# The contrast in numbers



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Politics aside, some of you turn everything in to Red vs Blue or Right vs Left. The contrast in numbers is a little disturbing.

I had my daughters read the BBC peice.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246969.stm

The final paragraph:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I hope I will not come off as jingoistic or drag out old debate devises like so many moth eaten taxidery mounts. The world at large; both our traditional friends, allies and partners, open enemies and those somewhere in between are quick and eager to condemn us. If our empire, our day in the sun as the world's preeminent power is fading, what, where and who are the peoples and institutions that will lead us all into a future world ? A world overpopulated, severely crippled by global warming and a Pandora's Box of other ills, including but hardly limited to declining resources such as water, the reemergence of old horrific, and some new diseases, mass migrations from these problems--- oh why go on. Pax Romana or Pax Americana, you people know the drill;Attilla, the Mongol hordes and later Ottomans and now The People's Army in business suits, Hugo Chavez, Amhadinijad and son of Beloved leader ' Be carefull what you wish for,' especially if your not sure quite what it is beyond a Disney attraction of robotic manniquins singing " It's a small world after all, It's a small world after all."


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> what it is beyond a Disney attraction of robotic manniquins singing " It's a small world after all, It's a small world after all."


Now THAT'S scary!

Who'd replace us? I'd guess economically it'd be the Chinese..


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd really like to see the War end. I was against it, thought if the US went in, it should play to win (it hasn't), and have yet to hear what these troops will do to make a difference. Maybe Dubya's speech told the story, I watched TiVo tonight so have no idea.

Yes, I see the Dems passed a fat new minimum wage. Not past the Senate yet and maybe, just maybe, Dubya will veto something. Neither here nor there to me. My Director of F&B (food and beverage) did cut two FTEs from the kitchen staff to keep his budget in line after Arizona raised its minimum wage. I am sure those two gents from Africa, "Lost Boys", will comfort themselves knowing that they are no longer being exploited and much better off.

The coming years shall be fun. Predictions, in order:

1) Cap on income subject to Social Security contributions removed.
2) Social Security contributions made "progressive", not flat.
3) National "health care for all" like MA or CA.
4) Social Security becomes means tested.


Hope I am wrong.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Hope I am wrong.


It's not going to matter. There will be nuclear war and we'll all be dead.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

A day late and a dollar short for Bush.

What little they raise minimum wage it won't matter to the gnp, but it does barely help the low paid workers.

She could always wash her dishes at work.

Republicans claim to be so smart- how come they're for the lowest wages? (low wages leaves lack of buying power, lack of buyers and business make less money- so, people that pay low wages are shooting themselves in the foot.)


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

crs said:


> It's not going to matter. There will be nuclear war and we'll all be dead.


*Duck and cover.*


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Republicans claim to be so smart- how come they're for the lowest wages? (low wages leaves lack of buying power, lack of buyers and business make less money- so, people that pay low wages are shooting themselves in the foot.)


I do not believe anyone is for low wages. Just not artificially inflated.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> It's not going to matter. There will be nuclear war and we'll all be dead.


So should I stop contributions to my 401k and IRA and just spend the money on bespoke suits and expensive Scotch?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> So should I stop contributions to my 401k and IRA and just spend the money on bespoke suits and expensive Scotch?


Sounds like a plan. :icon_smile:


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So should I stop contributions to my 401k and IRA and just spend the money on bespoke suits and expensive Scotch?


My worry about Iran and North Korea has now been alleviated!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I do not believe anyone is for low wages. Just not artificially inflated.


Your absolutely right, until it comes to filling out the checks.

What was it? The 88 recession quite a number of companies went out of business. If they had paid lower wages and payed out a percentage of company profits (to make up for low wages) a lot of them would have survied. High wages can push a company under quicker, and both investors (owners) and workers lose.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WA,

Since you have been in the habit of being wrong lately - there was not a recession in 1988 in the US. There was some restructing in banking due to the S&L meltdown but the Resolution Trust Corproration helped sort out most of the mess. 

Karl


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> So should I stop contributions to my 401k and IRA and just spend the money on bespoke suits and expensive Scotch?


