Obama Voters Suffer Most Under Obama Economy

38 Shares
mom0905_image

The cynic might say that President Barack Obama is pushing to make war on Syria to distract Americans from the myriad scandals swirling around his Administration and/or his failed efforts at economic recovery. But while there are deeper issues behind the push to war (which we have been and will continue to explore elsewhere), war talk has served to push big issues to the back pages.

For instance, recovery summer never materialized — not in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013 — despite predictions by Obama and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. And guess who’s hurt the most by Obama’s policies. It’s Obama’s core demographic.

Obama received 51 percent of the vote in 2012. The five demographic groups he carried and the percentage that voted for him were youths (60 percent), single women (67 percent), blacks (93 percent), Hispanics (71 percent), and those without a high school diploma (64 percent).

According to a report by Sentier Research, since recovery summer was announced in 2009, households headed by single women have seen their incomes fall by 7 percent, and those under age 25 have seen their incomes drop 9.6 percent.

The incomes for black heads-of-household have dropped by 10.9 percent, and Hispanic heads-of-household have seen theirs drop 4.5 percent. For those with a high school diploma or less, incomes dropped 8 percent. (Incomes fell 6.9 percent for those with less than a high school diploma and 9.3 percent for those with one.)

In dollar terms, female heads of household saw their annual salaries drop by $2,300. Black-led households saw their annual salaries drop by more than $4,000, and Hispanic-led households saw their annual salaries drop $2,000.

Gallup released its monthly Payroll-to-Population survey yesterday. It showed that only 43.7 percent of the eligible population is employed, and it pegged unemployment at 8.7 percent. In 2012, those numbers were 45.3 percent and 8.1 percent.

So much for hope and change.

Personal Liberty

Bob Livingston

founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Robbie

    Seems the only way to solve the problem outlined above would be to INCREASE the Bush tax breaks to the mega rich. They’re the ones who create jobs remember?

    • Frank Kahn

      Actually, partially true, but we just need the government to get the hell out of the way entirely. Taxation is a very small part of the problem. Regulations is a big killer of jobs, and Obama(not)care is destroying most jobs for low wage income families.

      • Robbie

        We the people in the pursuit of happiness have a right to proper health care. Proper health care should not be available only to rich people. In the meanwhile what are some of the regulations that kill jobs that you are talking about?

        • rbrooks

          minimum wage laws, safe working environments, hazardous waste disposal, workmans comp, unemployment insurance, etc.

          comrade davey can explain it you.

          • Jack

            Rbrooks:

            No one can explain things to them. Some old time sayings apply to them:

            “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks”

            “They can’t see the forest for the trees”

            “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”.

        • Gary

          Just wait until Obamacare fails and is replaced with single-payer government healthcare. Then no one from “we the people” will have proper healthcare. And there will no longer be a US to go to for healthcare for the rich and connected.

          • fenix1

            THAT has been the goal all along my Friends!

        • Ried

          Proper health care is not a right, it is an individual responsibility to stay healthy. Luck, genetics, and healthy lifestyle help with health. Where is it written that health care is a “right”? Is health care something that is provided with no cost?

          • Robbie

            Is there a right to have others pay when the fire dept. arrives to put your house fire out? Think about it. There are certain things that should be shared by all of society. In Canada we consider hospitals, doctors, nurses etc as in a similar way as to the fire dept. When there is a need the services are there for one and all. And if one never needs a doctor or fireman you don’t hear complaints about that anyway. Not many folks are keen on having a house fire or getting in to a car wreck.

          • Ried

            The history of fire departments involved open discussion, debate, and establishment of local taxes to fund the wide variety of operations that are unique to particular communities, A fire department is not a right, it is a reasoned choice that continues to be discussed whenever services and funding are opening discussed by various communities. If you do not like your local fire department or how it is run you can move to a different location.

            The “affordable healthcare act” aka “Obamacare” was not subject to the same level of open discussion when it was crammed down the throats of the US. That is a significant difference.

          • Robbie

            I can’t think of an issue discussed as much as health care. And, by the way, I’d suggest that you could move as often as you like but you’re ALWAYS going to be not too far away from fire and other publically funded first responders.

