The Republican war on the Poor

[Harry Dresden]

Confederates who play in pigshit hate poor people. Go figure.

why do you keep lying and saying mud is pig shit? college people play mud football every year, and guess what, they are LIBERAL colleges and you don't have a problem with that....

why are you such a liar and a two faced hack?

All dimocraps are. Every one of them.

only the far left.....so are far righties.....not much of a difference...

 

[Stephanie]

It's their Christian values.

We been doing it your way for 50 years and there are FAR more poor people than when you started your stupidity and the percentage hasn't changed.

And then there's the 15 TRILLION DOLLARS we've wasted.....

Piss off.

Eat shit

And ******* die

Typical con parlance. It's no wonder you all are becoming a dying breed. The only thing anyone gets from the right anymore is hateful vitriol.

lol, did that hurt your sensitive sensibilities?
and Republican is dying out? Let's see, how many states with Republican Governors? And if I recall correctly, we just had a Republican President Six years ago
spare us the drama dear over one post on a message board

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Have you ever tried to respond to someone without using an insult? It seems it must be a disease in your camp or something.

Obama has tried to get the GOP to get rid of some of the loopholes and they refuse to budge. Don't want to get those corporate lobbyist mad at them...

Loopholes are hear to stay - for both sides.

Snarky comments seem to abound in this forum.

 

[Harry Dresden]

rdean's world:

there are no poor liberals in "red" states, only poor republicans

That's not the case but if the area is red there would be more republicans there. But since Rdean said the sky is blue you start yelling "Its WHITE too you dummy!"

not true moron...it only means more republicans voted

please keep quiet so you don't look like the fool. btw...rdean never mentions poor liberals in red states, he acts as if there are only poor republicans, so in essence, using your lame analogy, he is saying the sky is always blue.

getting Dean to say something negative about Democrats is like getting Fonzie to say he was wrong.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwkU8-d1gIk]iwaswrgn1.flv - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Governor of Ohio is worried about the far right's war on the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/opinion/krugman-a-war-on-the-poor.html?_r=0

 

[Londoner]

From the 30s thru the 70s the US Government was committed to growing a powerful, upwardly mobile middle class.

Through a variety of regulations, including trade laws, the Government made it harder for business to move production overseas. Like it or not, American business was tied to American labor.

There was also support for unions which kept wages and benefits high.

Additionally, the government subsidized public education so that hard working middle class families could send their children to college.

Things like transportation, health care and energy were regulated so that these sectors couldn't fleece Americans. This was before the Reagan era of mega-mergers and leveraged buyouts where companies bought each other rather than having to compete and lower prices to keep consumers. (Who knew that behind Reagan's promise for free markets we would see a period of steroidal monopolization where everything from Health Care to Internet/Cable companies would divide the country into fixed no-compete zones which would allow them to raise prices and decrease service without being disciplined by market competition.)

Before the Reagan transition from broad middle class support to concentrated profits in ever fewer hands, the Federal Reserve was deployed to maintain full employment (by stimulating consumer demand) rather than today's obsession with austerity. There were also mechanisms in place that tied middle class compensation to economic growth, so that prosperity was sheared more with the folks upon whose backs it was earned.

The result was unprecedented economic growth in the 40s, 50s and 60s. This is partly because the middle class had more money to spend on consumer goods. And when the middle class has more money to spend, the capitalist has an incentive to innovate and add more jobs to capture that money. It's called a virtuous cycle.

But there was a small problem. Large corporations and their investors didn't want the wage and tax burden that came with a powerful, upwardly mobile middle class. To the contrary, corporations like Walmart wanted the ultra cheap production costs that came from sweatshop labor in freedom hating, dictator lead nations like Communist China (where over 30% of Walmart's products are made).