 I am with Ken,
sounds like a plan!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> WA,
> 
> Since you have been in the habit of being wrong lately - there was not a recession in 1988 in the US. There was some restructing in banking due to the S&L meltdown but the Resolution Trust Corproration helped sort out most of the mess.
> 
> Karl


Oh please. The S&L "meltdown" was big, but not remotely enough to cause a national recession, even the mild one of '88-89. It's simply astonishing how some people can talk themselves into delusion.

In 1988 we had just come off eight straight years of obscenely imbalanced budgets from Reagan, a spineless Congress who refused to stand up to him, Reagan flushing 3.5 TRILLION of our tax dollars down the toilet to his military-industrial friends, a QUADRUPLING of the national debt in just eight years, and the U.S. in just eight years being converted from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor. In other words, fiscal catastrophe. If this sounds familiar it's because we're dealing with it again -- the result of Supply Side Catastrophe, Episode II from Mr. Bush and the former Republican Congress.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Oh please. The S&L "meltdown" was big, but not remotely enough to cause a national recession, even the mild one of '88-89. It's simply astonishing how some people can talk themselves into delusion.
> 
> In 1988 we had just come off eight straight years of obscenely imbalanced budgets from Reagan, a spineless Congress who refused to stand up to him, Reagan flushing 3.5 TRILLION of our tax dollars down the toilet to his military-industrial friends, a QUADRUPLING of the national debt in just eight years, and the U.S. in just eight years being converted from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor. In other words, fiscal catastrophe. If this sounds familiar it's because we're dealing with it again -- the result of Supply Side Catastrophe, Episode II from Mr. Bush and the former Republican Congress.


I do not believe Karl said the S&L situation caused a recession. In fact, he specifically denied that was the case.

Good foaming anti-Repub rant though I can only give it 4/10. You might want to check your facts though, pretty sure the US was not the world's largest creditor nation after Carter. I could be wrong, let us see if someone has a citation.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> In 1988 we had just come off eight straight years of obscenely imbalanced budgets from Reagan, a spineless Congress who refused to stand up to him, Reagan flushing 3.5 TRILLION of our tax dollars down the toilet to his military-industrial friends, a QUADRUPLING of the national debt in just eight years, and the U.S. in just eight years being converted from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor. In other words, fiscal catastrophe. If this sounds familiar it's because we're dealing with it again -- the result of Supply Side Catastrophe, Episode II from Mr. Bush and the former Republican Congress.


I think I was incorrect. The data I find indicates were were a creditor nation until 1988. In 1988 we became a debtor, but not "the world's largest". That took some time. Who was President while the debt status continued to grow? Why it was Bill Clinton.



> This net creditor position grew unabated after World War II and into the 1980s, when large inflows of foreign investment once again turned the nation into a net international investment debtor. The U.S. net debtor status continued to grow through the 1990s


At:


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Oh please. The S&L "meltdown" was big, but not remotely enough to cause a national recession, even the mild one of '88-89. It's simply astonishing how some people can talk themselves into delusion.
> 
> In 1988 we had just come off eight straight years of obscenely imbalanced budgets from Reagan, a spineless Congress who refused to stand up to him, Reagan flushing 3.5 TRILLION of our tax dollars down the toilet to his military-industrial friends, a QUADRUPLING of the national debt in just eight years, and the U.S. in just eight years being converted from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor. In other words, fiscal catastrophe. If this sounds familiar it's because we're dealing with it again -- the result of Supply Side Catastrophe, Episode II from Mr. Bush and the former Republican Congress.


You are absolutely delusional, and obviously have no concept of economics.


President Reagan did not flush $3.5 trillion down the toilet. $3.5 trillion in assets went on the books. Net worth was increased.
Actual government revenues went up because of tax decreases, reducing the top marginal rates *from 76% to approximately 28%*.
Had GHW Bush continued President Reagan's growth policy, there would have been no recession in 1991-1992, and Bill Clinton would have been just another Democrat loser.
The government spending in the 1980's was strictly increases by a Democrat-controlled Congress. Reagan never once stated that he would balance the budget.
The budget during President Reagan's administration never grew any faster than the rate of growth of the US ecnonomy.
Because of government accounting methods, the budget can never be "balanced". The last time we had a surplus was FY ended 9/30/1980. The following year, a recession started. This always happens.
PS - It looks like that idiot Nancy Pelosi couldn't wait even 100 hours before she wanted to raise taxes. She even wanted to bypass the standing Ways and Means Committee to do this.