            Plus the funny thing about the health care issue is that pre Obamacare when folks put off medical treatment until they had to land in the ER it was all payed for by tax dollars anyway. Better and cheaper in the long run for everyone to be forced to have coverage – an once of prevention and all that kind of thing rather than a pound of cure.

          • Ried

            You obviously never lived in North Dakota where some parts of the state might be an hour away from a first responder.. Add more time if a blizzard is in progress.

            Funny thing is before WW2, doctors sometimes were paid off with hogs, chickens, or other farm produce because farmers did not have the cash. That was before employers started offering paid health insurance to attract workers into their factories.

            Guess what, with the mis-named “Affordable Health Act” people are still going to put off getting medical care. BTW, everyone is “forced” to have car insurance. Why is there still an option to buy “uninsured motorist coverage”? You want Uncle Sugar to pay to keep your car fixed up too?

            If you have an open mind, I suggest you read Renee Herzlinger’s book “Who Killed Healthcare?” She offers real free market solutions that unfortunately republicans or democrats do not seem to want to touch.

          • Robbie

            You are correct that I’ve never lived in North Dakota.

            As far as health care insurance goes I guess I really do think in terms of large city scale or places near to modern facilities. Perhaps paying your local doctor off with a hog – the good old days as you said – might still work where you live but I simply can’t see it working in population centres. By the way, how many hogs would it take to pay for a heart bypass operation? Maybe you’d have to toss in a few chickens as well!

          • Ried

            My point is people used to do a fair job of managing their health care before “big brother” decided to get involved.

            Again, I challenge you to read “Who Killed Healthcare”. Also, read the “Affordable Healthcare Act”. When you read the actual law, you will notice it is written to protect big insurance companies, big pharmacuticals, and big government. I did not see any thing when I read the bill that indicated the patients or doctors would be protected..

          • Robbie

            Oft times the ‘good old days’ were actually not that great. At the moment we have more and more people than ever before and folks are living a lot longer all of which means the need for new ways of dealing with issues. Big insurance companies and big pharmaceuticals should be carefully regulated to prevent exploitation.

          • smilee

            It was discussed for 100 years before it became law so it was not crammed sown your shoats

        • John Cherish

          Yes you may have a need for proper health care but that is something you should take care of yourself, you can choose to live healthy, to buy your own insurance etc. But when you insist that someone else pay for your health care (the government by taxation) then you are shirking your responsibility and putting the burden on someone else so that they should pay for theirs and yours because you don’t want to. You want the benefits without the sacrifice. A good example of Obama care is to look at Canada or England. In England people die waiting for medical treatments they have Universal health care provided to everyone. It is too bad it doesn’t work

          • Robbie

            It works very nicely in Canada thank you very much.

        • Frank Kahn

          The PPAHCA does nothing to improve health care. It is about forcing everyone to pay for insurance. Everyone already has the ability to get health care, liberals just want everyone to pay the cost of health care insurance for the high risk people.

          Jobs killers

          Minimum wage
          99% of all EPA regulations
          queer rights protections

          Might not be regulation

          NAFTA
          ALL OTHER FREE TRADE POLICIES
          PRO UNION POLICIES
          Ineffective education (no child left behind)
          high tax burdens on businesses
          farm subsidies
          OBAMACARE

          Any regulation, or policy, that causes a business to reduce its labor force (number of employees or hours worked), reduces its incentive to expand its work force or to not start up a new business is a job killer. Any policy, or regulation, that makes it more profitable to move jobs over seas is a job killer. Any policy, or regulation, that interferes with the capitalistic economy is, ultimately a job killer.

          • Robbie

            The high risk people – as you call them – with no coverage currently put off health care due to lack of money. These would be low wage workers who simply can not afford private health insurance. So what happens is that they wait and wait until they or a child in their family has to go to the ER. This is the MOST EXPENSIVE form of health care and is carried out when the problems are far worse than if the person(s) had taken preventative actions earlier. And the stupid thing is that this is paid for by the taxpayers anyway! So why not cover one and all and reduce costs of ER treatment which should be only a last resort to begin with?

