Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[Hutch Starskey]

^WITF does this mean?

It means taxpayers will pay for the child's medical care, taxpayers will pay for the child's food, taxpayers will pay for the child's housing, taxpayers will pay for the utilities in the apartment or house. Middle-class working people have to worry about those things if they decide to have a baby; they have to pay for everything themselves.

No doubt you will post supporting evidence to corroborate such a claim.

Didn't I already? The OP: 50% of babies born in the US were born on Medicaid.

You didn't, of course.
You in no way showed that those who have children with Medicaid benefits also use every other assistance program as well.

Over 100 Million Now Receiving Federal Welfare

Show the data from the actual programs if you're able or have the stones to.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Hutch, the deeper I go in to Ray's fascist government conception police and sterilization squad nonsense, the more I realize that he is clean off the reservation, and living in some sort of state of mind that would make the police state that that existed in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's appear mild, by comparison. In short, I'm done with arguing with someone with such a state of mind.

 

[Dragonlady]

So you DO support letting the kids die to teach the parents a lesson.

No, but I do support government taking the kids out of the household if the parents can't support them, just like they do when the parents are hooked on dope, or the father is abusive to the rest of the family, or the parents end up in prison.

Why would you support the govt paying for an orphanage rather than helping the family as a whole?
What kind of retarded thinking is that?

Are you suggesting that poverty be criminalized?

How are we helping a family by rewarding their irresponsible behavior? It only encourages them to be even more irresponsible. That's how we got to this point

No, it encourages them to be a family.

How do you propose removing children from their parents? Will you criminalize birth for those who cannot self pay?

No, just have their children removed from the home if they can't support them; no different than if the parents were abusive towards the children, hooked on drugs, sent to prison.

Ray you are a true Republican. You hate the poor because they're poor and you're not, and you propose solutions to problems that cost more than the problem, and solve nothing.

Problem: half the children born in the US are born on Medicaid. Except this isn't true. In 24 states, half the babies born, are born on Medicaid. And most of those 24 states are in the Deep South, and with the exception of New York and California, most are Republican States, or "at will" employment states. In other words, states which have been run by Republicans for generations.

Like most Republicans, you want to punish poor people for having children they can't afford. Take the children away from them. Put them in orphanages. This would involve building orphanages, buying beds, equipment, clothing, hiring staff, and setting up an entire bureaucracy to run the orphanages. Very expensive solution to the problem.

Then there's the entire issue that children raised in institutions fare very poorly in life. Lack of love, attention and interaction with their parents can really screw a kid up and possibly requiring support and assistance throughout their lives, adding to the cost of having the state raise the child.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just let their parents raise the kids, and give them assistance to do so? Of course it would but This solution ignores the Republican need to punish and shame the poor. Reminding poor people that they should be ashamed of needing help is a primary goal of Republican social programs.

I was struck by your comments about the grandchildren of one of the neighbours living with their grandparents so they could attend school in a better district. Instead of applauding the family for doing everything possible to give their kids a chance at a better life, you denigrated the parents, saying the kids had no right to be there because their parents hadn't earned it. Their grandparents are paying taxes so yes, the family has every right and every responsibility to do what they can for the kids.

Your other solution - forced sterilization for the poor. It was done in the past. Mostly to blacks, or people who were "mentally deficient". Many of them sued and won big awards. Again this is an expensive solution - especially the reversals. It's a very delicate 4 hour operation with months to heal. Probably cost upwards of $20,000. Much more than the Medicaid childbirth.

And none of this addresses the root causes of poverty - Republican economic policies. Policies which shame and punish the poor while doing nothing to eliminate or alleviate their poverty.

Republicans having hanging their hats on blaming the poor for close to 40 years now. It's not working. There are far more poor people now than when they started.

When LBJ started the War On Poverty, it lifted millions out of poverty and into the middle class. When Reagan ended the WOP, poverty increased. And it has continued to increase under every Republican President while declining under Democrats.

