Will America recover?

[Incredulity 11669]

23 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL.  Those aren't the data depicted in that chart.  

"Real average hourly earnings were unchanged, seasonally adjusted, from May 2017 to May 2018. Combined with a 0.3-percent increase in the average workweek, real average weekly earnings increased by 0.3 percent over this period."

"From May 2017 to May 2018, real average hourly earnings decreased 0.1 percent, seasonally adjusted. The decrease in real average hourly earnings combined with a 0.6-percent increase in the average workweek resulted in a 0.5-percent increase in real average weekly earnings over this period."

Also, I can't replicate that chart in FRED.  Here is the closest I get, using seasonally adjusted data.

Well that's interesting.  I don't think Mother Jones has an agenda.

[BabaYaga 15294]

4 hours ago, Bullneck said:

From Forbes:

How much did the total deficit rise by each President since Reagan

Again using data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, these are starting and ending federal debt numbers since President Reagan. I’ve computed the total percentage increase and the compounded yearly rate.

What the numbers show is that the total debt increased the most at 184% over 8 years and at the fastest rate under President Reagan at almost 14% per year. In fact, the three Republican presidents had the fastest growing debt on a yearly basis.

Reagan

• Started Presidency: $965 billion
• Ended Presidency: $2.74 trillion
• Increased 184% or 13.9% per year

H.W. Bush

• Started Presidency: $2.74 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $4.23 trillion
• Increased 54% or 11.5% per year (only in office for four years)

Clinton

• Started Presidency: $4.23 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $5.77 trillion
• Increased 36% or 4.0% per year

W. Bush

• Started Presidency: $5.77 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $11.1 trillion
• Increased 93% or 8.5% per year

Obama

• Started Presidency: $11.1 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $19.85 trillion
• Increased 78% or 7.5% per year

President Obama’s debt actually grew at a slower annual rate than any of the Republican presidents even though there were events that negatively impacted the deficit that started before he became President. The Great Recession is probably the biggest of them as can be seen in the yearly deficit numbers. While all politicians use data to support their positions, the sound bite that the debt doubled under Obama is very misleading.

And you clearly have your own agenda in deflecting criticism from the prior administration.  Problem is, the rate of debt growth doesn't indemnify a 50% increase.  50% is still 50%.  It's a fucking mountain of debt.  Re-allocating resources to service this.  Concerns about the relationship between high levels of government debt relative to the size of the economy and abnormally high interest rates consistent with lower levels of domestic investment.  Having to bequeath enormous financial burdens to future generations of taxpayers in the form of high levels of interest expense—projected by the Congressional Budget Office to approach a trillion dollars annually by 2023.  Growth rate doesn't mean squat.  Slower economic growth, higher interest expense, fewer resources for other priorities.  This is the problem.  And rising debt/rising interest rate concerns can sink us.  Period.  So again, how do we reconcile this without addressing spending (beyond just military cuts)?

[David Dennison 18856]

19 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

And you clearly have your own agenda in deflecting criticism from the prior administration.  Problem is, the rate of debt growth doesn't indemnify a 50% increase.  50% is still 50%.  It's a fucking mountain of debt.  Re-allocating resources to service this.  Concerns about the relationship between high levels of government debt relative to the size of the economy and abnormally high interest rates consistent with lower levels of domestic investment.  Having to bequeath enormous financial burdens to future generations of taxpayers in the form of high levels of interest expense—projected by the Congressional Budget Office to approach a trillion dollars annually by 2023.  Growth rate doesn't mean squat.  Slower economic growth, higher interest expense, fewer resources for other priorities.  This is the problem.  And rising debt/rising interest rate concerns can sink us.  Period.  So again, how do we reconcile this without addressing spending (beyond just military cuts)?

You're going to have to raise taxes. Everyone knows that. 

[BabaYaga 15294]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You're going to have to raise taxes. Everyone knows that. 

We've done that.  YOY.  Time and time again.  And yet revenue as a % of GDP remains relatively unchanged.  So what does that leave us....