          • Frank Kahn

            Typical liberal logic, why fix the problem when you can force everyone to pay for it. Forcing everyone to get insurance does nothing to solve the problem, in the health care industry. It only makes it less expensive, for a few, by making healthy people pay more.

            You are correct, it is stupid to make people wait until it is an emergency for health care services. It is stupid to force everyone to pay for their insurance. If you want to reduce the cost, make it so they can see a doctor before it gets to be an emergency. The tax dollars required to do this would be much less than waiting. Feeding the insurance company more money does nothing to make the cost of care go down, it only gives them more money.

            By forcing the inclusion of insurance companies, you ainclude the need for their profit to be added to the overall cost of the care. What sense does that make?

          • Robbie

            Funnily enough I am in agreement with what you’ve pointed out in this last posting. I am told that in the U.S. a full 30% of health care dollars goes directly to insurance company share holders. Here in Canada we think that that is truly nuts. That’s why our universal health care system is better than Obamacare which needed too many compromises to pass. Here the government uses tax revenues to pay for health care services and when any citizen needs a health service it is there for the asking. We do pay higher taxes all around (because nothing is ever free) but – trust me – when you need a doctor or hospital it is a miracle – you simply get the care you need no matter what. And we don’t have any of this nonsense where you can be turned away (as your insurance companies do) anyone with a pre-existing condition.

          • Jack

            Robbie:

            Frank Kahn is another person on this site who practices the “don’t confuse me with the facts” type of thinking. He thinks he knows it all and no matter what the facts are he won’t believe anything that conflicts with his preconceived ideas. If something conflicts with one of his “ideas” he wouldn’t believe it was true even if God himself told him that it was.

            He is like a rabid dog in his hatred for anything union. He said that back in the 1990’s he was making 1,000 times what an average worker was making, that he has lots of money and that unions never did anything to him (cost him a job, mistreated him, etc.). The only reasons he gave for his hatred were (he claims) they use force or the threat of force and they have caused massive inflation over the past five years despite the fact that during that time inflation has actually been relatively low.

            When I stated that Barry Goldwater and William Buckley were prime examples of what conservatism used to be compared to what we now have, his response was and I quote “WHO GIVES A FLYING FCK WHO THEY WERE”, (the caps were his language).

            I made a posting in response to his in which I stated that “the liberal left hasn’t destroyed anything in modern society”. The following is his response, including the caps:

            “LET ME SEE, KILLING BABIES IS OKAY SHOVING IT UP YOUR BROTHERS BUTT IS OKAY
            CHRISTIANS ARE EXTREMISTS
            MUSLIMS ARE WONDERFUL PEOPLE
            UNIONS ARE GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY
            CAPITALISM IS BAD
            GOVERNMENT CAN CONTINUE TO SPEND LIKE A DRUNKEN SAILOR, JUST TAKE EVERYONES
            MONEY TO PAY FOR IT
            TRAVON WAS MURDERED BECAUSE A BLACK MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT WHITE PEOPLE
            WITHOUT FEAR OF RETALIATION.
            WHITE PEOPLE ARE ALL RACIST
            BLACKS DESERVE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THEY CAN TAKE FROM WHITE PEOPLE
            BLACKS DESERVE TO ATTEND THE BEST COLLEGES BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK
            YOU HAVE TO HIRE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK
            YOU CANT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST QUEERS, IT MIGHT HURT THEIR FEELINGS

            He went on to say “Bigoted? No, fed up with the stupidity of liberal idiots making the world a rotten place for the poor and middle class.

            IF YOU ARE NOT RICH AND IN A UNION YOU ARE JUST A PIECE OF CRAP TO LIBERALS. AND FORGET IT IF YOU ARE WHITE, THEY ALL DESERVE TO BE BEATEN OR KILLED”.

            A person has to be pretty out of it to really believe that the Dems/liberals only care about the rich and that the Repubs/conservatives only care about common people.

            Lastly, he thinks that the economic policies of deregulation, free trade, etc. are not conservative policies.