But you won't look at these numbers because you think you have it all figured out. The poor are the problem. Not the tax cuts, Bush's Recession, billions pissed away on useless wars. Nope it's the poor people.

You are dumber than a sack of hammers Ray.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just let their parents raise the kids, and give them assistance to do so? Of course it would but This solution ignores the Republican need to punish and shame the poor. Reminding poor people that they should be ashamed of needing help is a primary goal of Republican social programs.

No, the reason poor people have children is because they won't be financially responsible for them--the taxpayer will be. You people on the left act as if child birth is just something that happens to people for no reason. Help people in need? Who put them in need, the Republicans? No, they put themselves in need. If you make minimum wage, you don't go out and buy a $250,000 house. The bank would laugh at you because there is no way to afford it. Why should raising a child be any different?

I was struck by your comments about the grandchildren of one of the neighbours living with their grandparents so they could attend school in a better district. Instead of applauding the family for doing everything possible to give their kids a chance at a better life, you denigrated the parents, saying the kids had no right to be there because their parents hadn't earned it. Their grandparents are paying taxes so yes, the family has every right and every responsibility to do what they can for the kids.

Let me tell you something, over here, local people support the schools through property tax. I pay thousands a year in property tax--half of which goes to the schools to educate children we don't have. It's bad enough I have to pay for the people living here, but now I should applaud educating other people's kids because they sneak them into my suburb like illegal aliens? Guess what happens when more grandmothers do that? That's right, the school asks for more money and up go my property taxes. Plus these kids are little lowlifes. They come here with their drugs, they come here and form gangs just like they had in the ghetto, and a school teacher is attacked in our schools at least once a month.

Your other solution - forced sterilization for the poor. It was done in the past. Mostly to blacks, or people who were "mentally deficient". Many of them sued and won big awards. Again this is an expensive solution - especially the reversals. It's a very delicate 4 hour operation with months to heal. Probably cost upwards of $20,000. Much more than the Medicaid childbirth.

Look, if people are having kids on Medicaid, chances are they don't have enough money to support them either, so it's much more than 20K, It's more like 35K every year to support these children.

And none of this addresses the root causes of poverty - Republican economic policies. Policies which shame and punish the poor while doing nothing to eliminate or alleviate their poverty.

How is not taking my money and giving it to the poor punishment? When I support the poor, that's punishment--punishment to me. It's damn near slavery. I go out and work to support these people against my will. It's time this stopped in our country. Our founders never set up this government as a charity.

Republicans having hanging their hats on blaming the poor for close to 40 years now. It's not working. There are far more poor people now than when they started.

The Republicans didn't start it, the Democrats did, and we have been doing it their way for over five decades.

When LBJ started the War On Poverty, it lifted millions out of poverty and into the middle class. When Reagan ended the WOP, poverty increased. And it has continued to increase under every Republican President while declining under Democrats.

I showed you the graph on that, and you are FOS. What policy did Reagan create (under a Democrat Congress) that increased poverty? Name one.

But you won't look at these numbers because you think you have it all figured out. The poor are the problem. Not the tax cuts, Bush's Recession, billions pissed away on useless wars. Nope it's the poor people.

You are dumber than a sack of hammers Ray.

I would say the same about you. What do wars have to do with poverty? What do tax cuts have to do with poverty? The poor don't care about recessions anymore than prisoners in jail do. It doesn't' effect them. They just laugh at the working who do have to deal with the problem.

Outside of those disabled, if you are poor, it is your own fault. You don't want to work, or you have children you can't ever afford, it's your fault. We have millions of jobs people won't take, why? Because they are living fat and happy on the working. Right now in my industry, we need tens of thousands of workers they can't find. Some companies will not only train you and get you licensed, but they will pay you while you learn, and they still can't find those people they need. They are bringing in foreigners to do the jobs.