[Who knew that America's wealthy would partner with the enemies of freedom in order to get ultra cheap labor costs? Who knew that they would pay Talk Radio to fool conservative voters into thinking the Dems were anti-American ... when, all along, it was John Galt who stabbed America in the back by partnering with Communist China]

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Corporations wanted to cut the American worker out of the loop so they went on the offensive. They poured money into the Republican Party (including think tanks, TV and radio). They pressured Washington to liberalize trade so they could move production (& good American jobs) to cheaper labor markets (mostly in freedom hating countries where workers make $5/day). They also removed all the subsidies and regulations that created affordable education, transportation, energy and all the other things that make up an affordable cost of living. As they lowered middle class compensation, the new Reagan economy expanded credit so the middle class could borrow the money they used to get in wages and benefits. Starting in the 80s America went on a 30 year borrowing binge to make up for the money, benefits and jobs that never trickled down. This strategy worked for a whole and lead to impressive growth spurts in the 80s and 90s. Problem was, this wasn't legitimate growth; it was credit growth, which meant that eventually it would end as consumers became too indebted to borrow.

And that's where we are now. All the money is stuck on top. The wealthy are sitting on unprecedented wealth, and they will be able to leave their families dynastic fortunes. But they can't invest this wealth in the American economy because there are not enough solvent consumers - Reaganomics (supported by both parties) bankrupted the middle class.

You can't have economic growth when you give into the market's desire for ultra-cheap labor and you make no effort to compensate for the loss of wages/benefits with "after market" policies that boost middle class purchasing power.

When the money failed to trickle down to consumers, we tried to fix the problem with credit (debt). That's like trying to fix a weak heart with cocaine. Eventually the heart goes pop.

Game over.

America swallowed poison in 1980

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I disagree that republicans have declared war on the poor - they have simply invited the poor into a higher income level ~

 

[Jackson]

I have declared war on welfare fraud and on corporate entitlements. I also would like to see welfare be saved for those people whoa are elderly, sick or truly disabled.

For the rest who are abled bodied, let them know, they have 3 years to get themselves a job and settled, for their checks will be decrease 20% each year and at the end of three years, there will be no more handouts.

W just cannot sustain the welfare the way it is now. People have to work.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Americas goal should be simply to move our educational system from 17th to 1st.

Adopt Japans or Norway's system...

This would help grow the middle class.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Americas goal should be simply to move our educational system from 17th to 1st.

Adopt Japans or Norway's system...

This would help grow the middle class.

That would require our parental class to be vigilant, and from left to right, I don't think they want to be vigilant as a whole.

 

[Steven_R]

From the 30s thru the 70s the US Government was committed to growing a powerful, upwardly mobile middle class....

Your post failed to take into account that during the economic good times of the 1940s-60s we were the only game in town because everyone else had been bombed flat during the war. Once places like Japan were able to produce stuff locally, and for far less than it cost to import comparable goods from the US, the US economy could no longer compete. It became cheaper for US firms to buy steel from Japan than it was to buy from Pittsburgh. (We haven't even gotten into regulations from DC and union demands and having to replace infrastructure yet)>

 

[Meathead]

From the 30s thru the 70s the US Government was committed to growing a powerful, upwardly mobile middle class....

Your post failed to take into account that during the economic good times of the 1940s-60s we were the only game in town because everyone else had been bombed flat during the war. Once places like Japan were able to produce stuff locally, and for far less than it cost to import comparable goods from the US, the US economy could no longer compete. It became cheaper for US firms to buy steel from Japan than it was to buy from Pittsburgh. (We haven't even gotten into regulations from DC and union demands and having to replace infrastructure yet)>

Bingo! It cannot and will never be the same again. That bird has flown.

 

[Esmeralda]

That is, without a doubt, THE most ignorant and uninformed post I have ever read.

The economies of Europe, most notably Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy and to a lesser extent France, the UK are experiencing terrible problems because of their social entitlements.

Not to mention the effects of Europe's STUPID entitlement programs have on the culture -- Most young men living at home well into their thirties might be a contributing factor in the Birth Rate in Europe being disastrously low. So low that some are predicting the fall of Europe to Islam in the not-too-distant future.

