Skip to Next Poll »
12
GRAPHIC LOOK AT THE US ECONOMY (Edited 06/14/11 10:24PM by Debi_L)
Read the Article: GRAPHIC LOOK AT THE US ECONOMY

Ugh.      Comments?    Article  HERE
| Closed on 07/04/11 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Work | Numeric Input Opinion Poll
10 Fans
Question
3391. GRAPHIC LOOK AT THE US ECONOMY

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#6 | 1040 days ago

(Edited by janet011685)
Tiger_Pride2 wrote:

This is interesting. Notice the drop-off in the past 10 years. That is huge, but there has been a steady fall since 1980. Although it shot up in the mid 90's I believe this graph is similar to the peek oil graph.

1 - The economy cannot handle 8 years of George Bush and the four years of Obama right behind it.
2 - We have outsourced ourselves. For 20 years we've been shipping work out of the USA.
3 - Technology is putting people out of work.
4 - Factories have steadily shut their doors over the past 20 years, and will continue to close their doors due to declining profits.
5 - Over-populating and illegals have cut into the work force on all levels.
I don't really think "illegals" have had the effect on the economy that you'd expect.  If anything, the use of illegal immigrant workers has probably kept more businesses here in the country since they provide a cheaper labor force (not only in wages, but illegal workers don't generally get paid benefits, vacation time, sick days, personal days, and are not likely to file a workers' comp claim for any injuries that are job-related), which is generally the reason most companies are shipping overseas.  

And it's definitely not on "all levels", like you said, John.  Immigrant workers are not stealing away executive-level jobs here.  Let's be honest, they're filling positions that most Americans are not willing to fill (mostly labor-intensive jobs, industrial, manufacturing, other blue collar/service positions, temp-jobs, etc.).    

I think the solution is to drastically increase the tax rate on the imports shipped from all companies who are moving overseas.  It's not that the U.S. has such horrible tax rates, it's that the U.S. has such horrible tax rates when compared to borderline-third-world nations that have a culture of poverty that makes ANY taxable monies seems like a fortune.

(Edited for a spelling typo.  )
  
64 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1041 days ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110614/bs_yblog_thelookout/workers-share-of-national-income-plummets-to-record-low
1985  
#2 | 1041 days ago

If someone can fix this and get the link to work, thank you.  I am challenged  I guess.
1985  
#3 | 1041 days ago

This is interesting. Notice the drop-off in the past 10 years. That is huge, but there has been a steady fall since 1980. Although it shot up in the mid 90's I believe this graph is similar to the peek oil graph.

1 - The economy cannot handle 8 years of George Bush and the four years of Obama right behind it.
2 - We have outsourced ourselves. For 20 years we've been shipping work out of the USA.
3 - Technology is putting people out of work.
4 - Factories have steadily shut their doors over the past 20 years, and will continue to close their doors due to declining profits.
5 - Over-populating and illegals have cut into the work force on all levels.
#4 | 1041 days ago

Trickle down economics works fine, what's the big deal? 


/sarcasm
514  
#5 | 1040 days ago

All the above and more.

I have heard all my life:  "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
14  
#6 | 1040 days ago

(Edited by janet011685)
Tiger_Pride2 wrote:

This is interesting. Notice the drop-off in the past 10 years. That is huge, but there has been a steady fall since 1980. Although it shot up in the mid 90's I believe this graph is similar to the peek oil graph.

1 - The economy cannot handle 8 years of George Bush and the four years of Obama right behind it.
2 - We have outsourced ourselves. For 20 years we've been shipping work out of the USA.
3 - Technology is putting people out of work.
4 - Factories have steadily shut their doors over the past 20 years, and will continue to close their doors due to declining profits.
5 - Over-populating and illegals have cut into the work force on all levels.
I don't really think "illegals" have had the effect on the economy that you'd expect.  If anything, the use of illegal immigrant workers has probably kept more businesses here in the country since they provide a cheaper labor force (not only in wages, but illegal workers don't generally get paid benefits, vacation time, sick days, personal days, and are not likely to file a workers' comp claim for any injuries that are job-related), which is generally the reason most companies are shipping overseas.  

And it's definitely not on "all levels", like you said, John.  Immigrant workers are not stealing away executive-level jobs here.  Let's be honest, they're filling positions that most Americans are not willing to fill (mostly labor-intensive jobs, industrial, manufacturing, other blue collar/service positions, temp-jobs, etc.).    

I think the solution is to drastically increase the tax rate on the imports shipped from all companies who are moving overseas.  It's not that the U.S. has such horrible tax rates, it's that the U.S. has such horrible tax rates when compared to borderline-third-world nations that have a culture of poverty that makes ANY taxable monies seems like a fortune.

(Edited for a spelling typo.  )
#7 | 1040 days ago

As a long term employee (formerly) of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Johnson, let me tell you what she told me before she
laid off myself and 22 other employees.   2 1/2 years ago.  

"I worked hard to get where I am today.  I can not and will not, spend one more dollar of my own money on any business
that I own.  Until the banks start lending money, it's just not going to happen,   I'm sorry, but I have  to look out for my own future and my children's.  Here's your severance package." 
 
I respect her decision, love her to death and can call on her for anything.  Point being, she is not alone.  Just one of hundred of
wealthy individuals, corporations who are looking out for #1.  Until they can use OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, the economy
will remain the same or worse.  Banks, Wall street and oil companies  are recording record profits, while outsourcing our jobs
and taking huge corporate tax breaks, while putting $0 back in to the system.    

media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2011/05/31/19/20110531_TAXOVERHAUL.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg   

What is telling on that graph, is you and I are the ones paying the bill for the corps that are paying taxes in
our retail sales taxes, fees, service charges,  utility bills, high premiums, ridiculously high copays
 and $5.00 aspirin during hospital stays.   