 

[JoeB131]

I stand against institutionalized theft from some citizens, handed out to others. The founders agreed that an income tax for purposes of redistribution is fundamentally immoral.

the Founders also thought slavery was nifty, powdered wigs were fashionable and bleeding people to treat strep throat was a sound medical practice.

I think what we should do is let all you LIbertards live in a special reservation where you have 18th century technology and culture... and you can tell us how awesome it is when you die of Cholera.

 

[JoeB131]

Only after they retire, and these are plans they paid into their entire life. Now if you're talking about disability, people of all races are on it. If you decide to see a shrink, make sure you tell him about this obsession of race you have.

If you live to be 72, you get back everything you paid into Social Security. Even Rick Perry called it a Ponzi Scheme. The problem is, dumbshit, is that while the people retiring now actually had middle class salaries, the people coming up don't, thanks to your beloved 1%.

But no Republican is going to say "Let's cut social security". That's White People Welfare!!!

Sigh.......I do hope you get help soon before you go completely nuts and start killing people.

Naw, man, I'm just going to laugh as you get a treatable disease because your employer considered you as about as critical as a sea monkey.

Hey, when he yanked your health insurance, did he say, "Here's the money I would have spent on your policy that didn't meet ACA standards. Good luck!"

I'm betting he didn't.

But keep blaming the black guy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hutch, the deeper I go in to Ray's fascist government conception police and sterilization squad nonsense, the more I realize that he is clean off the reservation, and living in some sort of state of mind that would make the police state that that existed in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's appear mild, by comparison. In short, I'm done with arguing with someone with such a state of mind.

Well, he's a truck driver and no doubt spends all his time listening to rw radio. When he's not creepily monitoring his HUD neighbors that is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you live to be 72, you get back everything you paid into Social Security. Even Rick Perry called it a Ponzi Scheme. The problem is, dumbshit, is that while the people retiring now actually had middle class salaries, the people coming up don't, thanks to your beloved 1%.

But no Republican is going to say "Let's cut social security". That's White People Welfare!!!

Only white people contribute to Social Security? Everybody who works contributes to SS, or are you saying minorities don't work? How racist of you.

Middle class salaries have nothing to do with the 1%. Unions got so greedy that it forced industries to move overseas. In my career, we've lost dozens of companies who left the state or country because of unions. Blame the one-percent, but don't think of blaming government with their over regulation and taxation or the unions.

Naw, man, I'm just going to laugh as you get a treatable disease because your employer considered you as about as critical as a sea monkey.

Hey, when he yanked your health insurance, did he say, "Here's the money I would have spent on your policy that didn't meet ACA standards. Good luck!"

I'm betting he didn't.

But keep blaming the black guy.

Because Commie Care was so Fd up, they made no provision for employers to pay employees what they used to pay for healthcare. He gave us a raise instead, but had to deduct all the costs to him by giving us that raise. He had to deduct the increase in SS, the increase in Medicare, the increase in Workman's Compensation and unemployment insurance, what he contributes to our retirement plan. Then of course, as the commies planned, that money gets taxed before it gets to us. It didn't amount to all that much, and certainly not nearly enough to afford those ridiculously priced plans on Commie Care.

 

[JoeB131]

Middle class salaries have nothing to do with the 1%. Unions got so greedy that it forced industries to move overseas.

Are you truly retarded? The only reason why we have a middle class today is because of unions.

I always wonder how you think the CEO of GM getting 8 figures for failing isn't a case of greed, but an Auto Worker getting $28.00 an hour is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you live to be 72, you get back everything you paid into Social Security. Even Rick Perry called it a Ponzi Scheme. The problem is, dumbshit, is that while the people retiring now actually had middle class salaries, the people coming up don't, thanks to your beloved 1%.

But no Republican is going to say "Let's cut social security". That's White People Welfare!!!

Only white people contribute to Social Security? Everybody who works contributes to SS, or are you saying minorities don't work? How racist of you.