            I will end this all to long post with a shout out to Frank.

            Hey Frank. how is that $20 million doing that you said you had stashed overseas?. Did you ever get around to reporting it to the IRS as the law requires? Oh yeah, I forgot,the $20 million was just another one of your exaggerations.

          • Robbie

            Good to hear your comments.

          • Robbie

            You feel we should eliminate the minimum wage in order to create jobs? How would that work?

          • Frank Kahn

            It is basic economics, the higher pay that is required, the less employees a company can afford to hire, and maintain their profit margin. It goes to cost to benefit equations. If the employee is paid more, without producing more, the company loses money.

          • Robbie

            Frank, I’ll tell you what’s basic. A company will only hire more workers if there is a need for them. If sales are low it matters not how low taxes are the owner will still not hire anyone. The owner will hire only if there is demand for the product or service his company provides. And there will only be increased demand if folks are earning enough. Therefore raising the minimum wage will result in increased demand for stuff which in turn means more work. If a society decides to keep the majority in a state of near poverty you are not going to ever have a growing economy. The problem with right wing folks is that they are ultra self centred and are not concerned with the wider picture.

          • Frank Kahn

            Liberal stupidity strikes again. You are so blind you would shoot your bull for food instead of a cow.

            “Frank, I’ll tell you what’s basic. A company will only hire more workers if there is a need for them. If sales are low it matters not how low taxes are the owner will still not hire anyone. ”

            If taxes are high, he cannot afford to hire them, even if demand is greater. But stick to the question of minimum wage here.

            “The owner will hire only if there is demand for the product or service his company provides. And
            there will only be increased demand if folks are earning enough. ”

            A correct assumption, however, you are missing the point. It is not his employees that will buy more of his product, it is the public. If he is forced to double the price of his goods or services, there will be no increase in sales. Actually, there will be a decrease and he will be forced to reduce the hours of his employees. Increased cost of production ALWAYS increases the cost of the product. The only people who benefit from increased minimum wages, is the people who are getting paid minimum wage. Since, as you seem to think, these people need the money for basic living necessities, they will not suddenly start buying big mac’s at MacDonald’s, which is where the minimum wage increase will have its effects.

            “Therefore raising the minimum wage will result in increased demand for stuff which in turn means more work. ”

            WRONG WRONG WRONG, IT WILL INCREASE THE COST OF THE PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY LOW WAGE UNSKILLED WORKERS. IT WILL FORCE THE EMPLOYER TO EITHER RAISE THEIR PRODUCTS PRICES OR REDUCE THE LABOR FORCE.

            “If a society decides to keep the majority in a state of near poverty you are not going to ever have a
            growing economy. ”

            Ah, the ephemeral poverty line. What exactly is the nations definition of poverty? I deal with people who live in poverty, they would kill for a chance to make $5 an hour. They don’t dream about a vacation, or new school clothes, they dream about having food for a meal every day. And, I mean 1 meal a day. Will raising the minimum wage from $7.50 to $15.00 help them? NOPE, because there are no jobs.

            “The problem with right wing folks is that they are
            ultra self centred and are not concerned with the wider picture.”

            THE PROBLEM WITH THE LEFT WING IS THEY ARE ULTRA LIBERAL WITH EVERYONE ELSES MONEY. I DON’T EAT AT MCDONALD’S, BUT IF I DID, I CERTAINLY WOULDN’T CONTINUE IF THEIR CHEESE BURGER WAS SUDDENLY $5.00 INSTEAD OF $2.50.

            RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE WILL NOT HELP PEOPLE GET OUT OF POVERTY, THEY WILL JUST HAVE MORE MONEY TO SPEND ON HIGHER PRICED GOODS THAT THEY STILL CAN’T AFFORD.

          • Robbie

            Raising the minimum wage will allow folks to spend a bit more on things beyond the essentials. That’s what we call demand. And if there is increased demand over the entire economy businesses would need to hire people to fill that demand. If you have policies that keep money out of the hands of consumers you are going to have less consumption. If there is more consumption then businesses will do better and their owners will be able to take that vacation you mentioned. But if you prefer to have money hoarded by business owners the economy will not grow and everyone suffers as a result.