It's not about the National debt.  It's about that small percent of the population keeping what they have earned or inherited.  
The debt celing is a joke.  Do you honestly think you-as an American- want to default on loans to walmart China?  

Stop drinking the koolaid and think for yourself.
1985  
#8 | 1040 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
As a long term employee (formerly) of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Johnson, let me tell you what she told me before she
laid off myself and 22 other employees.   2 1/2 years ago.  

"I worked hard to get where I am today.  I can not and will not, spend one more dollar of my own money on any business
that I own.  Until the banks start lending money, it's just not going to happen,   I'm sorry, but I have  to look out for my own future and my children's.  Here's your severance package." 
 
I respect her decision, love her to death and can call on her for anything.  Point being, she is not alone.  Just one of hundred of
wealthy individuals, corporations who are looking out for #1.  Until they can use OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, the economy
will remain the same or worse.  Banks, Wall street and oil companies  are recording record profits, while outsourcing our jobs
and taking huge corporate tax breaks, while putting $0 back in to the system.    

media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2011/05/31/19/20110531_TAXOVERHAUL.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg   

What is telling on that graph, is you and I are the ones paying the bill for the corps that are paying taxes in
our retail sales taxes, fees, service charges,  utility bills, high premiums, ridiculously high copays
 and $5.00 aspirin during hospital stays.   

It's not about the National debt.  It's about that small percent of the population keeping what they have earned or inherited.  
The debt celing is a joke.  Do you honestly think you-as an American- want to default on loans to walmart China?  

Stop drinking the koolaid and think for yourself.
Exactly, Laurel.  All boils down to political and corporate greed.  
I'm just glad that a lot of people are starting to catch up and realize what a lot of us have seen for years.  
#9 | 1040 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I don't really think "illegals" have had the effect on the economy that you'd expect.  If anything, the use of illegal immigrant workers has probably kept more businesses here in the country since they provide a cheaper labor force (not only in wages, but illegal workers don't generally get paid benefits, vacation time, sick days, personal days, and are not likely to file a workers' comp claim for any injuries that are job-related), which is generally the reason most companies are shipping overseas.  

And it's definitely not on "all levels", like you said, John.  Immigrant workers are not stealing away executive-level jobs here.  Let's be honest, they're filling positions that most Americans are not willing to fill (mostly labor-intensive jobs, industrial, manufacturing, other blue collar/service positions, temp-jobs, etc.).    

I think the solution is to drastically increase the tax rate on the imports shipped from all companies who are moving overseas.  It's not that the U.S. has such horrible tax rates, it's that the U.S. has such horrible tax rates when compared to borderline-third-world nations that have a culture of poverty that makes ANY taxable monies seems like a fortune.

(Edited for a spelling typo.  )
About the misnomer that illegals are doing jobs Americans don't want....  It's not that Americans don't want them.  It's that those jobs just don't pay enough for Americans to do them,  Americans will do practically anything if the compensation was acceptable for them. 
#10 | 1040 days ago

Regarding the corporate thing...  It seems that businesses naturally want to merge and get bigger and bigger.  However, this is counter productive to the consumer as such mergers create less competition and often creates incestuous relationships in the corporate world.  This is where the FTC or other such Federal watch dog needs to step in and block those mergers that create these behemoths.  Also, business needs to be allowed to fail.  And if a company is "too big to fail" then that company is just too big.

Remember when the phone company was broken up?  A number of smaller phone companies showed up but in the end, they started merging and merging and we have a couple of Giant phone companies again.  So in the end, what good was breaking up the original phone company to begin with?
#11 | 1040 days ago

ML31 wrote:
About the misnomer that illegals are doing jobs Americans don't want....  It's not that Americans don't want them.  It's that those jobs just don't pay enough for Americans to do them,  Americans will do practically anything if the compensation was acceptable for them. 
But are Americans expecting too much when they want $75,000/year to mow lawns?  Or work on a factory line?  Or clean someone's pool?

I do agree with you, however.  I think that the cost of living in this country makes it almost impossible for most people to live off of minimum wage (or even above minimum wage), but I think that all traces back to, in my opinion, the biggest problem we have in this country (which, incidentally, is also probably the most difficult if not impossible one to remedy), which is corporate greed.  I don't think I have to get into why, unless someone doesn't get it and wants me to clarify.  I'm typed enough in this poll ... for now.  
#12 | 1040 days ago

ML31 wrote:
About the misnomer that illegals are doing jobs Americans don't want....  It's not that Americans don't want them.  It's that those jobs just don't pay enough for Americans to do them,  Americans will do practically anything if the compensation was acceptable for them. 
Starting wages in Florida are around $8.50 an hour for jobs that started 4 years ago @$12.00.
That is BS that unemployed Americans won't  take the jobs.  There are none available,  People
are NOT sitting home because they want to play Farmville and holding out for higher pay.
Everyone has bills to pay, and unemployment pays squat and is taxable and runs out.   You have to take the jobs that
are available, whether you feel it is beneath you or not, because it is what is.

When you show up for a job opening, and there are 200 other people there for the same job, lousy pay and all,
It is just tough.  Callbacks for interviews are virtually non-existent.

There are a lot of illegal aliens here in Fl, but they are leaving and going home of their own volition.   They can't afford
to stay here (even when they live 8 to an apartment ) AND send money home. 
1985  
#13 | 1040 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Considering my recent frustrations with discussing issues in another forum, I'll just say that a huge part of the problem is the stagnancy of capital flow.  In a capitalist society, the capital must flow throughout a society in order for all to benefit.  However, instead of a measured route towards that kind of prosperity, Tiger Pride hit two of the issues that have affected the working classes with the "outsourcing" of jobs, and the "closure of factories" as two examples. 

