Two Americas: Finance or Foodstamps

[georgephillip]

The WSJ reports CEO bonuses at 50 major corporations jumped by 30.5%, the biggest gain in at least three years.

Meanwhile... back on Main Street...

"From November to December of 2010 487,000 Americans were added to the food stamp program.

"Keep in mind this all occurred while the stock market continued to soar and has rallied nearly 100 percent from the lows reached in March of 2009."

A fraction of 1% of all Americans are gorging on gluttony while as many as 45,000,000 Americans feast on food stamps.

"This is the highest percent of Americans on food assistance since the Great Depression when there was no food assistance early on aside from local charities."

'Think there might be a connection between Wall Street's gain and Main Street's pain?

A Tale of Two Americas...

 

[WillowTree]

Just curious george. what is it you think the limousine liberals are dining on?

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm sure Obama is right on top of this. Fixing it, that is!

 

[georgephillip]

Just curious george. what is it you think the limousine liberals are dining on?

I don't think Wall Street or Hollywood has any use of food stamps, Willow.

For at least the last three decades in the US liberals and conservatives have put aside their political differences to get behind globalization. Many liberals had good reason to celebrate when Clinton signed NAFTA.

They are still feasting as more and more Americans turn to food stamps to dine on.

 

[georgephillip]

I'm sure Obama is right on top of this. Fixing it, that is!

Once Obama is gone (the sooner the better,imho) I'm thinking he gets to a $100 million faster than Slick Willie...no food stamps required.

So far, it looks to me like Goldman Sachs got their $900,000 worth from Obama while 45,000,000 Americans got food stamps.

Maybe they're connected?

 

[Anachronism]

How about this....

Maybe if the AVERAGE AMERICANS (including the ones on Food Stamps) started pushing for two simple things.... NATIONALISM and ISOLATIONISM, these issues with Wall Street might become less of a problem....

If we told our Legislators to stop ALLOWING American companies to send their work overseas.
If we told our Legislators to stop ALLOWING foreign companies to do business here in the United States.
If we told these companies that until they become America-centric we will no longer buy their products or support their business'.

Then you would see a change. Make companies like FORD, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, etc... decide if they are AMERICAN companies, or if they are foreign companies. One or the other. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

I think there is this fallacy that one has any direct effect on the other. The CEOs aren't getting bonuses because of people getting on food stamps and conversely, those going on food stamps aren't there because of CEO bonuses. This idea that one is the cause and the other the effect is obsurd.

 

[georgephillip]

How about this....

Maybe if the AVERAGE AMERICANS (including the ones on Food Stamps) started pushing for two simple things.... NATIONALISM and ISOLATIONISM, these issues with Wall Street might become less of a problem....

If we told our Legislators to stop ALLOWING American companies to send their work overseas.
If we told our Legislators to stop ALLOWING foreign companies to do business here in the United States.
If we told these companies that until they become America-centric we will no longer buy their products or support their business'.

Then you would see a change. Make companies like FORD, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, etc... decide if they are AMERICAN companies, or if they are foreign companies. One or the other. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

I think you're trying to squeeze a very large genie (named globalization) back into its bottle.

Would the US dollar continue to function as the world's reserve currency if your suggestions were implemented?

The chances seem remote that many elected Republicans OR Democrats would support your demands since they obtain most of their campaign donations from Americans who profit the most from having their cake and eating it too.

We have to find ways to globalize Democracy, imho, instead of sealing our borders and trying to ignore the other 96% of human beings on this planet.

 

[Anachronism]

I think there is this fallacy that one has any direct effect on the other. The CEOs aren't getting bonuses because of people getting on food stamps and conversely, those going on food stamps aren't there because of CEO bonuses. This idea that one is the cause and the other the effect is obsurd.

For the most part you're right. However, there ARE circumstances where there IS a correlation. For example, the company I work for......

We currently have approximately 6200 Non-Union employees and about 16,000 Union employees in the Northeast (NY, NH, MA, RI). We operate in a state-regulated business environment. In the last two years most of our new rate cases have either been denied entirely, or at least significantly reduced from what we have requested.