Middle class salaries have nothing to do with the 1%. Unions got so greedy that it forced industries to move overseas. In my career, we've lost dozens of companies who left the state or country because of unions. Blame the one-percent, but don't think of blaming government with their over regulation and taxation or the unions.

Naw, man, I'm just going to laugh as you get a treatable disease because your employer considered you as about as critical as a sea monkey.

Hey, when he yanked your health insurance, did he say, "Here's the money I would have spent on your policy that didn't meet ACA standards. Good luck!"

I'm betting he didn't.

But keep blaming the black guy.

Because Commie Care was so Fd up, they made no provision for employers to pay employees what they used to pay for healthcare. He gave us a raise instead, but had to deduct all the costs to him by giving us that raise. He had to deduct the increase in SS, the increase in Medicare, the increase in Workman's Compensation and unemployment insurance, what he contributes to our retirement plan. Then of course, as the commies planned, that money gets taxed before it gets to us. It didn't amount to all that much, and certainly not nearly enough to afford those ridiculously priced plans on Commie Care.

That's interesting, so we could have competed with $1/hour labor overseas if only Americans had been willing to work for $1 an hour.

lol, classic rightwing nuttery.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Middle class salaries have nothing to do with the 1%. Unions got so greedy that it forced industries to move overseas.

Are you truly retarded? The only reason why we have a middle class today is because of unions.

I always wonder how you think the CEO of GM getting 8 figures for failing isn't a case of greed, but an Auto Worker getting $28.00 an hour is.

Because contract people are paid differently than hourly wage people. They have talents most of us do not.

If your baseball team signs a star pitcher for 4 million a year, and he doesn't perform very well, he still gets that 4 million a year. If a rock band signs a 10 million dollar recording contract, but they don't sell as many recordings as expected, the band still gets that 10 million dollars.

Industry seeks to find (and are willing to pay) talented people for those jobs. Hourly workers seek the business for work. If you don't want to pay that CEO five million a year, your competitor will, and likely take much of your business away because they hired that CEO.

Those people get paid by past performances, but that doesn't guarantee they will perform excellent all the time. It's a gamble businesses take.

 

[Dragonlady]

Companies didn't offshore because of unions or regulations. It was greed, pure and simple. They certainly didn't drop prices for clothing produced in China or Bangladesh Desh.

Wages, as a percentage of costs, are at a level not seen since the Guilded Age. The lowest in history. And that's for companies employing American workers.

Since the 1980's, the price of fuel, real estate, property taxes, utilities, supplies, transportation, taxes and health care have all gone up and employers have absorbed those increases. But suggest that wages go up and they cry they'll be driven out of business, forced to lay off workers. Can't be done. Bullshit!

The glut of workers meant they didn't have to pay higher wages. Successive Republican administrations helped them by raising earned income credits instead of raising the minimum wage, in effect, having middle class tax payers subsidize their wages.

Corporations have been awash in cash since W was President recording record profits and putting the lie to the notion that they were driven offshore by unions and regulations.

It is, was and will continue to be greed and nothing but greed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Companies didn't offshore because of unions or regulations. It was greed, pure and simple. They certainly didn't drop prices for clothing produced in China or Bangladesh Desh.

Wages, as a percentage of costs, are at a level not seen since the Guilded Age. The lowest in history. And that's for companies employing American workers.

Since the 1980's, the price of fuel, real estate, property taxes, utilities, supplies, transportation, taxes and health care have all gone up and employers have absorbed those increases. But suggest that wages go up and they cry they'll be driven out of business, forced to lay off workers. Can't be done. Bullshit!

The glut of workers meant they didn't have to pay higher wages. Successive Republican administrations helped them by raising earned income credits instead of raising the minimum wage, in effect, having middle class tax payers subsidize their wages.

Corporations have been awash in cash since W was President recording record profits and putting the lie to the notion that they were driven offshore by unions and regulations.

