election it will be back up with nice tax increases for the rich or probably all of us.

Back in 1995, when they were cutting welfare, they were saying how there were no jobs, and how people would die in the street, and end up homeless, and kids would starve.

Now suddenly in retrospect, there were plenty of jobs? No, the same excuses you are using now, were the ones they were saying back then. They were wrong then. You are now.

Sorry but I was around and working back then. The environment can't even be compared, was a much better time.

Sorry, but I was around and working back then too. The environment can be compared. Statistically speaking, it's exactly the same.

The amount of unemployed, is statistically the same. It may 'feel' different.... but looking at it from a scientific perspective, it's the same.

The GDP growth rates are statistically the same. It may 'feel' different.... but looking at it from a scientific perspective, it's the same.

You can say "it was a much better time", but looking at facts, not opinions and feelings, it was about the same then, as it is now.

 

[Brain357]

Record corporate profits aren't lowering the unemployment rate. Why is that? Why can't job creators create more jobs with their record profits?

Back in the 1990s, they said the same thing. Record profits are not creating jobs! Why can't job creator create more jobs with their record profits?!?

They said the same thing. We cut welfare, and kicked people off food stamps and government housing.

Want to know what happened? People went out there can got jobs.

You are making an assumption, that the reason people are collecting government hand outs, are doing so because there are no jobs. That's wrong.

The reason people are collecting hand outs, is because they can. When we changed the rules in 1995, so that they couldn't.... they got a job.

It's that simple. We've seen this in the current down turn too.

The Illinois Manufacturer's Association and received this letter from Mark Denzler Vice President & Chief Operating Officer of the IMA:

We do hear from manufacturers that they have a hard time finding employees and some have noted problems with UI. With extended UI benefits, some workers choose to delay the start of a job search which limits the pool of applicants. For example, if a worker is eligible for 26 weeks of unemployment, they may wait until week 16 or 18 to begin a job search rather than looking immediately.

I personally know of an individual (acquaintance) in Decatur who has turned down three separate manufacturing jobs in the last three months. He lost his job and has been called for manufacturing jobs that pay $13-15 per hour. I was with him on one occasion when he got the call from the temp agency. He indicated that after taxes, paying the cost of fuel (job was 20 miles away), and working the 2nd shift, he would rather stay on unemployment because it was essentially a wash.

Clear cut information, directly from employers, that they are having a hard time finding employees.

If the problem was not enough jobs, how could you possibly have high unemployment, and employers not able to find workers?

The problem is, people are choosing to live off government assistance, because they can. If you remove that, just like we did in 1995, unemployment will fall.

Sorry but that's not at all how I remember things. Back in the 90's when we got into the .com boom the economy was great. When people talked welfare it was people taking advantage of the system and not working. Now it's people who are working, but making so little they still need welfare. Or if they don't have a job it's because it was shipped overseas. You cut welfare now and your going to just slow the economy. These people will have even less to spend.

 

[Andylusion]

Listen to yourselves, Republicans. Rich assholes own your government. ALL of the government shit that you bitch about is put into play by private interests. We the People, left, right and center, are not in control of our government.

Rich fucks hire lobbyists to write the laws that benefit rich people. This has led to the richest people making the majority of the financial gains while the rest of society struggles, poor working Republicans included.

Why are Republicans so quick to believe the lie that the rich are looking out for your best interests? You are cheap labor to them and nothing more. Your votes are meaningless when all you get are candidates who campaign in gerrymandered districts on anonymous corporate dollars. This is not Democracy. It isn't even a Constitutional Republic. It's a Fascist merger of state and corporate power, and you are DEFENDING it.

Does anyone really want to argue this point? Rich pieces of shit have made so much money that they can't be put in jail even when they confess to FUNDING TERRORISM AGAINST AMERICA.
BBC News - HSBC to pay $1.9bn in US money laundering penalties

They don't care about you or the US Constitution. Why do you defend the rich? They've committed treason against you, your country and your Constitution. Why do you defend their greed?

That's not true though. You are assuming that they are, when there is no evidence of such.

If you have a business cashing paychecks, you may not know that one of your customers is a crime lord, when all your trying to do is run your business.

Then the CIA and FBI investigate it, and find out you are laundering money for crime lords. Suddenly everyone says you are funding terrorism against the US.

Now if you can prove they in fact knew they were intentionally funding terrorism, then you got a point. But thus far, that isn't want the government has proven.

What the government has proven is that HSBC, was engaging in activities that are illegal in the US. And they did. That doesn't mean they were funding terrorism.