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

We've done that.  YOY.  Time and time again.  And yet revenue as a % of GDP remains relatively unchanged.  So what does that leave us....

 A bloated federal gov't that cannot manage the money it collects effectively or judicsiously ?

[SKJ 1311]

Are we going full on drain the swamp?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 minutes ago, SKJ said:

Are we going full on drain the swamp?

No, but its sure as shit a good concept.

[SKJ 1311]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

No, but its sure as shit a good concept.

But how would that look?

We are currently in an administration that hasn't filled many positions that are important. Is that the goal? Is that what we are to believe it's draining?

I do understand that since we're starting an isolationists phase under Trump, we probably don't need to fill the diplomatic corps, but are we really just not going to hire the people needed to run the government and call it good?

Are we just going to grab random employees of Trump's and give them random jobs? By any metric, that doesn't make sense.

I'm all for getting rid of redundancies, and creating better efficiencies in government, but that's not the delivery I'm looking for. 

So, let's say we actually get a smart government in place, with a president who is smart enough to appoint an actual staff that will help to reshape a more efficient government that delivers better program management and at a savings. When would this become a part of a platform? (I'm guessing never)

So let's say that governmental reorganization saves us 10-15%, then we also overhaul our most expensive programs (Medicare, Medicaid, social security, defense) and we make them more efficient, and sustainable. We save another 10-15% there (mostly in admin costs, probably) and they function better. Can we then keep them? Are we able to see that we need programs such as these?

Or are you just wanting to kill all programs that help the less fortunate?

Edited June 14, 2018 by SKJ

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, SKJ said:

But how would that look?

We are currently in an administration that hasn't filled many positions that are important. Is that the goal? Is that what we are to believe it's draining?

I do understand that since we're starting an isolationists phase under Trump, we probably don't need to fill the diplomatic corps, but are we really just not going to hire the people needed to run the government and call it good?

Are we just going to grab random employees of Trump's and give them random jobs? By any metric, that doesn't make sense.

I'm all for getting rid of redundancies, and creating better efficiencies in government, but that's not the delivery I'm looking for. 

So, let's say we actually get a smart government in place, with a president who is smart enough to appoint an actual staff that will help to reshape a more efficient government that delivers better program management and at a savings. When would this become a part of a platform? (I'm guessing never)

So let's say that governmental reorganization saves us 10-15%, then we also overhaul our most expensive programs (Medicare, Medicaid, social security, defense) and we make them more efficient, and sustainable. We save another 10-15% there (mostly in admin costs, probably) and they function better. Can we then keep them? Are we able to see that we need programs such as these?

Or are you just wanting to kill all programs that help the less fortunate?

Accountability of our budget would be a good start. It's so

massive there's no easy way to do it though I'd imagine.  

Don't even go there with killing programs for the poor. I'd settle for just taking care of our poor instead of adding to those rolls with more people to pay for.

[Bullneck 19084]

^^^ Why don't those of you who just want to hate the gubermint just PM each other all day and night.  Spare the rest of us.  You get to agree with each other 100%.  

[Bullneck 19084]

13 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I asked a simple question. Do you think the level of spending relative to taxation was sustainable prior to the latest tax bill?

Yes.

Assuming you have responsible elected officials managing the debt and spending.  

Edited June 15, 2018 by Bullneck

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, Bullneck said:

^^^ Why don't those of you who just want to hate the gubermint just PM each other all day and night.  Spare the rest of us.  You get to agree with each other 100%.  

pudding pops motherfucker!

[Incredulity 11669]

3 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

^^^ Why don't those of you who just want to rely the gubermint just PM each other all day and night.  Spare the rest of us.  You get to agree with each other 100%.  

Qp

Edited June 15, 2018 by Incredulity

[Bullneck 19084]

13 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

If America is destroyed by anything...it will be by our success.  

That and the destruction of the family structure, along with morality.  

Success?  No.  Buy runaway greed of the donor class.