Well, though there are so many issues that could be addressed, I suppose this is a good place to stop.
#14 | 1040 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Considering my recent frustrations with discussing issues in another forum, I'll just say that a huge part of the problem is the stagnancy of capital flow.  In a capitalist society, the capital must flow throughout a society in order for all to benefit.  However, instead of a measured route towards that kind of prosperity, Tiger Pride hit two of the issues that have affected the working classes with the "outsourcing" of jobs, and the "closure of factories" as two examples. 

Well, though there are so many issues that could be addressed, I suppose this is a good place to stop.
#15 | 1040 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
But are Americans expecting too much when they want $75,000/year to mow lawns?  Or work on a factory line?  Or clean someone's pool?

I do agree with you, however.  I think that the cost of living in this country makes it almost impossible for most people to live off of minimum wage (or even above minimum wage), but I think that all traces back to, in my opinion, the biggest problem we have in this country (which, incidentally, is also probably the most difficult if not impossible one to remedy), which is corporate greed.  I don't think I have to get into why, unless someone doesn't get it and wants me to clarify.  I'm typed enough in this poll ... for now.  
I don't know if they are expecting too much.  Such a thing is subjective to the individuals needs.

However, corporate greed is not necessarily a bad thing.  It is what creates jobs and is often what motivated people to create the corporation to begin with.  But like most things, it can be good until it is done to excess.  It if often a difficult line to locate.
#16 | 1040 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
Starting wages in Florida are around $8.50 an hour for jobs that started 4 years ago @$12.00.
That is BS that unemployed Americans won't  take the jobs.  There are none available,  People
are NOT sitting home because they want to play Farmville and holding out for higher pay.
Everyone has bills to pay, and unemployment pays squat and is taxable and runs out.   You have to take the jobs that
are available, whether you feel it is beneath you or not, because it is what is.

When you show up for a job opening, and there are 200 other people there for the same job, lousy pay and all,
It is just tough.  Callbacks for interviews are virtually non-existent.

There are a lot of illegal aliens here in Fl, but they are leaving and going home of their own volition.   They can't afford
to stay here (even when they live 8 to an apartment ) AND send money home. 
If none are available, then how can you conclude that Americans won't take the job provided the compensation was acceptable? 

I have to tell you that out here in CA there are still tons and tons of illegal laborers out here.  They still seem to be getting their under the table work.
#17 | 1040 days ago

ML31 wrote:
I don't know if they are expecting too much.  Such a thing is subjective to the individuals needs.

However, corporate greed is not necessarily a bad thing.  It is what creates jobs and is often what motivated people to create the corporation to begin with.  But like most things, it can be good until it is done to excess.  It if often a difficult line to locate.
I think there's a difference between corporate greed and a corporation striving to grow and do more with itself.  

When corporations try to increase revenue by expanding, job growth occurs.  When corporations are greedy (specifically, corporate CEOs and other big-wigs), the working-class person is shafted.  It's no longer the days of "Trickle Down Economics", which, in theory, is great and in practice, works beautifully.  Unfortunately, that is NOT the practice in business so much any longer.
#18 | 1040 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I think there's a difference between corporate greed and a corporation striving to grow and do more with itself.  

When corporations try to increase revenue by expanding, job growth occurs.  When corporations are greedy (specifically, corporate CEOs and other big-wigs), the working-class person is shafted.  It's no longer the days of "Trickle Down Economics", which, in theory, is great and in practice, works beautifully.  Unfortunately, that is NOT the practice in business so much any longer.
I think we are getting caught up in semantics here.  What is the motivation for a business to grow and do more with itself?  Profit.  Why does a business (or any person for that matter) want profit?  Greed.  For nearly all humans (and the businesses they create) mere sustainability is not desirable.   For good or bad, that's just human nature.
#19 | 1040 days ago

ML31 wrote:
I think we are getting caught up in semantics here.  What is the motivation for a business to grow and do more with itself?  Profit.  Why does a business (or any person for that matter) want profit?  Greed.  For nearly all humans (and the businesses they create) mere sustainability is not desirable.   For good or bad, that's just human nature.
I don't think we can trivialize it as "semantics".  

There's a big difference between:
-  Growing a business and allowing the increased profit margins to "trickle down" to ALL employees of the company.
and 
-  Growing a business and creating more jobs for Americans.
and 
-  Growing (or maintaining) a business, cutting pay and benefits, refusing to hire more staff and, instead, forcing existing staff to pick up the slack, and reaping the profitability that comes along with it and hoarding it between a small, elite, select few corporate honchos.  Then crying poverty when questioned about why they are cutting back (and why some companies still "need" government subsidies) when their record profit margins state otherwise.
#20 | 1040 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I don't think we can trivialize it as "semantics".  

There's a big difference between:
-  Growing a business and allowing the increased profit margins to "trickle down" to ALL employees of the company.
and 
-  Growing a business and creating more jobs for Americans.
and 
-  Growing (or maintaining) a business, cutting pay and benefits, refusing to hire more staff and, instead, forcing existing staff to pick up the slack, and reaping the profitability that comes along with it and hoarding it between a small, elite, select few corporate honchos.  Then crying poverty when questioned about why they are cutting back (and why some companies still "need" government subsidies) when their record profit margins state otherwise.
So, it is your opinion that most companies are doing just fine and those who run them are just evil?  Granted there are probably some but I just can't buy that of the majority.

And personally, I'm not a fan of government subsidies to private business.  Fortunately there is not a lot of it but it shouldn't exist at all. 
#21 | 1040 days ago

ML31 wrote:
So, it is your opinion that most companies are doing just fine and those who run them are just evil?  Granted there are probably some but I just can't buy that of the majority.

And personally, I'm not a fan of government subsidies to private business.  Fortunately there is not a lot of it but it shouldn't exist at all. 
I think that most of the large corporations who influence our economy the most (the oil and banking industries, to give two more specific examples) are doing just fine.  In fact, the data proves that they're not only doing "just fine", but most of them are running at record-high profit margins.  