          • Frank Kahn

            Just go ahead and believe whatever fantasy you want. But look at the numbers of the economy. Obama’s policies, along with Obamacare have tanked the economy even worse. We are now in a full blown depression, not just a recession anymore. Thank you mr. Obama, you are a wonderful piece of liberal moronic crap.

          • Robbie

            Actually all indicators on the economy are positive. No one credible says we are in a depression let alone a full blown depression. No one but you and whatever wacko right wing radio talk show you listen to.

          • Frank Kahn

            Name one economic indicator that is positive. And the stock market is not one.

            Unemployment UP
            GDP DOWN
            Inflation UP
            Housing market A JOKE

            pick one and give us all a good laugh at your positive spin on the economy

          • rbrooks

            the ‘public’ that you state will be the customer. where will that public get the money to buy those goods.

            as we continue to increase the number of minimal pay, and fewer hours positions, that public, also known as a customer base, will continue to shrink.

            no one will ever buy bread if it goes over a dollar a loaf.

            the country will stop buying milk if it goes over a dollar a gallon.

            the country will not stand by and pay more than a dollar for a gallon of gas.

            i can remember $.10 hamburgers. $.16 a gallon gas. a carton of cigarettes was $2.

            the country is still here and you are you are still buying products at the higher rate.

            according to you, and the other neo socialists, paying folks more is bad.

            so lets start cutting those wages. we can start at the top and work our way down. instead of a minimum wage, we can pass a maximum wage. you claim no one really needs that money and those lower paid individuals will allow company’s to hire even more low paid employees.

            lead by example. refuse to accept more than 7.50 an hour.

            what is interesting about all of you low wage supporters, is you only support low wages for someone else. never for your self.

          • Frank Kahn

            What a LIBERAL crock.

            “the ‘public’ that you state will be the customer. where will that public get the money to buy those goods. ”

            As a liberal, you will never understand economics. You all want the sky, but it costs more to reach the heavens. The more you demand, the more it costs. You are the cause of inflation.

            “as we continue to increase the number of minimal pay, and fewer hours positions, that public, also known as a customer base, will continue to shrink. ”

            YES, SO TELL OBAMA TO STOP CREATING A SITUATION THAT IS CAUSING A LAND SLIDE OF LOW PAY PART TIME JOBS.

            “no one will ever buy bread if it goes over a dollar a loaf. ”

            I still don’t

            “the country will stop buying milk if it goes over a dollar a gallon.”

            Without government interference, unions and agribusiness it would still be less than a dollar.

            “the country will not stand by and pay more than a dollar for a gallon of gas.”

            Well, again, without government interference, and big oil conglomerates, it would not be above one dollar.

            “i can remember $.10 hamburgers. $.16 a gallon gas. a carton of cigarettes was $2. ”

            And your point is? I remember gas wars where it was only 5 cents a gallon, and McDonald’s sold cheese burgers for 10 cents. But, then we had inflation.

            “the country is still here and you are you are still buying products at the higher rate. ”

            Yes, and a much higher rate than we should.

            “according to you, and the other neo socialists, ”

            I dare you to find any, generally accepted, authority that says capitalism is neo-socialism.

            “paying folks more is bad.”

            NO SENIOR BURRO, NON VERITAS SEI DIECI. actually my Italian is better than my Mexican, so I might have that last word wrong. We never said that paying more is bad. We are saying you should pay only what the market allows. Forcing higher pay causes inflation.

            “so lets start cutting those wages. we can start at the top and work our way down. instead of a minimum wage, we can pass a maximum wage. ”

            Typical liberal argument of absurdity. Maybe we should pay according to one ability to comprehend reality. NOPE, then you would not get paid.

            “you claim no one really needs that money and those lower paid individuals will allow company’s to hire even more low paid employees. ”

            And, then you cross over from absurdity to stupidity. I can quote ever single word I have posted, and you will not hear one time where I said nobody needs that money. And, if you had, even rudimentary, comprehension you would know just how stupid the next part was. I said “if you raise the minimum wage, employers will have to reduce the number of employees or their work hours to maintain their profit margin.” UNTIL YOU GET A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, AND CAPITALISTIC ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES, YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT IT.