Destruction of the family structure?  I doubt that will become widespread enough to destroy America but it's certainly a drag on individual economy.

Morality?  Please don't assume that middle-of-nowhere flyover territory has a corner on morality.  There's plenty of morality (as defined by local standards) in NYC.  And plenty of immorality.  Just like where you live.

[Sawbonz 27550]

51 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Yes.

Assuming you have responsible elected officials managing the debt and spending.  

Lulz

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Yes.

Assuming you have responsible elected officials managing the debt and spending.  

Oh so when you make a point that managing the gov'ts debt in a responsible manner is important it's not hating the gov't, when others make the same point it's hating the gov't.  You really Are a self important little dick.

[zork 629]

 

http://vtt.tumblr.com/tumblr_oqofxmEDuz1qamzjn_480.mp4

 

[Huckleberry 32859]

On 6/14/2018 at 10:15 AM, BabaYaga said:

And you clearly have your own agenda in deflecting criticism from the prior administration.  Problem is, the rate of debt growth doesn't indemnify a 50% increase.  50% is still 50%.  It's a fucking mountain of debt.  Re-allocating resources to service this.  Concerns about the relationship between high levels of government debt relative to the size of the economy and abnormally high interest rates consistent with lower levels of domestic investment.  Having to bequeath enormous financial burdens to future generations of taxpayers in the form of high levels of interest expense—projected by the Congressional Budget Office to approach a trillion dollars annually by 2023.  Growth rate doesn't mean squat.  Slower economic growth, higher interest expense, fewer resources for other priorities.  This is the problem.  And rising debt/rising interest rate concerns can sink us.  Period.  So again, how do we reconcile this without addressing spending (beyond just military cuts)?

The only agenda in posting actual numbers is introducing facts to the conversation. And the facts are that the national debt grows more slowly under Democrat Presidents than it does under Republican Presidents. That is an inarguable fact since 1980.

It doesn't mean Democrat policies are good for the debt, it means Republicans are blatant hypocrites that campaign on controlling spending and the budget and then do the exact opposite.

[BabaYaga 15294]

24 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The only agenda in posting actual numbers is introducing facts to the conversation. And the facts are that the national debt grows more slowly under Democrat Presidents than it does under Republican Presidents. That is an inarguable fact since 1980.

It doesn't mean Democrat policies are good for the debt, it means Republicans are blatant hypocrites that campaign on controlling spending and the budget and then do the exact opposite.

No, the facts are you want to put a little tick on the scoreboard for "your side" and chasing your tail about the rate of the growth of the debt rather the amounts (which is what actually matters).  Neither "side" is indemnified.  And nobody is arguing that the GOP has done jack shit about getting these levels down, but as interest on owed federal debt increases, occupying more and more resources at an exponential clip, tell me again how this will be remedied?  Because at the end of the day, it's the volume of debt incurred, but the rate of accrual that is going to sink us.

[BabaYaga 15294]

15 hours ago, Bullneck said:

responsible elected officials managing the debt and spending.

LOL.  We also making assumptions about unicorns and golden eggs?

[Huckleberry 32859]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

No, the facts are you want to put a little tick on the scoreboard for "your side" and chasing your tail about the rate of the growth of the debt rather the amounts (which is what actually matters).  Neither "side" is indemnified.  And nobody is arguing that the GOP has done jack shit about getting these levels down, but as interest on owed federal debt increases, occupying more and more resources at an exponential clip, tell me again how this will be remedied?  Because at the end of the day, it's the volume of debt incurred, but the rate of accrual that is going to sink us.

You're an idiot if you think Democrats are my side. That right there basically shows why you can't have an intelligent conversation about anything political. When someone points out the hypocrisy and stupidity of the Republican party you assume they're Democrats.

And no, volume is not going to sink us. The most important thing is always percentages, rates, and ratios. If we had a GDP of 55 quadrillion dollars then the debt wouldn't even be that big of a deal. Debt as a percentage of GDP is closer to the most important thing.