I can't believe that someone would stand up and expose themselves as being so stupid.

Sorry, but there's just no other way to put.

That post was stupid. Beyond belief stupid.

Europe, with the exception of a few Countries, is a cultural, societal and economic disaster.

And it's only getting worse.

In Jan of 2012 the Euro Area unemployment rate was 10.7% and it is now at 12.2%

EUROPA - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - January 2012 Euro area unemployment rate at 10.7% EU27 at 10.1%

Euro Area Unemployment Rate | Actual Data | Forecasts | Calendar

No wonder Europe is in so much trouble. With people like you living and voting inside it, I'm shocked it's managed not to self-destruct already

You say so many ignorant things in this post.

EU countries are experiencing the same kind of economic problems the US is and other countries are; it is a world wide depression brought on by problems in the banking industry, not by social welfare programs. The social welfare programs are suffering now due to the depression (as in the topic of this thread) not because they caused the depression.

Young people in Europe mostly continue to live with their parents until they marry. If they don't marry until their 30s or late 30s, they stay at home. Also, if they marry and divorce, they are likely to go back home. Especially men who expect their mothers to take care of the domestic chores, like cooking, cleaning, etc.

The birth rate is low because that is what people want. Educated people do not have a lot of children; they plan as many children as they can afford to raise and have a good standard of living. Many countries in the EU have a zero population growth because they are well educated and realize too many children in a family brings down the standard of living for the whole family. A two parent, two child home makes it easier for the parents to give their children a good education, to provide them with all the best in life. Zero population growth is a sign of affluence and education, not of a disastrous economy.

I spend a lot of time in Europe. I was in Portugal, for example, for 8 weeks this year. There is some sign of a depressed economy, but not to the extent media sound bites would have you believe. Protests are no worse or bigger than what the Tea Party does in America. Housing costs are low, but people are still buying homes, and many of those who are happen to be people from other European countries that are doing a bit better than Portugal because it is a good investment; everyone knows things will get better. The country is not falling apart.

When you go out, the cafes are full. The restaurants are full. The clubs are full. Hoards of tourists are all over the place. The beaches are packed. The trains and highways are packed. If you go to the supermarket, you see Portuguese people with carts filled to the brim. The shelves are stocked and overflowing. Nearly everywhere you look, you see prosperity.

The malls and shopping centers are full of people. Everywhere it is life as usual. Some people have had to tighten their belts, that's all. It is no worse of than the US. There is no way in Hell the EU countries are going to self-destruct. That is a ridiculous idea from a ridiculous mind that knows nothing about the EU and is fed information through hysterical media misinformation.

 

[The Rabbi]

From the 30s thru the 70s the US Government was committed to growing a powerful, upwardly mobile middle class....

Your post failed to take into account that during the economic good times of the 1940s-60s we were the only game in town because everyone else had been bombed flat during the war. Once places like Japan were able to produce stuff locally, and for far less than it cost to import comparable goods from the US, the US economy could no longer compete. It became cheaper for US firms to buy steel from Japan than it was to buy from Pittsburgh. (We haven't even gotten into regulations from DC and union demands and having to replace infrastructure yet)>

Right on.
He also ignores the stagflation of the 1970s. Union demands in manufacturing made our industries uncompetitive. The level of regulation was enormous. Remember long distance phone calls costing $5 and $10? All of that depressed economic activity.
Fortunately Reagan was voted in and we enjoyed the longest post war boom ever.

 

[beagle9]

From the 30s thru the 70s the US Government was committed to growing a powerful, upwardly mobile middle class.

Through a variety of regulations, including trade laws, the Government made it harder for business to move production overseas. Like it or not, American business was tied to American labor.

There was also support for unions which kept wages and benefits high.

Additionally, the government subsidized public education so that hard working middle class families could send their children to college.