But what you and all the angry bitter leftists seem to ignore, is that the reason HSBC was doing it, is because it is not illegal in the UK.

You people keep claiming that we were not regulating banks. We regulate banks more than nearly any other country does. This is just another example of that.

What HSBC was doing, is something it has been doing for decades, because it's completely legal in the UK. It's only illegal here.

 

[Brain357]

Back in 1995, when they were cutting welfare, they were saying how there were no jobs, and how people would die in the street, and end up homeless, and kids would starve.

Now suddenly in retrospect, there were plenty of jobs? No, the same excuses you are using now, were the ones they were saying back then. They were wrong then. You are now.

Sorry but I was around and working back then. The environment can't even be compared, was a much better time.

Sorry, but I was around and working back then too. The environment can be compared. Statistically speaking, it's exactly the same.

The amount of unemployed, is statistically the same. It may 'feel' different.... but looking at it from a scientific perspective, it's the same.

The GDP growth rates are statistically the same. It may 'feel' different.... but looking at it from a scientific perspective, it's the same.

You can say "it was a much better time", but looking at facts, not opinions and feelings, it was about the same then, as it is now.

Please share your source for stats. Everything I see has the unemployment rate and growth much better in 1996 than it is now.

 

[Andylusion]

Record corporate profits aren't lowering the unemployment rate. Why is that? Why can't job creators create more jobs with their record profits?

Back in the 1990s, they said the same thing. Record profits are not creating jobs! Why can't job creator create more jobs with their record profits?!?

They said the same thing. We cut welfare, and kicked people off food stamps and government housing.

Want to know what happened? People went out there can got jobs.

You are making an assumption, that the reason people are collecting government hand outs, are doing so because there are no jobs. That's wrong.

The reason people are collecting hand outs, is because they can. When we changed the rules in 1995, so that they couldn't.... they got a job.

It's that simple. We've seen this in the current down turn too.

The Illinois Manufacturer's Association and received this letter from Mark Denzler Vice President & Chief Operating Officer of the IMA:

We do hear from manufacturers that they have a hard time finding employees and some have noted problems with UI. With extended UI benefits, some workers choose to delay the start of a job search which limits the pool of applicants. For example, if a worker is eligible for 26 weeks of unemployment, they may wait until week 16 or 18 to begin a job search rather than looking immediately.

I personally know of an individual (acquaintance) in Decatur who has turned down three separate manufacturing jobs in the last three months. He lost his job and has been called for manufacturing jobs that pay $13-15 per hour. I was with him on one occasion when he got the call from the temp agency. He indicated that after taxes, paying the cost of fuel (job was 20 miles away), and working the 2nd shift, he would rather stay on unemployment because it was essentially a wash.

Clear cut information, directly from employers, that they are having a hard time finding employees.

If the problem was not enough jobs, how could you possibly have high unemployment, and employers not able to find workers?

The problem is, people are choosing to live off government assistance, because they can. If you remove that, just like we did in 1995, unemployment will fall.

Sorry but that's not at all how I remember things. Back in the 90's when we got into the .com boom the economy was great. When people talked welfare it was people taking advantage of the system and not working. Now it's people who are working, but making so little they still need welfare. Or if they don't have a job it's because it was shipped overseas. You cut welfare now and your going to just slow the economy. These people will have even less to spend.

Doesn't matter if that's what you remember at all. It's the facts. Unemployment was over 6% in 1994. That's not a matter of what you remember. It's a documented fact.

GDP growth was in the 2% range. Doesn't matter if you remember it, that's in fact what it was.

And see, when you talk about people still using welfare when they are working.... that's people taking advantage of the system.

You are assuming they are only on welfare because they need it. That's opinion, not fact.

Just like people in 1994 said the reason people were on welfare was because they need it. Except we kicked them off welfare, and suddenly they got jobs. Apparently they didn't need it. They wanted it. And what was the minimum wage then?

Same thing going on today. The people working and still on welfare, don't really 'need' it. They 'want' it. If you cancel food stamps and welfare today, they'll simply work and earn a living for what they want, just like they did in 1995, for $4.25 an hour.

No one died, there was no crisis. People just got jobs, and back when the minimum wage was lower... and can't find a single article about the mass starvation and death from the cutting of welfare and food stamps.

 

[Brain357]

Back in the 1990s, they said the same thing. Record profits are not creating jobs! Why can't job creator create more jobs with their record profits?!?

They said the same thing. We cut welfare, and kicked people off food stamps and government housing.

Want to know what happened? People went out there can got jobs.