[BabaYaga 15294]

23 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You're an idiot if you think Democrats are my side. That right there basically shows why you can't have an intelligent conversation about anything political. When someone points out the hypocrisy and stupidity of the Republican party you assume they're Democrats.

And no, volume is not going to sink us. The most important thing is always percentages, rates, and ratios. If we had a GDP of 55 quadrillion dollars then the debt wouldn't even be that big of a deal. Debt as a percentage of GDP is closer to the most important thing.

Volume won't sink us, huh?  Then, you also know it's essentially mathematically impossible to pay off the existing amount of debt we have (nor should this necessarily be a goal by itself).  That is a problem.  Factor in unfunded liabilities, are you're looking down the barrel of almost $60T.  This is not "just" an issue of accrual, but it is by far the most pressing metric.  Then look at the fact that regardless of top tax rates, revenue as a % of GDP hovers in the high teens, then reconcile this with current spending levels, and our tax base.  And you see the problem.    Sovereign debt @ or higher than 77% becomes a problem.  We are nearing 75%.  We'd have to see hyper GDP growth to decrease our debt to GDP ratio.  And seeing as this is a spending problem, also enact austerity measures (best implemented during times of growth) which NOBODY will sign off on.  This becomes problematic relative to the interest owed.  This is growing exponentially each year, allocating more and more resources, and it's only going in one direction.  Once it hits 100%, turn out the lights

[sheeeit 129]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You're an idiot if you think Democrats are my side. That right there basically shows why you can't have an intelligent conversation about anything political. When someone points out the hypocrisy and stupidity of the Republican party you assume they're Democrats.

And no, volume is not going to sink us. The most important thing is always percentages, rates, and ratios. If we had a GDP of 55 quadrillion dollars then the debt wouldn't even be that big of a deal. Debt as a percentage of GDP is closer to the most important thing.

Your last sentence is the correct answer.  If I make $100K/yr and have $200K in debt I am probably just fine to keep paying that debt.  If I increase my debt to $400K and also increase my income to $200K I am still ok.  The problem is when our debt increases much more rapidly than income.

Historically, it really has not been a dem vs repub issue.  Reagan gets a lot of shit for increasing the debt by a large percentage (some of it deserved) but he increased gdp equally well and his debt to gdp ratio was pretty flat during his presidency.  The problem is that when we have downturns like 2008, the govt just pumps money into the system to keep things from getting really ugly.  It can be debated either way if that is sound financial policy or not but it is what we do.  The key today is whether or not our current growth is sustainable and, if so, if we will take steps to curb our deficit.

I do not think I have ever endorsed/supported anything Trump has said or done from a policy standpoint (all I have ever really said about trump is that i do not think he colluded with russia and for that I have been labelled a trumpkin asshole which is funny).  But, it is absolutely impossible as a country to grow when we have massive trade deficits.  Impossible like 1+1=3 is also impossible.  It is undebatable.  Very few people do not agree that Trump is an amoral, narcissistic, unsophisticated blow hard much of the time.  But he is absolutely right on trade policy.  The US govt basically sold out the country over the last 40 years.  Our trade deals are ridiculously bad for the US.  The very short answer is that the we elect people has caused our politicinas to make continued short sighted economic decisions.  In short, they decided that if Johnny was earning $100 and was spending $70 that is was better for Johnny to continue and make $100 and try and get cheaper goods so that he would only have to spend $65.  What they should have done is get Johnny to make $150 and let his spending go to $85.  But that is hard and requires patience and discipline.  Unless we change our trade practices, we will never ever get our debt situation in check.  

People rail on here about tariffs yet they really have no idea what they are talking about.  Trump proposed a zero tariff on anyone anywhere idea to the world.  Guess what happened?  Not one single country wanted that.  Why do you think that is?  They know they can not compete with the US on a level playing field.   On trade, Trump is right.  The manner he uses to try and change things will absolutely be criticized in the short term, but, imo, in the long term it will be very beneficial to the country.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Reagan also didn’t have Congress. Who controls the purse strings.  He made deals to trade tax increases for spending cuts. And Tip O’Neill fucked him over. 