I'm not fully opposed to government subsidies of private businesses (in a case like GM, it actually worked and did exactly what it was supposed to do), but I think that a large portion of the subsidies are being given to industries that probably don't need it, which is, of course, a waste of tax dollars.
#22 | 1040 days ago

BOOOOOOOOO!
#23 | 1040 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
BOOOOOOOOO!
To me, someone else, or this thread in general?  
#24 | 1040 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Just for purpose of clarification, when I basically stated that I'm going to try not to get involved in the conversation attributed to my interaction in another forum, it is just that--it is not necessarily attributed to any within the Q.  Conversely, compared even to some of the more oppositional issues discussed, people in the Q are generally far better than the pundits on the left and right in some of these other forums....

Just wanted to clarify.

If I can provide one example of how flow of capital has decreased can be understood in the distribution of wealth versus the rise in the cost of living.  When all the majority of the population can afford is life expendatures alone, then small businesses suffer the worst.  Considering those in the middle 1/5th are responsible for 35% of the capital flow attributed to numbers within that economic class, when such expendatures are solely relegated to living alone it's a huge factor in the dynamic of economic flow and prosperity. 

I hope this makes sense, and isn't too redundant.  I've been spending a lot of long days on the computer writing and my thoughts are seemingly beginning to bleed into each other thought.  So please excuse any "WTF is he thinking" portions of the above.  Here's a chart that factors into the current financial adversity:
#25 | 1040 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I think that most of the large corporations who influence our economy the most (the oil and banking industries, to give two more specific examples) are doing just fine.  In fact, the data proves that they're not only doing "just fine", but most of them are running at record-high profit margins.  

I'm not fully opposed to government subsidies of private businesses (in a case like GM, it actually worked and did exactly what it was supposed to do), but I think that a large portion of the subsidies are being given to industries that probably don't need it, which is, of course, a waste of tax dollars.
OK .  So you are of the opinion that most of the large corporations who influence the economy the most are doing just fine....  Making those who run them just short of evil incarnate.  You are certainly entitled. 

You may not realize how close we came to a major financial depression a few years ago.  I myself wasn't until my brother-in-law pointed out some reading for me.  In that sense, banking was certainly far from fine.  It wasn't entirely the banks fault.  It was a number of things that worked together.  But they were certainly a part of the mixture.
#26 | 1040 days ago

(Edited by ohwell_)
ML31 wrote:
If none are available, then how can you conclude that Americans won't take the job provided the compensation was acceptable? 

I have to tell you that out here in CA there are still tons and tons of illegal laborers out here.  They still seem to be getting their under the table work.
"  It's not that Americans don't want them.  It's that those jobs just don't pay enough for Americans to do them,  Americans will do practically anything if the compensation was acceptable for them."

That's what you said, not me.

I said "That is BS that unemployed Americans won't  take the jobs.  There are none available,  People
are NOT sitting home because they want to play Farmville and holding out for higher pay.
Everyone has bills to pay, and unemployment pays squat and is taxable and runs out.   You have to take the jobs that
are available, whether you feel it is beneath you or not, because it is what is".

I'm done.  
1985  
#27 | 1040 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
"  It's not that Americans don't want them.  It's that those jobs just don't pay enough for Americans to do them,  Americans will do practically anything if the compensation was acceptable for them."

That's what you said, not me.

I said "That is BS that unemployed Americans won't  take the jobs.  There are none available,  People
are NOT sitting home because they want to play Farmville and holding out for higher pay.
Everyone has bills to pay, and unemployment pays squat and is taxable and runs out.   You have to take the jobs that
are available, whether you feel it is beneath you or not, because it is what is".

I'm done.  
Yes.  You did a great job of quoting what we already said. 

However, you didn't clarify or expand on anything.  All you did was repeat yourself.  Therefore, the same response applies...    If none are available, then how can you conclude that Americans won't take the job provided the compensation was acceptable? 
#28 | 1040 days ago

ML31 wrote:
OK .  So you are of the opinion that most of the large corporations who influence the economy the most are doing just fine....  Making those who run them just short of evil incarnate.  You are certainly entitled. 

You may not realize how close we came to a major financial depression a few years ago.  I myself wasn't until my brother-in-law pointed out some reading for me.  In that sense, banking was certainly far from fine.  It wasn't entirely the banks fault.  It was a number of things that worked together.  But they were certainly a part of the mixture.
Not evil, per se, just really greedy.  
And I don't know that I'd consider it an opinion since the public statements about the profits of the companies/industries I mentioned (I'm not going to try to site ALL of them ... that's far too many to list) are proof enough to call it a fact.

Exxon-Mobil's first quarter profits this year were up a staggering 69% over a year ago.
BP has recently (April 2011) reported it's profits are up 16%.
Shell Oil's profits were up 30% in the first quarter.
Just last month, the FDIC said that U.S. banks have posted their highest quarterly earnings since the beginning of the financial crisis.
#29 | 1040 days ago

 If you want to get the economy moving, demand our government invest in infrastructure and education.  It'll create jobs in the short term, increase spending, and make it more efficient for businesses here in our country to operate.
#30 | 1040 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Not evil, per se, just really greedy.  
And I don't know that I'd consider it an opinion since the public statements about the profits of the companies/industries I mentioned (I'm not going to try to site ALL of them ... that's far too many to list) are proof enough to call it a fact.