It is, was and will continue to be greed and nothing but greed.

One of our customers makes crates that we deliver. They make small crates, big crates, crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or overseas. When ever the opportunity presented itself, I discussed the move with a supervisor and a couple times the owners of these companies.

None of them wanted to move, but they had no choice. Some of them had meetings with their union workers to explain their problem, but the unions told their workers that the company was FOS. They had no intention of moving. They were just using scare tactics to get the workers to not support increases in wages and benefits.

Surprisingly, even when the company started packing their machines up, the unions still wouldn't budge. They told their members not to worry, the union will always find them another union job.

Companies would love to pay their workers more money, but once one company moves overseas (yes, probably out of greed) they begin to take customers away from other American businesses of the same industry. Then it becomes a domino effect on the other American businesses.

Our problem in the US is not so much the taxes, the unions, the politics, or even the hundreds of regulations against businesses. Our problem is the American consumer. The American consumer will not support high paying monkey jobs. We go out and buy the cheapest product we can. We don't care about the quality, we don't care if it's made in America or not, we don't care if the company uses a lot of automation. We care that we get our stuff cheap, and companies respond to their consumer demands. That's why Walmart is (and has been for some time) number one.

 

[Markle]

It's not the parents you deny the 'reward' to, once the child is born. Then you have to deny the child healthcare, food, shelter, education, etc., etc....

We need to change the incentives from rewarding singles to rewarding marriage.

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005, AND THEREAFTER

AMMUNITION FOR POVERTY PIMPS

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive.

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president [President George Walker Bush] and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

Ammunition For Poverty Pimps

 

[Dragonlady]

Companies didn't offshore because of unions or regulations. It was greed, pure and simple. They certainly didn't drop prices for clothing produced in China or Bangladesh Desh.

Wages, as a percentage of costs, are at a level not seen since the Guilded Age. The lowest in history. And that's for companies employing American workers.

Since the 1980's, the price of fuel, real estate, property taxes, utilities, supplies, transportation, taxes and health care have all gone up and employers have absorbed those increases. But suggest that wages go up and they cry they'll be driven out of business, forced to lay off workers. Can't be done. Bullshit!

The glut of workers meant they didn't have to pay higher wages. Successive Republican administrations helped them by raising earned income credits instead of raising the minimum wage, in effect, having middle class tax payers subsidize their wages.

Corporations have been awash in cash since W was President recording record profits and putting the lie to the notion that they were driven offshore by unions and regulations.

It is, was and will continue to be greed and nothing but greed.

One of our customers makes crates that we deliver. They make small crates, big crates, crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or overseas. When ever the opportunity presented itself, I discussed the move with a supervisor and a couple times the owners of these companies.

None of them wanted to move, but they had no choice. Some of them had meetings with their union workers to explain their problem, but the unions told their workers that the company was FOS. They had no intention of moving. They were just using scare tactics to get the workers to not support increases in wages and benefits.

Surprisingly, even when the company started packing their machines up, the unions still wouldn't budge. They told their members not to worry, the union will always find them another union job.

Companies would love to pay their workers more money, but once one company moves overseas (yes, probably out of greed) they begin to take customers away from other American businesses of the same industry. Then it becomes a domino effect on the other American businesses.

Our problem in the US is not so much the taxes, the unions, the politics, or even the hundreds of regulations against businesses. Our problem is the American consumer. The American consumer will not support high paying monkey jobs. We go out and buy the cheapest product we can. We don't care about the quality, we don't care if it's made in America or not, we don't care if the company uses a lot of automation. We care that we get our stuff cheap, and companies respond to their consumer demands. That's why Walmart is (and has been for some time) number one.

Again I call bullshit.

Corporations are awash in cash. They didn't lower prices when they offshored manufacturing. They increased profits.