And a lot of he fiscal responsibility of Clinton was due to Newt. Plus the internet and tech bubble

[Bat Guano 359]

20 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Reagan also didn’t have Congress. Who controls the purse strings.  He made deals to trade tax increases for spending cuts. And Tip O’Neill fucked him over. 

 

This is a common talking point, but it's not true. Reagan got the budget - taxes and spending - he wanted in 1981 and beyond. D's supported his tax cuts, and he proposed, and got passed, massive spending increases, mostly on defense. Never submitted any serious spending cuts at all.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

The only agenda in posting actual numbers is introducing facts to the conversation. And the facts are that the national debt grows more slowly under Democrat Presidents than it does under Republican Presidents. That is an inarguable fact since 1980.

It doesn't mean Democrat policies are good for the debt, it means Republicans are blatant hypocrites that campaign on controlling spending and the budget and then do the exact opposite.

That has been an interesting factoid.  Mr. Obama blew that fact out of the water with a 50 kiloton Nuke however.  He added more debt than all those republican presidents before him combined.

However I'm not sure if it would have mattered who was in the Oval Office. A large check was going to be written.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

Dragging the economy off the edge of a cliff is expensive. Who knew?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Debt has exploded due to entitlements. Taxes as a percent of gdp have been stable. Who created those entitlements?  Which are harder to kill than Michael Myers. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Johnny Sack

[David Dennison 18856]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Debt has exploded due to entitlements. Taxes as a percent of gdp have been stable. Who created those entitlements?  Which are harder to kill than Michael Myers. 

It's obvious those entitlements are here to stay. They aren't going anywhere.

Taxes will have to go up.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

Guess Walmart's payroll needs to stop relying on the taxpayer for subsidies which will soon be a moot issue.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's obvious those entitlements are here to stay. They aren't going anywhere.

Taxes will have to go up.

Okay. How much more are you willing to pay?

[David Dennison 18856]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Okay. How much more are you willing to pay?

Whatever the law requires. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

First step I would take as a matter of public tax policy that I'm sure will cause conniptions- Every taxpayer's returns is public information.

[Bullneck 19084]

31 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Debt has exploded due to entitlements. Taxes as a percent of gdp have been stable. Who created those entitlements?  Which are harder to kill than Michael Myers. 

What entitlements?

[David Dennison 18856]

4 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

First step I would take as a matter of public tax policy that I'm sure will cause conniptions- Every taxpayer's returns is public information.

How would middle class men lie about how much money they make?

[Bullneck 19084]

13 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh so when you make a point that managing the gov'ts debt in a responsible manner is important it's not hating the gov't, when others make the same point it's hating the gov't.  You really Are a self important little dick.

You finally posted something accurate.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

How would middle class men lie about how much money they make?

...then come the whores.

[XR4ticlone 122]

6 hours ago, David Dennison said:

It's obvious those entitlements are here to stay. They aren't going anywhere.

Taxes will have to go up. 

A. Wrong. 

 

B.  We've already learned that higher taxes don't generate extra revenue.  It's a global marketplace...and that's why trillions are kept outside the reach of US taxation by  US corporations.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

Memes From The Heartland sounds sorta Jack Handey.

[SKJ 1311]

8 hours ago, Bullneck said:

What entitlements?

Entitlements is a word solely used to describe mandatory spending items vs discretionary spending items.

Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the top 3.

[pyrohornIII 4814]

So what about the corporate welfare we give away?  Are  you including that in the term entitlement?   Business bailouts, tax abatements, tax exemptions and the like. 

 

In Texas there are power plants that are constantly contesting their tax assessments downward.  The small rural counties these power plants are in do not have the funds to fight such actions.  State law says that while property tax assessment valuation is being contested, the contestee doesn't have to pay the taxes until it is settled.  Puts these counties in a bind for schools, roads, emergency services.   All the while the corporation is increasing their income by not paying out the taxes and the citizens are having to fork over more to make up for that shortfall.   You would think the cost of the power generated would go down to reflect the tax savings, but no.    So eventually these counties capitulate to accept a lower assessment, just to get something from these companies.  