If you and the rest of the left wing crowd want to give more of your money so the government can pi$$ it down the drain on delusional socialist tax and spend policies, be my guest.

Learn both sides of the accounting equation, before you attempt to use media sensationalism to make a point.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I would have structured the article this way: 

Mrs Walters is typical of minimum-wage workers in many respects, according to figures from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute in Washington. 

Since being arrested two years ago over an altercation with her teenage son, she has worked her way from a homeless shelter to "an apartment complex that was filled with prostitutes and drug dealers" to a better apartment nearby, though still in what she calls a ghetto. 

She is also trying to pay off a credit card bill with 22.4% interest. "I got the credit card after my divorce in 1999 and it has helped me in certain situations...", she says ...

+ regardless of the life descisions that led her to this point she still blames George W. Bush.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> Republicans claim to be so smart- how come they're for the lowest wages? (low wages leaves lack of buying power, lack of buyers and business make less money- so, people that pay low wages are shooting themselves in the foot.)


Conservatives are for market wages not low wages. By definition, minimum-wages are those for totally unskilled, untrained workers. Conservatives want every person to earn a wage equal to the market value of their education, training, skill, and hard work. Unfortunately, we are stuck on the word "earn". Weren't you complaining about inflation in another thread? You should consider that lack of buyers and inflation are conflicting points of view. Please be consistent.

A question for you: How come Liberals want to give some people other people's hard earned money?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc:

How about more like this:

The Economic Policy Institute in Washington, an independent organization that analyzes the woe Republicans cause the "working poor", indicates that it is often women who are abused by their male offspring and then unfairly incarcerated. This leads to a vicious cycle of poverty for these mothers, often causing them to live in drug and prostitute infected areas, fighting to turn to these things themselves. They are often subject to predatory lending practices by the greedy credit card companies.....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Zegnamtl,

Perhaps you could contrast the price of your last bespoke garment with Ms. Walters' water bill.

Cheers!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> ksinc:
> 
> How about more like this:
> 
> The Economic Policy Institute in Washington, an independent organization that analyzes the woe Republicans cause the "working poor", indicates that it is often women who are abused by their male offspring and then unfairly incarcerated. This leads to a vicious cycle of poverty for these mothers, often causing them to live in drug and prostitute infected areas, fighting to turn to these things themselves. They are often subject to predatory lending practices by the greedy credit card companies.....


That's good. Perhaps you could work in there that Ronald Reagan once declared Ketchup a vegetable and you could win a Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Reagan flushing 3.5 TRILLION of our tax dollars down the toilet to his military-industrial friends


Frank, I didn't know you supported tax cuts! Welcome Friend! I mean Comrade!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's good. Perhaps you could work in there that Ronald Reagan once declared Ketchup a vegetable and you could win a Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting


The funny thing is, he was probably following ADA (American Diatetic Association) guidelines that classify ketchup as a vegetable. Also, remember when the Repubs wanted to substitute TVP (texturized vegetable protein) and tofu for a portion of protein servings? The Dems went nuts. Of course, 15 years later the Dems accused the Repubs of choking the arteries of poor students with plaque due to too much meat in school diets.....


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pendennis said:


> You are absolutely delusional, and obviously have no concept of economics.
> 
> 
> President Reagan did not flush $3.5 trillion down the toilet. $3.5 trillion in assets went on the books. Net worth was increased.


Now THAT is some serious delusion. Aside from being statistically incorrect (only a small percentage of Reagan's defense spending -- or any U.S. defense spending -- goes for "assets"), exactly whom do these "assets" benefit?

Read President Eisenhower's speech in 1961 which details and warns about the permanent armaments industry in this country. Since WWII U.S. defense spending has represented the largest squandering of wealth in human history, while the Pentagon has fabricated one boogeyman after another to keep themselves in business and growing. Would you like to review the list?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

No factual replies with citations for the other points Frank? Shocking.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

You seem to be an angry and delusional fellow with little grasp of history or economics. 