GDP increased, wages didn't. Profits increased, wages didn't. Government used tax dollars to sudsidize low income wages, such that every tax paying American subsidized Walmart's profits to the tune of $2,500 whether or not they ever set foot in a Walmart store.

Doesn't it make more sense to pay a 50 cents more for that burger than to send tax dollars to Washington, and have them use the money for food stamps, Section 8 housing, and earned income credits. When the businesses pay their own employees, it's cheaper than paying the government to administer these programs.

Walmart manages to be the biggest retailer in Canada, and most profitable while paying a minimum wage of $12.00 an hour to employees, and paying healthcare taxes for every worker they employ, as well as 25% corporate taxes.

You swallow the Republican talking points whole and without question and keep on voting Republican. And like a good Republican you blame the poor for their situation without questioning who really benefits from the "transfer of wealth" you decry.

The 1% thank you for your gullibility. And keep on listening to RW talk radio to stoke that anger against the poor.

 

[Markle]

Companies didn't offshore because of unions or regulations. It was greed, pure and simple. They certainly didn't drop prices for clothing produced in China or Bangladesh Desh.

Wages, as a percentage of costs, are at a level not seen since the Guilded Age. The lowest in history. And that's for companies employing American workers.

Since the 1980's, the price of fuel, real estate, property taxes, utilities, supplies, transportation, taxes and health care have all gone up and employers have absorbed those increases. But suggest that wages go up and they cry they'll be driven out of business, forced to lay off workers. Can't be done. Bullshit!

The glut of workers meant they didn't have to pay higher wages. Successive Republican administrations helped them by raising earned income credits instead of raising the minimum wage, in effect, having middle class tax payers subsidize their wages.

Corporations have been awash in cash since W was President recording record profits and putting the lie to the notion that they were driven offshore by unions and regulations.

It is, was and will continue to be greed and nothing but greed.

You're posts get stranger and stranger.

Companies send manufacturing and other jobs to other countries because of COMPETITION, AND REGULATIONS. Not so much unions since companies simply move to right to work states such as we see with Michigan and other rust belt states.

Your reference to the 1980's is the same. Why do you constantly lie? A product that cost $100.00 in 1980 cost $297.28 today in 2017. The median household income in 1980 was $16,671 adjusted for inflation $48,462. For 2014 median household income was $53,013 and adjusted for inflation $53,657. So you lied again.

As for your desperation about corporations being "awash in cash" since President Bush was in office is true. That would be the entire term of petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama. As you know, companies and investors were being deluged with new regulations and taxes. Rather than spend cash on enlarging their companies or starting new ones they saved that cash.

Median Household Income in the United States

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Companies didn't offshore because of unions or regulations. It was greed, pure and simple. They certainly didn't drop prices for clothing produced in China or Bangladesh Desh.

Wages, as a percentage of costs, are at a level not seen since the Guilded Age. The lowest in history. And that's for companies employing American workers.

Since the 1980's, the price of fuel, real estate, property taxes, utilities, supplies, transportation, taxes and health care have all gone up and employers have absorbed those increases. But suggest that wages go up and they cry they'll be driven out of business, forced to lay off workers. Can't be done. Bullshit!

The glut of workers meant they didn't have to pay higher wages. Successive Republican administrations helped them by raising earned income credits instead of raising the minimum wage, in effect, having middle class tax payers subsidize their wages.

Corporations have been awash in cash since W was President recording record profits and putting the lie to the notion that they were driven offshore by unions and regulations.

It is, was and will continue to be greed and nothing but greed.

One of our customers makes crates that we deliver. They make small crates, big crates, crates the size of tractor-trailers. We delivered those crates to companies that were moving out of state or overseas. When ever the opportunity presented itself, I discussed the move with a supervisor and a couple times the owners of these companies.

None of them wanted to move, but they had no choice. Some of them had meetings with their union workers to explain their problem, but the unions told their workers that the company was FOS. They had no intention of moving. They were just using scare tactics to get the workers to not support increases in wages and benefits.