Same going on with the "empty building" assessments going on.

Point is that everyone wants to attack the welfare queens, but they never seem to mention the corporations.  The corporate welfare is protected by stories put out about how they need these tax breaks to keep the economy strong, to keep the jobs and GDP strong. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#66cdbdb127dd

It is a whole lot simpler for people to look at  someone they know not at all and say things about how lazy and shiftless they are.    Maybe they are.  But maybe our society took a lot of wind out of their sails, groomed them to fail from the outset.   I too know people who have immigrated here and done well for themselves.  They weren't raised here for the most part and find small niches in the market to fill.  Like the power washing guy, or the couple who own the Thai restaurant I frequent.   Thing is, they weren't raised here.  They weren't raised in an environment of defeatism. 

However those niches are disappearing.  Small business is going away.  And so are the jobs.  And automation is replacing jobs too.  Artificial intelligence is grabbing more territory too.  It's beginning to infiltrate the white collar level in a larger way.  Legal and medical are two examples.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/how_artificial_intelligence_is_transforming_the_legal_profession

If you want to end entitlements, then so be it.  But don't dare do that and leave the corporations with their fat golden eggs. 

I think there is are good answers that lay in between these two.  I'd like to see us (as a nation) start discussing this middle ground.  Overcome the isolationist movement afoot.  It's rampant through everything now, having fractured our country at home and with our allies.  Until we come together under some common purpose that is greater than racism and classism we won't get there.    There is no way in hell this wasn't Putin's long game.  To divide and conquer us.  Our mighty military bypassed by manipulating our mindset towards devouring each other.

[fattyflattie 4639]

Pyro, 

Not going to longcat by quoting you, but it’s very simple why people don’t get upset with the corporations and their handouts.  They are supported by them. Actual welfare queens have never done a thing for most. Corporations give people work, money, etc.  They pay their investors dividends. I’m not saying they should get the breaks, or that it’s just. But there is some value there imo. 

I’m way too hungover to find links, but I’ve read many times over we have next to no issues with first generation immigrants. Many prosper, help society, all the good shit we like about our country. It’s the second generation that are shitheel entitled Americans. 

Lastly, I’d love to hear your thoughts on ending classism. Most everyone would ideally love to be wealthy. The thing is, the vast majority of wealthy people don’t like poors. They may feel sympathy for them, or help with some charity. But trading their country club course for the inner city one, nah.  Hard to defeat classism when that exists. Hard to defeat when 99 of 100 people would choose to be more wealthy over their current situation. 

Classism is everywhere. This isn’t uniquely American 

Edited June 16, 2018 by fattyflattie

[CooterBrown 18008]

How are in-town schools in Austin?

Many are great actually. Everyone focuses on the shitty ones. My kids track to Gullett, Lamar, and McCallum. We have been unbelievably happy with the schools. We gave up one of the top private schools two years ago and our experience in our neighborhood schools has been great. Kids, teachers, and parents are fully engaged. More so than the private school in my experience. IMO it’s a reflection of the changing demographics. As central Austin fills up with higher income professionals, the schools are following suit.

[David Dennison 18856]

31 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Pyro, 

Not going to longcat by quoting you, but it’s very simple why people don’t get upset with the corporations and their handouts.  They are supported by them. Actual welfare queens have never done a thing for most. Corporations give people work, money, etc.  They pay their investors dividends. I’m not saying they should get the breaks, or that it’s just. But there is some value there imo. 

I’m way too hungover to find links, but I’ve read many times over we have next to no issues with first generation immigrants. Many prosper, help society, all the good shit we like about our country. It’s the second generation that are shitheel entitled Americans. 