Things like transportation, health care and energy were regulated so that these sectors couldn't fleece Americans. This was before the Reagan era of mega-mergers and leveraged buyouts where companies bought each other rather than having to compete and lower prices to keep consumers. (Who knew that behind Reagan's promise for free markets we would see a period of steroidal monopolization where everything from Health Care to Internet/Cable companies would divide the country into fixed no-compete zones which would allow them to raise prices and decrease service without being disciplined by market competition.)

Before the Reagan transition from broad middle class support to concentrated profits in ever fewer hands, the Federal Reserve was deployed to maintain full employment (by stimulating consumer demand) rather than today's obsession with austerity. There were also mechanisms in place that tied middle class compensation to economic growth, so that prosperity was sheared more with the folks upon whose backs it was earned.

The result was unprecedented economic growth in the 40s, 50s and 60s. This is partly because the middle class had more money to spend on consumer goods. And when the middle class has more money to spend, the capitalist has an incentive to innovate and add more jobs to capture that money. It's called a virtuous cycle.

But there was a small problem. Large corporations and their investors didn't want the wage and tax burden that came with a powerful, upwardly mobile middle class. To the contrary, corporations like Walmart wanted the ultra cheap production costs that came from sweatshop labor in freedom hating, dictator lead nations like Communist China (where over 30% of Walmart's products are made).

[Who knew that America's wealthy would partner with the enemies of freedom in order to get ultra cheap labor costs? Who knew that they would pay Talk Radio to fool conservative voters into thinking the Dems were anti-American ... when, all along, it was John Galt who stabbed America in the back by partnering with Communist China]

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Corporations wanted to cut the American worker out of the loop so they went on the offensive. They poured money into the Republican Party (including think tanks, TV and radio). They pressured Washington to liberalize trade so they could move production (& good American jobs) to cheaper labor markets (mostly in freedom hating countries where workers make $5/day). They also removed all the subsidies and regulations that created affordable education, transportation, energy and all the other things that make up an affordable cost of living. As they lowered middle class compensation, the new Reagan economy expanded credit so the middle class could borrow the money they used to get in wages and benefits. Starting in the 80s America went on a 30 year borrowing binge to make up for the money, benefits and jobs that never trickled down. This strategy worked for a whole and lead to impressive growth spurts in the 80s and 90s. Problem was, this wasn't legitimate growth; it was credit growth, which meant that eventually it would end as consumers became too indebted to borrow.

And that's where we are now. All the money is stuck on top. The wealthy are sitting on unprecedented wealth, and they will be able to leave their families dynastic fortunes. But they can't invest this wealth in the American economy because there are not enough solvent consumers - Reaganomics (supported by both parties) bankrupted the middle class.

You can't have economic growth when you give into the market's desire for ultra-cheap labor and you make no effort to compensate for the loss of wages/benefits with "after market" policies that boost middle class purchasing power.

When the money failed to trickle down to consumers, we tried to fix the problem with credit (debt). That's like trying to fix a weak heart with cocaine. Eventually the heart goes pop.

Game over.

America swallowed poison in 1980

Good reading, but it goes a lot farther than this, especially in regards to the socialism that is now being looked at as a counter weight to bring the nation back in line somehow by the dems thinking, and so for the ones who are running the show now, well they have a lot more than just socialism on their minds these days, and that is also a huge problem going on in all of this weakness that is now being exploited in America because of all that you have briefly hit upon. The vacuum created in all of this is now being filled with some interesting characters even the enemies of this nation are getting a leg up these days, and they are poised to take advantage in what has transpired over time, so America stay sharp or you will suffer greatly under the new wolves that are now or will be guarding the hen house in the future. Dems may not be anti-American per-sae, but they have their ideas upon what they want America to be, even if it doesn't sit well with the majority of Americans who are caught up in the situation, who seemingly have no place to go in this epic struggle that has been created over time.