Given your name, Sgt. Hulka's words of wisdom are especially appropriate:

"Lighten up, Franics."

Karl

P.S. Equally amusing is how Lefties in recent years have taken up the Eisenhower torch, especially since they vilified him while in office. And besides you would have voted for Stevenson twice, anyway. So leave Ike out of your shabby arguments.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> No factual replies with citations for the other points Frank? Shocking.


Hardly. I mean, what are the chances Karl or you would ever admit the supply side economics theory was and is an unqualified fiscal catastrophe? It's been proven not once but twice, so it's abundantly clear facts merely get in the way of y'all's delusion.

Try to crack open your minds a bit and read the following:

Feel free to challenge any of the facts presented.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank:

Freeman, a notably left wing person, has taken many facts and connected them in a way you found attractive. Without having to bother to think, you now have "proof". For instance, he says:



> The results, we now know, were a disaster. In 1982, the first full year after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy actually shrank 2.2%...


So after the stagflation of the 70's, economic recovery was supposed to happen instantly? Of course it is.

He also gave you another tasty bit I am sure you lapped up:



> When Bill Clinton took office he intentionally reversed the Supply Side formula, raising taxes on the wealthy ...


Did he play around the margins or did he jack them back up like they were before the Reagan cuts? Around the margins of course. Further, he was the lucky recipient of a major shift in paradigm, the dotcom bubble, that is unlikely to happen again soon. Of course you would either not like this to be taken into account or will tell us Gore invented the 'Net.

Here is a perfect example of Freeman tossing out a tasty fact for a mindless lefty to gobble up.



> What actually happened?
> 
> Between 1992 and 2000......Real interest rates fell by over 40%


So tell me....who sets the interest rates? If Freeman wants to give that as a major reason behind the 90's boom, well then he better credit Greenspan, not Clinton. I realize that does not play into the paradigm, but reality bites, no?

You see Frank, facts can be used to mislead the simple and the ideologue. Which are you?

As someone has tried to instruct you, there are two sides to any equation. I dislike high spending by the government and feel it is wrong headed usually. I also dislike high taxation, as that directly impacts the indifference curves of those that fuel the economy. It really is not a Dem/Repub thing, but you insist on making it that way. If it were that simple, good old lefty John Lenon would have stayed in the UK and never written that little ditty called The Taxman. Even a lefty like John did not like, "19 for you and one for me..."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Forgot something. Bush I raised taxes. If raising taxes is good for the economy, why are you saying bad things happened during his tenure? You cannot have it both ways.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The recession I meant was a couple of years into the Bush presidency that was caused by the Democrat tax increase. There were a number of businesses that went under because of it, so how were the Democrats helping the poor by putting them out of jobs? By the way, the national debt was paid off in 6 years because of the Republicans and Clinton (the democrats and Clinton couldn't do it and never even tried).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC, I noticed you posted in the self-segregation thread today yet have abandoned this one for days now. I would have thought you would offer more "proof" in this thread.

Cheers


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Debates on religion and politics are almost always pointless. Even with 55% of American families now living from paycheck to paycheck, even with current income and wealth disparities that haven't been seen since the Great Depression, even with the record number of personal bankruptcies, home foreclosures etc etc, it's obvious no amount of evidence will suffice for you. Whether supply side economics "works" depends entirely on whether a person is already in the top 5% of income earners in the U.S. For everyone else it's been an unqualified disaster. Not once, but twice in the past 25 years.

And for the record, _Taxman_ was written by George Harrison not John Lennon.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Even with 55% of American families now living from paycheck to paycheck, even with current income and wealth disparities that haven't been seen since the Great Depression, even with the record number of personal bankruptcies, home foreclosures etc etc, it's obvious no amount of evidence will suffice for you. Whether supply side economics "works" depends entirely on whether a person is already in the top 5% of income earners in the U.S.