Exxon-Mobil's first quarter profits this year were up a staggering 69% over a year ago.
BP has recently (April 2011) reported it's profits are up 16%.
Shell Oil's profits were up 30% in the first quarter.
Just last month, the FDIC said that U.S. banks have posted their highest quarterly earnings since the beginning of the financial crisis.
Not going to argue with you about the major oil companies profits.  I find some of their actions reprehensible myself.  That being said, one has to be careful about how the figures are shown.  A lot of times profit does not exactly mean what most think it would mean.  There is a lot of word play like that in the economic world.  Kind of like in Union lingo it is possible to not be a union member while still being a union member
.
I do, however, find it interesting that you accuse many companies of evil behavior but stop shot of actually using the E word.
#31 | 1040 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 If you want to get the economy moving, demand our government invest in infrastructure and education.  It'll create jobs in the short term, increase spending, and make it more efficient for businesses here in our country to operate.
FDR tried a lot of that in the Depression.  Didn't work out so well.
#32 | 1040 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Not going to argue with you about the major oil companies profits.  I find some of their actions reprehensible myself.  That being said, one has to be careful about how the figures are shown.  A lot of times profit does not exactly mean what most think it would mean.  There is a lot of word play like that in the economic world.  Kind of like in Union lingo it is possible to not be a union member while still being a union member
.
I do, however, find it interesting that you accuse many companies of evil behavior but stop shot of actually using the E word.
I don't equate greed with evil, necessarily.  I think their behavior is reprehensible and immoral, and I think it also goes beyond that and into the realm of the grand scheme of political push and pull, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it evil.  That's a strong word.
#33 | 1040 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I don't equate greed with evil, necessarily.  I think their behavior is reprehensible and immoral, and I think it also goes beyond that and into the realm of the grand scheme of political push and pull, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it evil.  That's a strong word.
 I think their behavior is reprehensible and immoral

That sounds pretty evil to me.
#34 | 1039 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Yes.  You did a great job of quoting what we already said. 

However, you didn't clarify or expand on anything.  All you did was repeat yourself.  Therefore, the same response applies...    If none are available, then how can you conclude that Americans won't take the job provided the compensation was acceptable? 
I guess I don't understand what you are saying.. asking, Whatever, it's late, and I'm overt.
1985  
#35 | 1039 days ago

ML31 wrote:
 I think their behavior is reprehensible and immoral

That sounds pretty evil to me.
I guess it depends on who you ask.
#36 | 1039 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
I guess I don't understand what you are saying.. asking, Whatever, it's late, and I'm overt.
You disagreed with my assessment that Americans will take any job if they feel the compensation is adequate and your reasoning was that there were no jobs available.   My question was that if there are no jobs, then how can you conclude that Americans wont take any job if they felt the compensation was adequate? 

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Take care.
#37 | 1039 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
janet011685 wrote:
I guess it depends on who you ask.
Fair enough....  I guess.  Still sounds like it is coming back to semantics.
#38 | 1039 days ago

ML31 wrote:
FDR tried a lot of that in the Depression.  Didn't work out so well.
 Actually it did a lot of good.  It just so happened that almost immediately after the rest of the industrialized world was destroyed and we became the supplier and rebuilder of all those countries.  Also, World War II involved massive government spending too.  The "just cut and everything will fix itself" people are morons.
#39 | 1039 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 Actually it did a lot of good.  It just so happened that almost immediately after the rest of the industrialized world was destroyed and we became the supplier and rebuilder of all those countries.  Also, World War II involved massive government spending too.  The "just cut and everything will fix itself" people are morons.
That is pretty revisionist history there.  Nothing the Feds did helped end the economic depression until the war.  But I will give you that you that one could call funding the American involvement in WWII government spending and be technically accurate.  But it is also somewhat misleading.
#40 | 1037 days ago

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/palm-beach-county-employers-not-seriously-seeking-local-1547640.html
1985  
#41 | 1037 days ago

ohwell_ wrote: If that article is meant to provide evidence contrary to my assertion that Americans will take any job provided the compensation is satisfactory....  It doesn't. 
#42 | 1037 days ago



Always find discussions about economics , politics, and religion  kind of funny because  50% of the time the right are wrong , 50% of the time the wrong are right , and 100% of the time that is exactly how some people want it to be because opinions make it impossible to figure out which part of the 50% crowd anyone is currently in.


Baffling i know -  Its a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma !     Or maybe im just slow (this options is odds on choice)
7  
#43 | 1037 days ago

1985  
#44 | 1037 days ago

ML31 wrote:
That is pretty revisionist history there.  Nothing the Feds did helped end the economic depression until the war.  But I will give you that you that one could call funding the American involvement in WWII government spending and be technically accurate.  But it is also somewhat misleading.
 From the passing of the New Deal until 1940, the size of the economy grew by almost 2/3rds and unemployment dropped by 9%.  In what world is that not a success?  The New Deal's biggest flaw (and it was a huge one) was price and wage setting, but that was struck down after 2 years anyway.  Plus, nobody is calling for that.
#45 | 1037 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 From the passing of the New Deal until 1940, the size of the economy grew by almost 2/3rds and unemployment dropped by 9%.  In what world is that not a success?  The New Deal's biggest flaw (and it was a huge one) was price and wage setting, but that was struck down after 2 years anyway.  Plus, nobody is calling for that.
I'm just talking about history.  The programs impleneted in the New Deal did improve conditions some but the intent was to jump start the economy and get it clicking.  The programs were not meant to go on and on as they were not sustainable and administration knew it.  The problem was they feared if the programs were cut back or removed things would sink right back to where they came from. Programs and projects did come to an end and people were right back in the same situation they were in before.  Little had changed overall.  Until the War, of course.
#46 | 1036 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Still, some of the accomplishments such as the highway system and especially the damns (here's where I get in trouble with environmentalists) are still nothing less than incredible.  In their own way, they too are monuments that are a testimonial to the America's "can do" spirit--if we could only get that back....
#47 | 1036 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Still, some of the accomplishments such as the highway system and especially the damns (here's where I get in trouble with environmentalists) are still nothing less than incredible.  In their own way, they too are monuments that are a testimonial to the America's "can do" spirit--if we could only get that back....
A lot of things were built, I'll give you that.   But here is me possibly splitting hairs...  I do believe there were a couple US highway acts.  One in 1921 and another in 1925.  Both before the crash.  But after, a lot of states used that existing program to build a bunch of roads in an effort to employ people.  So the building of roads wasn't a depression era project...  But rather the project spilled into the depression.
#48 | 1036 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
A lot of things were built, I'll give you that.   But here is me possibly splitting hairs...  I do believe there were a couple US highway acts.  One in 1921 and another in 1925.  Both before the crash.  But after, a lot of states used that existing program to build a bunch of roads in an effort to employ people.  So the building of roads wasn't a depression era project...  But rather the project spilled into the depression.
Yea, perhaps so.  Though I have to admit that while I have studied the progression of the legal and legislative process of the New Deal, I would be remiss not to admit that other than the general history of the Great Depression is something to which I can not respond with any authority.