Surprisingly, even when the company started packing their machines up, the unions still wouldn't budge. They told their members not to worry, the union will always find them another union job.

Companies would love to pay their workers more money, but once one company moves overseas (yes, probably out of greed) they begin to take customers away from other American businesses of the same industry. Then it becomes a domino effect on the other American businesses.

Our problem in the US is not so much the taxes, the unions, the politics, or even the hundreds of regulations against businesses. Our problem is the American consumer. The American consumer will not support high paying monkey jobs. We go out and buy the cheapest product we can. We don't care about the quality, we don't care if it's made in America or not, we don't care if the company uses a lot of automation. We care that we get our stuff cheap, and companies respond to their consumer demands. That's why Walmart is (and has been for some time) number one.

Again I call bullshit.

Corporations are awash in cash. They didn't lower prices when they offshored manufacturing. They increased profits.

GDP increased, wages didn't. Profits increased, wages didn't. Government used tax dollars to sudsidize low income wages, such that every tax paying American subsidized Walmart's profits to the tune of $2,500 whether or not they ever set foot in a Walmart store.

Doesn't it make more sense to pay a 50 cents more for that burger than to send tax dollars to Washington, and have them use the money for food stamps, Section 8 housing, and earned income credits. When the businesses pay their own employees, it's cheaper than paying the government to administer these programs.

Walmart manages to be the biggest retailer in Canada, and most profitable while paying a minimum wage of $12.00 an hour to employees, and paying healthcare taxes for every worker they employ, as well as 25% corporate taxes.

You swallow the Republican talking points whole and without question and keep on voting Republican. And like a good Republican you blame the poor for their situation without questioning who really benefits from the "transfer of wealth" you decry.

The 1% thank you for your gullibility. And keep on listening to RW talk radio to stoke that anger against the poor.

Where do you get this notion that our government is obligated to pay these Walmart workers anything? That decision belongs to whoever is running the government at the time, and I hope our government does cut the goodies out regardless what Walmart or any other place pays.

Let me teach you by example of how American businesses work:

Let's say you ran into a small fortune: a lawsuit, a family member passed away, a lottery..... Now you have $300,000 that you really have nothing to do with. All your bills are paid, you don't need a new car or boat, you are doing just fine. What would you do with that money?

Well more than likely you would invest it. Knowing nothing about investments, you hire an expert in the matter, and tell him or her that you want a good return, little risk, just a somewhat safe place to grow your money.

Your investment agent comes back to you with two companies: Company A has been around for a long time. They have a growth rate of 6.5%. It's a safe company to put your money in.

Company B has also been around a long time. A safe place to put your money, and it will grow at 3.5%.

Which company would you decide to put your money into? Before you answer, there is a bit more information: Company A grosses about 5 million dollars a year. Company B grosses about 800 million a year. Does that change your decision any?

Of course not. You don't care how much money a company has, you care about their growth rate and what it means for your investment.

You would not be alone. Most any smart investor would choose company A just like you did.

It doesn't matter how much money a company has, it matters how well their stocks perform. Good performing stocks attract more investors like you. So if a company is worth 5 billion dollars, and are paying their starting workers minimum wage, they are trying to increase profits to make their stocks more valuable. That's how American (and many other countries) businesses work.

 

[Markle]

dear, tax cuts for the rich and benefits cuts for the poor, can Only happen on an Institutional basis in our Republic.

You failed to answer the question, go figure.

So a person's poor choices, say doing drugs, makes them poorer. How does that make the rich richer? Unless they're a drug dealer.

 

[Markle]

Like that sweet job driving truck on the federal interstate highway system?

Long haul truck driver is a good job. Pays well and nothing gets delivered unless it came by way of a truck.

 

[Markle]

So among those of you who think we should let poor kids die for lack of healthcare, to I guess teach their parents a lesson of some sort,

That statement simply highlights your ignorance and degree of hate.