Lastly, I’d love to hear your thoughts on ending classism. Most everyone would ideally love to be wealthy. The thing is, the vast majority of wealthy people don’t like poors. They may feel sympathy for them, or help with some charity. But trading their country club course for the inner city one, nah.  Hard to defeat classism when that exists. Hard to defeat when 99 of 100 people would choose to be more wealthy over their current situation. 

Classism is everywhere. This isn’t uniquely American 

True, but widespread denial that classism actually exists is very American.

[pyrohornIII 4814]

You look at all the stock buybacks going on as a result of the last round of corporate tax cuts.  That's not creating jobs, or improving the wages of those already employed.  In fact they closed a Harley Plant and relocated it (probably offshore.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/05/11/union-harley-davidson-ship-work-thailand-closing-u-s-plant/601033002/). 800 or so out of work.   It's putting money back in the pockets of the stockholders.  But yeah, trickle down and all that.  Your first paragraph is pretty much what I am talking about, how the party line is corporations are good.   Tax money going to them or not taken from them is good for everyone in one way or another.  

Do you really think the corporations, banks, airlines, oil companies, whatever that get government special allowances would close up shop without them?  Or maybe they adjust and keep doing business?  I think the latter.  Maybe there are a few less jobs.  Maybe not.   If you want to take away the personal entitlements, then take all of them away from everyone.    Or you do make a serious effort to use those fund the best way possible for the greater good of the country, not just the upper percentile.   Take that money and pour it back into education and jobs programs.  Maybe with better education our next generations can better figure this out. 

To me, classism is rooted in the human need to feel superior to others, which in turn is driven by insecurity.  Insecurity is fed on by marketers to get us to want to appear superior to others by owning things others do not have.    But then social justice warriors tend to be elitists too because they hold a different standard of value.    It does cut both ways.  Recognizing that and setting aside the disputes and looking for answers would be nice. 

There is no way we can all be wealthy, because wealth is based on scarcity.  What we can all be is somewhat comfortable and healthy.  But that's just me.  I've always been someone to try to help others who seem to have it worse than me.  By doing so, I will never be wealthy and that is ok with me.    

[XR4ticlone 122]

I'm not offended by stock buy backs.  The money is then forced to reinvest in other businesses and drives up the value of the remaining shares.

Just as the Gov has no business in how you manage your personal life, finances, and choices...nor should we be trying to tell business what is the best way to spend their money.

Most 'corp welfare' is nothing more than bull shit exemptions the Gov has offered for buying new equipment, hiring workers, or making other expenditures that are offered as incentives to offset the high tax rates we have.  The Gov has gotten into the biz management business.  I cannot tell you how many trillions are spent to avoid taxes...sometimes on fully useless, unnecessary equipment.  Many times to the financial detriment of the company doing it.

Just like the stupid idea that buying a large house is a great investment...because you can deduct some of the interest expense!!! 

You're getting 33% +/- of the interest payment each year?  That's nothing compared to the financial ruin put on millions who are in homes they cannot afford...or homes that prohibit them from saving for retirement, kids education, or working like slaves to stay afloat. 

That's why the FLAT TAX is a so beautiful.  It gets Gov manipulation out of everyone's choices.  The Gov doesn't spend it's money worth a shit...why would you want it helping you or your business spend money? 

So as much as 'corp welfare' doesn't bother me nearly as much...I agree let's kill it all.  Get the Gov out of business, farming, all of it.

*The problem is that once Gov comes into a market and fucks with it...it's like trying to get flour out of a baked brownie.  So many bad decisions have been based off Gov policy that the vacuum Gov leaving creates will be devastating in many cases.  Like farmers (I know quite a bit about that market as I've been in it).  Cheap Gov insurance programs, tax deductions for equipment, Gov subsidies, and other Gov intrusion into farming has driven pricing for seed, tractors, land, rent, and an endless host of other items.  It'll impact John Deere, Case, Monsanto, land lords, and endless other entities that you can't even imagine.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love it as an outsider.  But the epic financial cluster fuck it would create would be...devastating to all farm areas and lots of others as well.

 

I'm afraid that it's going to be financial collapse that will end it all.  At that point I expect that there will be more call for additional Gov involvement & Gov bailouts.