As a surface perception, the two main considerations (IMO) would be the obvious economic and the less recognized psychological affects of that era.  The economic, is debatable.  Again, IMO, doing something was far better than doing nothing--without the depression era programs, would America have been able to fight in WWII at all?  Did the "little" progress keep more people from looking towards the Nazi movement, or the movement of the Communist movement that was using the economic hardships of the depression as a recruiting measure.  It's definitely an in-depth subject for study and discussion, and although through statistics and analysis certain deductions can be made, but what will keep such a discussion in question is the psychological and sociological effects; effects of which (I think you'll agree) are far less able to be academically approached as the nuances of such are very speculative. 

Again, personally, I think with the situation as it was, it is far better that something was done--however great or minimal one perceives such to be, than to have not done anything.  Taking the unemployment rate to 9% from around 30% (???) to me is an incredible accomplishment--despite the question of sustainability which is a relevant point.  I wish I could say that I'm going to investigate this further, but I already have too many "irons in the fire" and this is a subject I know would suck me in from an interest generated from like research.  So, if I were to encourage any consideration, it would be the historiographic nature of the times in how those who lived it would have perceived what was done.  Because in today's political climate, people generally love it or hate it depending upon their political associations; and I do say general, because such associations are not absolute, though increasingly so (unfortunately) as time passes.

LOL.....a long winded response to say I'm not speaking with knowledgeable authority, but here's my two cents.....LOL!
#49 | 1036 days ago

ML31 wrote:
I'm just talking about history.  The programs impleneted in the New Deal did improve conditions some but the intent was to jump start the economy and get it clicking.  The programs were not meant to go on and on as they were not sustainable and administration knew it.  The problem was they feared if the programs were cut back or removed things would sink right back to where they came from. Programs and projects did come to an end and people were right back in the same situation they were in before.  Little had changed overall.  Until the War, of course.
 Sure, continued massive spending at some point becomes an issue, but this is a temporary jump to the economy we're talking about. Stimulus programs work, because they provide life to the economy and allow for private enterprise to take over with the infrastructure provided.
#50 | 1036 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Yea, perhaps so.  Though I have to admit that while I have studied the progression of the legal and legislative process of the New Deal, I would be remiss not to admit that other than the general history of the Great Depression is something to which I can not respond with any authority.

As a surface perception, the two main considerations (IMO) would be the obvious economic and the less recognized psychological affects of that era.  The economic, is debatable.  Again, IMO, doing something was far better than doing nothing--without the depression era programs, would America have been able to fight in WWII at all?  Did the "little" progress keep more people from looking towards the Nazi movement, or the movement of the Communist movement that was using the economic hardships of the depression as a recruiting measure.  It's definitely an in-depth subject for study and discussion, and although through statistics and analysis certain deductions can be made, but what will keep such a discussion in question is the psychological and sociological effects; effects of which (I think you'll agree) are far less able to be academically approached as the nuances of such are very speculative. 

Again, personally, I think with the situation as it was, it is far better that something was done--however great or minimal one perceives such to be, than to have not done anything.  Taking the unemployment rate to 9% from around 30% (???) to me is an incredible accomplishment--despite the question of sustainability which is a relevant point.  I wish I could say that I'm going to investigate this further, but I already have too many "irons in the fire" and this is a subject I know would suck me in from an interest generated from like research.  So, if I were to encourage any consideration, it would be the historiographic nature of the times in how those who lived it would have perceived what was done.  Because in today's political climate, people generally love it or hate it depending upon their political associations; and I do say general, because such associations are not absolute, though increasingly so (unfortunately) as time passes.

LOL.....a long winded response to say I'm not speaking with knowledgeable authority, but here's my two cents.....LOL!
Yes...  Doing something with a minimal effect is certainly better than doing nothing and letting things get worse..  Hoover lost his job because he essentially did nothing.  You also delved a ton deeper into psychological aspects I had never considered.  I've always looked at the programs and numbers.  Which on the surface, don't show new deal policies doing much to end the depression. 
#51 | 1036 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 Sure, continued massive spending at some point becomes an issue, but this is a temporary jump to the economy we're talking about. Stimulus programs work, because they provide life to the economy and allow for private enterprise to take over with the infrastructure provided.
It becomes an issue sooner rather than later.  And it has a history of not "jump starting" an economy.  It can be of aid temporarily, but that is all.  At least, that is what happened the last time it was tried.
#52 | 1036 days ago

ML31 wrote:
It becomes an issue sooner rather than later.  And it has a history of not "jump starting" an economy.  It can be of aid temporarily, but that is all.  At least, that is what happened the last time it was tried.
 In reference to the stimulus or the New Deal?  Because the New Deal absolutely worked.  The stimulus resulted in the private sector increasing in terms of sheer size and in job creation, but the job losses (up until recently) resulted from all the cuts from state and local government.  Eventually that will catch up to the private sector (already has, unfortunately) because there's less money being spent, which obviously results in less demand.  The answer right now is absolutely not smaller government, yet it what this country voted for in 2010.  As a country, we voted against ourselves.