You are making an assumption, that the reason people are collecting government hand outs, are doing so because there are no jobs. That's wrong.

The reason people are collecting hand outs, is because they can. When we changed the rules in 1995, so that they couldn't.... they got a job.

It's that simple. We've seen this in the current down turn too.

The Illinois Manufacturer's Association and received this letter from Mark Denzler Vice President & Chief Operating Officer of the IMA:



Clear cut information, directly from employers, that they are having a hard time finding employees.

If the problem was not enough jobs, how could you possibly have high unemployment, and employers not able to find workers?

The problem is, people are choosing to live off government assistance, because they can. If you remove that, just like we did in 1995, unemployment will fall.

Sorry but that's not at all how I remember things. Back in the 90's when we got into the .com boom the economy was great. When people talked welfare it was people taking advantage of the system and not working. Now it's people who are working, but making so little they still need welfare. Or if they don't have a job it's because it was shipped overseas. You cut welfare now and your going to just slow the economy. These people will have even less to spend.

Doesn't matter if that's what you remember at all. It's the facts. Unemployment was over 6% in 1994. That's not a matter of what you remember. It's a documented fact.

GDP growth was in the 2% range. Doesn't matter if you remember it, that's in fact what it was.

And see, when you talk about people still using welfare when they are working.... that's people taking advantage of the system.

You are assuming they are only on welfare because they need it. That's opinion, not fact.

Just like people in 1994 said the reason people were on welfare was because they need it. Except we kicked them off welfare, and suddenly they got jobs. Apparently they didn't need it. They wanted it. And what was the minimum wage then?

Same thing going on today. The people working and still on welfare, don't really 'need' it. They 'want' it. If you cancel food stamps and welfare today, they'll simply work and earn a living for what they want, just like they did in 1995, for $4.25 an hour.

No one died, there was no crisis. People just got jobs, and back when the minimum wage was lower... and can't find a single article about the mass starvation and death from the cutting of welfare and food stamps.

Didn't welfare reform go down in 1996?

 

[Andylusion]

Sorry but I was around and working back then. The environment can't even be compared, was a much better time.

Sorry, but I was around and working back then too. The environment can be compared. Statistically speaking, it's exactly the same.

The amount of unemployed, is statistically the same. It may 'feel' different.... but looking at it from a scientific perspective, it's the same.

The GDP growth rates are statistically the same. It may 'feel' different.... but looking at it from a scientific perspective, it's the same.

You can say "it was a much better time", but looking at facts, not opinions and feelings, it was about the same then, as it is now.

Please share your source for stats. Everything I see has the unemployment rate and growth much better in 1996 than it is now.

The cuts came in 1995. Remember the budget battle of 1995? Shutting down government?

1994, is the date I am going by. 1996 was when these cuts came into effect. The higher gdp, and lower unemployment, is a result of the 1995 fight.

And by the way, it's logical on both accounts. Every single person kicked off welfare, forced to get a job.... is logically both creating domestic product, and not on the unemployment lines.

United States GDP Revised Up to 2.6% in Q4 | Actual Data | Forecasts
If you punch in 1991 to 2000, and use the moving average, you can very clearly see a distinct tick up right at 1996.

A brief history of U.S. unemployment - The Washington Post
Here you can see the decline in unemployment from 7.5% in 1992.
In 1994 the unemployment rate was 6.1%
Notice that from 1995 to 1996 the curve starts to level off slightly... but then from 1996 on continues going down to a low of 4% in 2000.

That leveling off was ended by the cutting of welfare in my opinion. Obviously I can't directly prove that, but certainly you can see the pattern.

Cutting welfare certainly didn't harm GDP or unemployment. And there is also obviously a case to be made it helped both.

 

[rightwinger]

I OPPOSE income equality. All rational people do -- or should.

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

The primary policy that help the highest earners is called "freedom". It's the same freedom that allows the poorest earners, to whittle duck callers on their back porch, and end up with a TV show on A&E.

We continue the policies that help the highest earners, because it's also the best policy to help the lowest earners.

Yea...freedom is part of the equation. Freedom from Government oversight. We saw how well that worked during the financial sector meltdown

 

[Andylusion]

Sorry but that's not at all how I remember things. Back in the 90's when we got into the .com boom the economy was great. When people talked welfare it was people taking advantage of the system and not working. Now it's people who are working, but making so little they still need welfare. Or if they don't have a job it's because it was shipped overseas. You cut welfare now and your going to just slow the economy. These people will have even less to spend.

Doesn't matter if that's what you remember at all. It's the facts. Unemployment was over 6% in 1994. That's not a matter of what you remember. It's a documented fact.