Due to that, we have made some major changes in our business.....

We are in the process of selling our entire business in one of those states, since it cannot be run with the profit margin required by our executives and investors.

We have stopped doing all non-emergency maintenance work in two of our states and have laid off about 200 contractors that we had working in one of them because we will not be allowed to recover the costs of the additional work/workforce.

Now we are reorganizing the business and laying off approximately 1,200 of the 6,200 non-union employees in the entire company.

This isn't a matter of LOSING money. For a company to actually LOSE money in our business would be almost impossible. This is because our executives and investors are demanding a certain return on investment and the only way to do that is to reduce the workforce

 

[boedicca]

The actual Two Americas are those who Feed From The Taxpayer Trough and the rest of us who work hard and foot the bill.

 

[Anachronism]

I think you're trying to squeeze a very large genie (named globalization) back into its bottle.

True. That's exactly what I'm looking to do.

Would the US dollar continue to function as the world's reserve currency if your suggestions were implemented?

I couldn't care any less, since in my model no American Dollars would be allowed to leave the United States in the first place.

The chances seem remote that many elected Republicans OR Democrats would support your demands since they obtain most of their campaign donations from Americans who profit the most from having their cake and eating it too.

Among the things that I believe need to be changed is the removal of the ability for any individual or organization (including business') that cannot cast a vote in an election to provide any type of material support to a candidate in that election. That includes: money, campaign workers, airtime, commercials, etc...

So in the end while Local 369 of the American Clown Union can't support the Democrat, neither can Fortune 500, Inc support the Republican... BECAUSE neither organization can cast a ballot in the election for either candidate.

We have to find ways to globalize Democracy, imho, instead of sealing our borders and trying to ignore the other 96% of human beings on this planet.

Not interested.

 

[kaz]

A fraction of 1% of all Americans are gorging on gluttony while as many as 45,000,000 Americans feast on food stamps

Yes, there is no ruling elite class in Marxism, comrade. Stalin, Kruschev, Putin, Soviet leaders were as poor as the farmers. You are so onto something.

 

[Uncle Kenny]

I think there is this fallacy that one has any direct effect on the other. The CEOs aren't getting bonuses because of people getting on food stamps and conversely, those going on food stamps aren't there because of CEO bonuses. This idea that one is the cause and the other the effect is obsurd.

For the most part you're right. However, there ARE circumstances where there IS a correlation. For example, the company I work for......

We currently have approximately 6200 Non-Union employees and about 16,000 Union employees in the Northeast (NY, NH, MA, RI). We operate in a state-regulated business environment. In the last two years most of our new rate cases have either been denied entirely, or at least significantly reduced from what we have requested.

Due to that, we have made some major changes in our business.....

We are in the process of selling our entire business in one of those states, since it cannot be run with the profit margin required by our executives and investors.

We have stopped doing all non-emergency maintenance work in two of our states and have laid off about 200 contractors that we had working in one of them because we will not be allowed to recover the costs of the additional work/workforce.

Now we are reorganizing the business and laying off approximately 1,200 of the 6,200 non-union employees in the entire company.

This isn't a matter of LOSING money. For a company to actually LOSE money in our business would be almost impossible. This is because our executives and investors are demanding a certain return on investment and the only way to do that is to reduce the workforce

Sorry to hear that, but no one is in buisness, or in investing to break even or make little return on the investment. We are already in a low yield investment climate because of the shift from an investment to credit based interest system. If I don't get at least a rate that is equal to inflation on invested funds, I actually loose money despite net increase because the value of my funds is less than it was when they were commited.

 

[georgephillip]

I think there is this fallacy that one has any direct effect on the other. The CEOs aren't getting bonuses because of people getting on food stamps and conversely, those going on food stamps aren't there because of CEO bonuses. This idea that one is the cause and the other the effect is obsurd.

There isn't always direct cause and effect; however, CEOs who increase profits by outsourcing US jobs and increasing unemployment, often receive a bigger bonus.