 

[beagle9]

From the 30s thru the 70s the US Government was committed to growing a powerful, upwardly mobile middle class....

Your post failed to take into account that during the economic good times of the 1940s-60s we were the only game in town because everyone else had been bombed flat during the war. Once places like Japan were able to produce stuff locally, and for far less than it cost to import comparable goods from the US, the US economy could no longer compete. It became cheaper for US firms to buy steel from Japan than it was to buy from Pittsburgh. (We haven't even gotten into regulations from DC and union demands and having to replace infrastructure yet)>

Right on.
He also ignores the stagflation of the 1970s. Union demands in manufacturing made our industries uncompetitive. The level of regulation was enormous. Remember long distance phone calls costing $5 and $10? All of that depressed economic activity.
Fortunately Reagan was voted in and we enjoyed the longest post war boom ever.

What was the alternative then ? To drop down to wages for American workers that to a level in which was anti-American or anti-middle class, and this in order for them (the architects of this new deal), to get us more in line somehow with slave labor from abroad here in America ? Was it just that American corporations just wanted to become the new brokers or wheeler dealers of trade in a wide open globalized market place that would bring them untold riches, and yet without a care that it would lay waste to the American middle class side of the coin back home, otherwise in what many may feel now looking back was all due to the treason that would go on in these deals in which no one knew about much until it was to late ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I disagree that republicans have declared war on the poor - they have simply invited the poor into a higher income level ~

And the poor who decline the ‘invitation’ through no fault on their own will be subject to punitive measures by the right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

From the 30s thru the 70s the US Government was committed to growing a powerful, upwardly mobile middle class....

Your post failed to take into account that during the economic good times of the 1940s-60s we were the only game in town because everyone else had been bombed flat during the war. Once places like Japan were able to produce stuff locally, and for far less than it cost to import comparable goods from the US, the US economy could no longer compete. It became cheaper for US firms to buy steel from Japan than it was to buy from Pittsburgh. (We haven't even gotten into regulations from DC and union demands and having to replace infrastructure yet)>

Horse shit. We were not the only game in town for more than thirty years.

Your assertion fails because of its internal inconsistency.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your post failed to take into account that during the economic good times of the 1940s-60s we were the only game in town because everyone else had been bombed flat during the war. Once places like Japan were able to produce stuff locally, and for far less than it cost to import comparable goods from the US, the US economy could no longer compete. It became cheaper for US firms to buy steel from Japan than it was to buy from Pittsburgh. (We haven't even gotten into regulations from DC and union demands and having to replace infrastructure yet)>

Right on.
He also ignores the stagflation of the 1970s. Union demands in manufacturing made our industries uncompetitive. The level of regulation was enormous. Remember long distance phone calls costing $5 and $10? All of that depressed economic activity.
Fortunately Reagan was voted in and we enjoyed the longest post war boom ever.

What was the alternative then ? To drop down to wages for American workers that to a level in which was anti-American or anti-middle class, and this in order for them (the architects of this new deal), to get us more in line somehow with slave labor from abroad here in America ? Was it just that American corporations just wanted to become the new brokers or wheeler dealers of trade in a wide open globalized market place that would bring them untold riches, and yet without a care that it would lay waste to the American middle class side of the coin back home, otherwise in what many may feel now looking back was all due to the treason that would go on in these deals in which no one knew about much until it was to late ?

The alternative was for managment to stand firm and insist that they had to modernize in order to survive. That meant in many cases automating and eliminating jobs, which the unions refused to do. So instead of some people remaining with good jobs and pay, everyone got laid off.
Brilliant.

 

[The Rabbi]

I disagree that republicans have declared war on the poor - they have simply invited the poor into a higher income level ~

And the poor who decline the ‘invitation’ through no fault on their own will be subject to punitive measures by the right.

As it should be.
You don't work, you don't eat. It isn't society's role to play mommy to every lazy ****** out there.