GDP growth was in the 2% range. Doesn't matter if you remember it, that's in fact what it was.

And see, when you talk about people still using welfare when they are working.... that's people taking advantage of the system.

You are assuming they are only on welfare because they need it. That's opinion, not fact.

Just like people in 1994 said the reason people were on welfare was because they need it. Except we kicked them off welfare, and suddenly they got jobs. Apparently they didn't need it. They wanted it. And what was the minimum wage then?

Same thing going on today. The people working and still on welfare, don't really 'need' it. They 'want' it. If you cancel food stamps and welfare today, they'll simply work and earn a living for what they want, just like they did in 1995, for $4.25 an hour.

No one died, there was no crisis. People just got jobs, and back when the minimum wage was lower... and can't find a single article about the mass starvation and death from the cutting of welfare and food stamps.

Didn't welfare reform go down in 1996?

Yes, my mistake. People were kicked off welfare in 1996. I keep tying it to the budget battle of 1995. Welfare reform was an aspect of the budget battle, because it was one of the things Republicans wanted to cut..... to balance the budget.

But yes. It was 1996, and it worked.

 

[dblack]

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

The primary policy that help the highest earners is called "freedom". It's the same freedom that allows the poorest earners, to whittle duck callers on their back porch, and end up with a TV show on A&E.

We continue the policies that help the highest earners, because it's also the best policy to help the lowest earners.

Yea...freedom is part of the equation. Freedom from Government oversight. We saw how well that worked during the financial sector meltdown

Foul!!! You are not authorized to use the word "freedom".

 

[Andylusion]

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

The primary policy that help the highest earners is called "freedom". It's the same freedom that allows the poorest earners, to whittle duck callers on their back porch, and end up with a TV show on A&E.

We continue the policies that help the highest earners, because it's also the best policy to help the lowest earners.

Yea...freedom is part of the equation. Freedom from Government oversight. We saw how well that worked during the financial sector meltdown

We have the most highly regulated and controlled financial sectors in the world. The problem was CAUSED by government oversight, that pushed banks to make bad loans.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Doesn't matter if that's what you remember at all. It's the facts. Unemployment was over 6% in 1994. That's not a matter of what you remember. It's a documented fact.

GDP growth was in the 2% range. Doesn't matter if you remember it, that's in fact what it was.

And see, when you talk about people still using welfare when they are working.... that's people taking advantage of the system.

You are assuming they are only on welfare because they need it. That's opinion, not fact.

Just like people in 1994 said the reason people were on welfare was because they need it. Except we kicked them off welfare, and suddenly they got jobs. Apparently they didn't need it. They wanted it. And what was the minimum wage then?

Same thing going on today. The people working and still on welfare, don't really 'need' it. They 'want' it. If you cancel food stamps and welfare today, they'll simply work and earn a living for what they want, just like they did in 1995, for $4.25 an hour.

No one died, there was no crisis. People just got jobs, and back when the minimum wage was lower... and can't find a single article about the mass starvation and death from the cutting of welfare and food stamps.

Didn't welfare reform go down in 1996?

Yes, my mistake. People were kicked off welfare in 1996. I keep tying it to the budget battle of 1995. Welfare reform was an aspect of the budget battle, because it was one of the things Republicans wanted to cut..... to balance the budget.

But yes. It was 1996, and it worked.

Yes...back when republicans and democrats worked together. Them there was good times!!

 

[Andylusion]

Record corporate profits aren't lowering the unemployment rate. Why is that? Why can't job creators create more jobs with their record profits?

If they did that they wouldn't be getting so rich.

With all due respect, that's a moronic statement.

If not creating jobs, caused rich people to be even more rich, why would they have hired any of millions of employees they already have?

If Mike Duke, CEO of Walmart could make hundreds of millions if only he had not hired the 2.2 million employees he has, why did he bother?

Moreover, why wasn't he being paid $100s of millions BEFORE he had the 2.2 million employees?

Come on.... Stop saying stupid stuff.

 

[rightwinger]

The primary policy that help the highest earners is called "freedom". It's the same freedom that allows the poorest earners, to whittle duck callers on their back porch, and end up with a TV show on A&E.

We continue the policies that help the highest earners, because it's also the best policy to help the lowest earners.

Yea...freedom is part of the equation. Freedom from Government oversight. We saw how well that worked during the financial sector meltdown

We have the most highly regulated and controlled financial sectors in the world. The problem was CAUSED by government oversight, that pushed banks to make bad loans.

Please...please stop us from making unsecured loans

We can't help ourselves