[pyrohornIII 4814]

We've already seen this.  That's where the term "too big to fail" comes from. 

 

That bailout at the start of Obama's term was a wake up call.   But we didn't seem to learn anything from it.    The next time around, the same financial institutions and investors will get their bailout and the taxpayers will be left with the bill.  It just keeps accumulating the wealth upwards. 

 

And government does have a role to play when it comes to workplace safety, environment, etc.  Unfortunately that gets over regulated or the power goes to people's heads and emotions rule over logic.   Most government programs started with good intention and purpose, but got kidnapped along the way and got changed into ways people can make money or control people with power. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by pyrohornIII

[XR4ticlone 122]

It's become increasingly clear that part of the drive is to consolidate business.  Banking, trucking, food production, all of it through taxes & regulations. 

Look around...it's happening everywhere.  Sadly...and it's destroying the middle class as well as the American dream as people become corp drones without the ability to own their own business...or even their own home.  Look at all the apartments with people paying $1500+ a month to rent.  That's more than my house payment.

[David Dennison 18856]

35 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

I'm not offended by stock buy backs.  The money is then forced to reinvest in other businesses and drives up the value of the remaining shares.

Just as the Gov has no business in how you manage your personal life, finances, and choices...nor should we be trying to tell business what is the best way to spend their money.

Most 'corp welfare' is nothing more than bull shit exemptions the Gov has offered for buying new equipment, hiring workers, or making other expenditures that are offered as incentives to offset the high tax rates we have.  The Gov has gotten into the biz management business.  I cannot tell you how many trillions are spent to avoid taxes...sometimes on fully useless, unnecessary equipment.  Many times to the financial detriment of the company doing it.

Just like the stupid idea that buying a large house is a great investment...because you can deduct some of the interest expense!!! 

You're getting 33% +/- of the interest payment each year?  That's nothing compared to the financial ruin put on millions who are in homes they cannot afford...or homes that prohibit them from saving for retirement, kids education, or working like slaves to stay afloat. 

That's why the FLAT TAX is a so beautiful.  It gets Gov manipulation out of everyone's choices.  The Gov doesn't spend it's money worth a shit...why would you want it helping you or your business spend money? 

So as much as 'corp welfare' doesn't bother me nearly as much...I agree let's kill it all.  Get the Gov out of business, farming, all of it.

*The problem is that once Gov comes into a market and fucks with it...it's like trying to get flour out of a baked brownie.  So many bad decisions have been based off Gov policy that the vacuum Gov leaving creates will be devastating in many cases.  Like farmers (I know quite a bit about that market as I've been in it).  Cheap Gov insurance programs, tax deductions for equipment, Gov subsidies, and other Gov intrusion into farming has driven pricing for seed, tractors, land, rent, and an endless host of other items.  It'll impact John Deere, Case, Monsanto, land lords, and endless other entities that you can't even imagine.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love it as an outsider.  But the epic financial cluster fuck it would create would be...devastating to all farm areas and lots of others as well.

 

I'm afraid that it's going to be financial collapse that will end it all.  At that point I expect that there will be more call for additional Gov involvement & Gov bailouts.

No more mortgages, no more research, no more colleges, so more neighborhoods, etc.

You think you want something that you really don't want. The state is necessary to fill the vacuum left by the market. It's responsible for making the United States economy the largest in the world.

[RandomIdoit 655]

8 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

It's become increasingly clear that part of the drive is to consolidate business.  Banking, trucking, food production, all of it through taxes & regulations. 

Look around...it's happening everywhere.  Sadly...and it's destroying the middle class as well as the American dream as people become corp drones without the ability to own their own business...or even their own home.  Look at all the apartments with people paying $1500+ a month to rent.  That's more than my house payment.

An apartment is also less responsibility than a house. Taxes are not separate from your rent payment. You don't have to repair anything, maintain your lawn, or clean your pool. All of that is done by someone else. It's a convenience. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by RandomIdoit