Originally, the machine was seen as a tool that would eventually free virtually all of mankind from the need to earn wages in order to survive.

So far, it's only working for some of the richest 1% of humanity.

 

[kaz]

I think there is this fallacy that one has any direct effect on the other. The CEOs aren't getting bonuses because of people getting on food stamps and conversely, those going on food stamps aren't there because of CEO bonuses. This idea that one is the cause and the other the effect is obsurd.

There isn't always direct cause and effect; however, CEOs who increase profits by outsourcing US jobs and increasing unemployment, often receive a bigger bonus

You should take an economics class. Seriously.

 

[Anachronism]

Sorry to hear that, but no one is in buisness, or in investing to break even or make little return on the investment. We are already in a low yield investment climate because of the shift from an investment to credit based interest system. If I don't get at least a rate that is equal to inflation on invested funds, I actually loose money despite net increase because the value of my funds is less than it was when they were commited.

Kenny, I'm talking about the third largest Gas & Electric Utility Company in the United States. We're talking about a company that I can honestly say is not interested in its business, its customers, its product, or its employees. It is interested in only ONE THING.... Its profit margin.

We have one of the WORST customer service ratings in the entire United States for utility companies. We've now reorganized TWICE in the last four years. The morale inside the company is almost non-existant. We're losing quality people on a daily basis who are going other places for less money to get the hell out of the company. Yet the only thing that the executives want to look at is the bottom line.

In my mind that is going to completely and utterly DESTROY this company. Not only are they going to find that this reorg doesn't work, they're going to find that it only makes things even worse. THEN what are they going to do?

 

[kaz]

Sorry to hear that, but no one is in buisness, or in investing to break even or make little return on the investment. We are already in a low yield investment climate because of the shift from an investment to credit based interest system. If I don't get at least a rate that is equal to inflation on invested funds, I actually loose money despite net increase because the value of my funds is less than it was when they were commited.

Kenny, I'm talking about the third largest Gas & Electric Utility Company in the United States. We're talking about a company that I can honestly say is not interested in its business, its customers, its product, or its employees. It is interested in only ONE THING.... Its profit margin.

We have one of the WORST customer service ratings in the entire United States for utility companies. We've now reorganized TWICE in the last four years. The morale inside the company is almost non-existant. We're losing quality people on a daily basis who are going other places for less money to get the hell out of the company. Yet the only thing that the executives want to look at is the bottom line.

In my mind that is going to completely and utterly DESTROY this company. Not only are they going to find that this reorg doesn't work, they're going to find that it only makes things even worse. THEN what are they going to do?

Ding, ding, ding. You take a government regulated business that operates according to government rules and use that as proof that free markets don't work. Yep, makes a lot of sense, you're onto something there. Politicians in fact didn't create a consumer centric company, which of course means we need to give politicians more power and control over more of our economy. I do enjoy these debates, so educational.

 

[The T]

The actual Two Americas are those who Feed From The Taxpayer Trough and the rest of us who work hard and foot the bill.

And all by Statist design.

 

[Anachronism]

Ding, ding, ding. You take a government regulated business that operates according to government rules and use that as proof that free markets don't work. Yep, makes a lot of sense, you're onto something there. Politicians in fact didn't create a consumer centric company, which of course means we need to give politicians more power and control over more of our economy. I do enjoy these debates, so educational.

I'm not sure if you realize that really the only thing that the State Governments truly REGULATE is our rates. We can be fined for certain performance-based failures, but for the most part the only real REGULATE is on what we can charge our customers.

 

[kaz]

Ding, ding, ding. You take a government regulated business that operates according to government rules and use that as proof that free markets don't work. Yep, makes a lot of sense, you're onto something there. Politicians in fact didn't create a consumer centric company, which of course means we need to give politicians more power and control over more of our economy. I do enjoy these debates, so educational.

I'm not sure if you realize that really the only thing that the State Governments truly REGULATE is our rates. We can be fined for certain performance-based failures, but for the most part the only real REGULATE is on what we can charge our customers.

Government sets your rates and removes your competition. You see that as minor regulation? Seriously?