It is all in how one looks at it. Todays houses are bigger and better. Look at the TV's people are buying today. When you look inside houses that are being built and lived in there is much more than ever before. The buying power of people today from paycheck to paycheck is way more than before Reagan, and people are living it. Even most the poor are richer today than pre-Reagan, probably all of them.

So many people (mostly middle class) who invested during and after Reagan have been able to buy things they never could have bought before. So many of todays poor are like the middle class before Reagan. The bottom line is even the poorest are richer than ever before in America. I was reading a few years ago that America's poor are equal to European's lower middle class. That is a big improvement to what America's poor were before Reagan.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Debates on religion and politics are almost always pointless. Even with 55% of American families now living from paycheck to paycheck, even with current income and wealth disparities that haven't been seen since the Great Depression, even with the record number of personal bankruptcies, home foreclosures etc etc, it's obvious no amount of evidence will suffice for you. *Whether supply side economics "works" depends entirely on whether a person is already in the top 5% of income earners in the U.S.* For everyone else it's been an unqualified disaster. Not once, but twice in the past 25 years.
> 
> And for the record, _Taxman_ was written by George Harrison not John Lennon.


Frank, did I say who wrote it? No I did not. It would seem the point left some 747 skid marks on your head though as it went over your head.

So what you are saying in my bolded quote of yours is that unless one is already in the top 5%, one cannot join the top 5%. I have to say, if I thought like that, I would hate the successful people like you do too.

Now back to the "evidence". You did not give any I am afraid. I thought I had pointed out to you quite succinctly logical inconsistencies, i.e. your article bashed Bush I yet he raised taxes, then praises Clinton for an even smaller tax raise than Bush I's. I thought I also mentioned how the fall in interest rates during the 1990s that the article praised, was done under the guidance of Greenspan, anything but a high tax liberal. Yet you do not answer these points, instead you decide the best retort is to tell me who wrote the song Taxman. I think by any measure, a less than powerful response.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank, did I say who wrote it? No I did not. It would seem the point left some 747 skid marks on your head though as it went over your head.
> 
> So what you are saying in my bolded quote of yours is that unless one is already in the top 5%, one cannot join the top 5%. I have to say, if I thought like that, I would hate the successful people like you do too.
> 
> Now back to the "evidence". You did not give any I am afraid. I thought I had pointed out to you quite succinctly logical inconsistencies, i.e. your article bashed Bush I yet he raised taxes, then praises Clinton for an even smaller tax raise than Bush I's. I thought I also mentioned how the fall in interest rates during the 1990s that the article praised, was done under the guidance of Greenspan, anything but a high tax liberal. Yet you do not answer these points, instead you decide the best retort is to tell me who wrote the song Taxman. I think by any measure, a less than powerful response.


Just about all of that is incorrect, and illustrates why these debates are pointless.

No one said it's impossible for Americans to join the top 5% of wage earners.

No one bashed Bush I, my comments were related to Reagan and his voodoo supply side economics.

And one parting quote, regarding your last claim:
>> If it were that simple, good old lefty John Lenon would have stayed in the UK and never written that little ditty called The Taxman. <<

Finis.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And one parting quote, regarding your last claim:
> >> If it were that simple, good old lefty John Lenon would have stayed in the UK and never written that little ditty called The Taxman. <<


I do apologize, I should not have said "written". I should have said "performed". Now that we are done with that, can you see the point I was making? No, of course not.



FrankDC said:


> No one bashed Bush I, my comments were related to Reagan and his voodoo supply side economics.


What are you talking about? Did you even read the damn article you posted?



> ..George H.W. Bush was running an annual deficit of $290 billion per year.


QED


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

John Lennon did pen another tune called A WORKING CLASS HERO. All I know is good people, caring people coined right or left for a better word are concerned with these issues and equally stupid people, again both right and left aggravate and perpetrate them. I was greatly pleased and suprised by Our Governor Swartzenegger's recent inaugural and State of the Union speeches. I was opposed to him in the past. But Willie Brown as the host? Talk of a centrist platform with the best of both sides contributing? Even Attorney General Jerry Brown was smiling in approval! Maybe his motives should be suspect, him being a Kennedy and all that. But it was refreshing for a change.


----------