Also, the stimulus could've been improved.  Over a third of it was tax cuts, which will never stimulate the economy (not entirely true, but won't happen with our tax rates as low as they are).  It was also too small and Republican governors have worked to destroy potentially the best part of the entire bill (high speed rail).  Obama should've fought harder for these things, but it gets difficult when you need 60 votes in the Senate and have to deal with the petulant spoiled brats of the Republican Senate caucus (and Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson [Nebraska], and Joe Lieberman).
#53 | 1036 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
 In reference to the stimulus or the New Deal?  Because the New Deal absolutely worked.  The stimulus resulted in the private sector increasing in terms of sheer size and in job creation, but the job losses (up until recently) resulted from all the cuts from state and local government.  Eventually that will catch up to the private sector (already has, unfortunately) because there's less money being spent, which obviously results in less demand.  The answer right now is absolutely not smaller government, yet it what this country voted for in 2010.  As a country, we voted against ourselves.

Also, the stimulus could've been improved.  Over a third of it was tax cuts, which will never stimulate the economy (not entirely true, but won't happen with our tax rates as low as they are).  It was also too small and Republican governors have worked to destroy potentially the best part of the entire bill (high speed rail).  Obama should've fought harder for these things, but it gets difficult when you need 60 votes in the Senate and have to deal with the petulant spoiled brats of the Republican Senate caucus (and Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson [Nebraska], and Joe Lieberman).
In reference to the New Deal...  It absolutely did NOT work.  The idea that a similar plan would work today is ignoring the lessons from history.  Things weren't at bad today as they were in 1929, but the stimulus has done practically nothing to reverse the trend.  Eventually the economic cycle will turn up as is its nature.  But anyone who attempts to tie it to the stimulus is fooling themselves.  I think it arrogance to say "we voted against ourselves".  I get the feeling you say that anytime the country turns to the party you personally do not prefer.  What happened was that people saw one party's attempts at improving the economy failing so they did what they have always done when they see that.  Turn to the other party.  (just as they did in '08)

Tax cuts have shown they can improve the economy.  I would stop short of saying they are something that works in every economic crisis, but they have resulted in positive effects when tried.  The only good thing in the stimulus (and this is me being somewhat selfish because I happen to like the project personally) is high speed rail.  Something this country should have turned to decades ago.  And finally, I happen to be OK with Evan Bayh.  I like moderates.
#54 | 1036 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

I have to disagree with you there.  Had our elected representatives managed social security and other programs that evolved from the new deal, instead of diverting funds or taking funds out of the coffers all together and treated it like what the en vogue rhetorical push to establish the 401K, social security would be more than self-sustaining, and could even be an economic stabilizer for times such as war, national disaster, economic hardship, or universal health care which is offered in every "socially evolved" nation in the world except for the U.S.  We wouldn't have to borrow money from China, et.al., as we would have a perennial windfall in our own savings.

My second point would be towards the automotive bail out.  The auto industry wasn't failing attributed to any criminal behavior of which I've heard; Wall Street on the other hand is riddled with corruption, profiteering through speculation and self-manifesting procedures that maneuver any 'danger areas' towards the government so that if such fail, they can either write such off in their taxes or have the public screaming to make things O.K.  Corruption in Manhattan is hushed quickly by both parties as they too rely upon the support of that circle for their own personal prosperity.  'What's his nuts" Madoff from the Enron scandal was screaming about such after his incarceration began as he was scapegoated whilst others remained untouched with either equal or greater infringement upon the economic adversities to which we are still trying to recover.

As for tax cuts, yes, if directed properly they do work.  However, statistically, I've seen many companies cutting their work-force following high profit years (in the mid 2000's Exxon following successive record profits if memory serves correctly).  The strength of the capitalist economic system depends upon the flow of capital from all economic reaches of society.  Unfortunately, the trend that we have been seeing is a concentration of wealth that becomes stagnant as individuals have become more concerned with amassing wealth at the expense of the health and prosperity of the general economy (either overextending their workforce or shipping jobs overseas) and as a result, that segment of the economic bracket that traditionally facilitated the highest volume of capital flow has been limited to strict budgeting with little to no benefit to enjoy the fruits of their labor as in times past (a huge breech just in two generations) based upon my own observations of people that have mirrored the employment of others) that I have witnessed.

Capitalism will work, so long as the responsibility of keeping the money flowing through the arteries of the economy aren't blocked or severed like a hardened artery--which has become the reason for the increasing hardship and disparity between the high and low economic classes.  Trickle down economics will work, providing those at the top acknowledge their responsibility to those from whom they benefit.  The problem is that between the two major parties defending their own die-hard constituent base, the middle class has now begun to crumble under the massive pressure of the corporate and social entitlement programs. 

Just as I believe the only way to force the flow of capital and avert the amassing of wealth and profane greed that has manifested itself within our society, neither should those who are dependent upon the work-efforts of others for their livelihood be given to spend money as they please.  I would have little difficulty providing example after example of how drug, alcohol, and entertainment is supported through social programs that "give" money to those that don't earn it.  We are not neanderthals, we are not going to turn people out on the street (in the case of the homeless, we should be reaching out and providing better support which could easily be done if the maximum annual income cap to ensure the flow of capital and "free money" free money programs were curtailed.  It is of my opinion that the age-old pyramid for psychological well-being is out-dated.  Not only is the health of a community gaged by those withing having the basic food, clothing, and shelter necessary, but also open access to health care as the evolved structure of society has generated a need for such.

The bottom line, with regard to my perspective is that just as our country has reached the limits of it's borders, the opportunity for "free land" and the ability to walk into the world and stake one's claim has disappeared into memory, the evolution of our society must adapt and evolve to not only recognize the potential for opportunity, but also the limitations that have developed from the progression of our nation.  The two major parties have become a rock and a brick wall; society as an entity as better luck  getting some kind of result from banging their heads against such than getting the rock and the brick wall to move past their antiquated mind-sets and move beyond their redundant, and equally outdated policies.  This nation needs to evolve.....or, as I have predicted, the fissures that have developed in the various socio-political economic regions that have developed with solidify borders and result in the dissolving our the American nation; the result of which will be a very liberal Cascadia (the Pacific Northwest) or conservatively rigid region of the deep south.

I guess time will tell as I personally don't have a glimmer of hope that people will adopt any sense of humility to seek the most beneficial solution for the nation as a whole, but like lemmings which instinctively run themselves off a cliff en masse will be the same metaphorical result of the polarizing nature of our current socio-economic political society.  The problem is, with so many of the world's governments dependent upon the prosperity of the United States, to what effect will the strife in America affect the rest of the world.  We've seen a taste of such, but that is a superficial pre-cursor to what the reality of our civilization if America indeed falls.  Just a few thoughts....

BTW, my kids got me a 20 CD set of the greatest classical masterpieces--life is good today!  I hope all enjoyed their time with family today.
#55 | 1036 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Oooops.......would you believe I intended to keep my response relatively short? 
#56 | 1035 days ago

Norse,

You said you disagreed with my above post but after reading your unintentionally lengthy rebuttal I honestly didn't find much that was contrary with what I said.  In fact, I found much of what you wrote quite reasonable.  Perhaps one of us misinterpreted the others posting?
#57 | 1035 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

ML31 wrote:
Norse,

You said you disagreed with my above post but after reading your unintentionally lengthy rebuttal I honestly didn't find much that was contrary with what I said.  In fact, I found much of what you wrote quite reasonable.  Perhaps one of us misinterpreted the others posting?
My apologies.....  The specific element to which I disagreed is the statement that the New Deal definitely "did not work".

Again, it's a matter of perspective.  The fact that those who have participated in the thread have presented views in the manner we have is how more people, and especially our politicians need to discuss issues.  Will we always agree--no.  Will such discussions always bring forth a consensus--no.  However, discussions such as above (and I'm sure will continue below) are far more productive as the information provided by the varying views helps to add to peoples ability to factor in the variables to balance the issue at hand.

Thanks for pointing out my lack of clarity in identifying the nature of what I was addressing.  The above is just an example of what happens when I'm relaxed and in a reflective mindset--I just write my current thoughts and sometimes fail to articulate the direct nature of what topic I'm specifically focused upon.
#58 | 1035 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
NorseHeathen wrote:
My apologies.....  The specific element to which I disagreed is the statement that the New Deal definitely "did not work".

Again, it's a matter of perspective.  The fact that those who have participated in the thread have presented views in the manner we have is how more people, and especially our politicians need to discuss issues.  Will we always agree--no.  Will such discussions always bring forth a consensus--no.  However, discussions such as above (and I'm sure will continue below) are far more productive as the information provided by the varying views helps to add to peoples ability to factor in the variables to balance the issue at hand.

Thanks for pointing out my lack of clarity in identifying the nature of what I was addressing.  The above is just an example of what happens when I'm relaxed and in a reflective mindset--I just write my current thoughts and sometimes fail to articulate the direct nature of what topic I'm specifically focused upon.
Ah.  I see.  My mistake for using the absolute.  As you mentioned earlier and I agreed, there certainly could be aspects of it that are not measurable but created a desireable result.  I will often use the absolute or extreme comment to underscore what I am saying. (Like saying "no one" was at the ball game when the crowd was smaller than usual, but certainly not zero.)   Sometimes ineffectively. 
#59 | 1035 days ago

The following post is NOT in response to any other on this thread.  Just a link to a story I find amusing in my twisted mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110620/us_yblog_thelookout/some-americans-will-work-for-25-cents-an-hour-experiment-shows

Definitely NOT a scientific poll by any stretch of the imagination, but telling none the less.
1985  
#60 | 1035 days ago

Note to self: refer back to this poll to remind yourself why you don't post political garb on this site. Thanks, me!
#61 | 1035 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Joe_L wrote:
Note to self: refer back to this poll to remind yourself why you don't post political garb on this site. Thanks, me!
Careful Joe......political intrigue is like crack or the mafia; just when you think you're out, it draws you back in!
#62 | 1035 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Careful Joe......political intrigue is like crack or the mafia; just when you think you're out, it draws you back in!
Thanks Norse, if I do catch myself wanting to post anything political I will beat myself with a boat oar. It's the same out come in the end.
#63 | 1035 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
The following post is NOT in response to any other on this thread.  Just a link to a story I find amusing in my twisted mind.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110620/us_yblog_thelookout/some-americans-will-work-for-25-cents-an-hour-experiment-shows

Definitely NOT a scientific poll by any stretch of the imagination, but telling none the less.
Actually, it isn't very telling at all.  The one at the extreme reveals nothing on the trends of the masses.
#64 | 1034 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Joe_L wrote:
Thanks Norse, if I do catch myself wanting to post anything political I will beat myself with a boat oar. It's the same out come in the end.
Nah, it's all about respect: 
Funny - www.youtube.com/watch
Dramatic - www.youtube.com/watch
Psyche! - www.youtube.com/watch

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
F/E 4/18
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 04/18/14
7 opinions | 19 comments | Last by sports_schmorts
Random Questions
Asked by Jess | Locker Room | 9 questions asked 04/16/14
117 opinions | 20 comments | Last by AlwaysSunshine
F/E 4/17
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 04/17/14
5 opinions | 10 comments | Last by woody050681
I Like to Watch
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 6 questions asked 04/16/14
84 opinions | 11 comments | Last by ima246
Pack your Bags!
Asked by Cali_Kat | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 04/16/14
7 opinions | 15 comments | Last by marcus_nyce