            “lead by example. refuse to accept more than 7.50 an hour. ”

            If I decide to take a menial, entry level, minimum wage job, I will gladly accept the pay offered. If I want to earn more money, I will strive to learn a skill that is worth more to a company.

            “what is interesting about all of you low wage supporters, is you only support low wages for someone else. never for your self.”

            WRONG EL STUPIDO. My first job paid $1.00 a day. My second job paid $1.00 an hour. When I joined the Air Force, my base pay was $90.00 a month. I didn’t make much money back then, because I had no marketable skills. Now, I have advanced education, and years of experience in several fields. So now I make more money. That is how capitalism works. You get paid for your value to the company, not just because the government says you deserve it.

          • rbrooks

            so you do not how or where that low wage public will find the disposable income to purchase. typical of the low wage supporters. you think the money comes from a tree.

            tell the politicians, from both party’s, to stop importing cheap labor immigrants.

            simply because you don’t that bread did stop the majority of the country from buying that $3 a loaf bread.

            the fallacy of your position is that we have enough higher paying jobs for the skilled educated experienced labor. it is as ignorant as your assumption that only unskilled uneducated and inexperienced individuals fill low wage positions.

            you didn’t make much money compared to what? what was the minimum wage at that time. what was the cost of living.

            i see you are not going to demand a low wage for your self. you simply give asinine reasons everyone else should accept those low wages. typical.

            that last argument is really amusing. you get paid what the company is willing to pay. regardless of how productive you may or may not be.

            mcdonalds pays a very small amount for their labor. that same labor you consider to be worthless makes mcdonalds a fair amount of profit.

            tho even mcdonalds and walmart are starting to see the detrimental affects of low wages.

          • Frank Kahn

            Until you remove the Marxist disease from your thoughts you will never be able to see the truth about economics.

            “so you do not how or where that low wage public will find the disposable income to purchase. ”

            Life is hard, you have to work hard to improve your value, if you don’t, then don’t cry to everyone else about how you can’t feed your family of 4 on minimum wage.

            “typical of the low wage supporters. ”

            OOPS, you dropped back into LIBERAL BS. Just because we believe in the free market principles of capitalism, does not mean we SUPPORT LOW WAGES. There is a reason that minimum wage jobs are called ENTRY LEVEL POSITIONS. You are not supposed to make a career out of that type of job.

            “you think the money comes from a tree.”

            Y, yes I do. Actually, money is printed on paper (usually) and paper comes from trees. However, your statement is just another liberal tactic of using ridicule to avoid the issue.

            “tell the politicians, from both party’s, to stop importing cheap labor immigrants. ”

            Damn, you actually got one right. But I doubt that you know the real reason that it is a problem. Once again, it comes down to free market forces. The higher the supply, without an increase in demand, keeps the cost low, or even reduces it. So, having more unskilled workers in the work force keeps wages low.

            “simply because you don’t that bread did stop the majority of the country from buying that $3 a loaf bread. ”

            But, I can still buy a loaf of bread for $.87, so why pay more.

            “the fallacy of your position is that we have enough higher paying jobs for the skilled educated experienced labor. ”

            Please feel free to cut and paste the post where I said any such thing.

            “it is as ignorant as your assumption that only unskilled uneducated and inexperienced individuals fill low wage positions. ”

            Actually, the true ignorance is that you assume that I have that opinion. I am well aware, that the job killing effects of government interference has caused a massive reduction in the availability of high paying, high tech jobs. As such, many people are working in low wage jobs that they are extremely over qualified for. However, being a trained computer tech, does not increase your ability, or worth, at cooking burgers at McDonalds.

            “you didn’t make much money compared to what? what was the minimum wage at that time. ”

            Minimum wage was $1 / hour when I was working 10 to 12 hours a day, moving irrigation pipes, for $1 a day. I also received free room and board at the job site. That is a form of barter.

            “what was the cost of living. ”

            The year was 1971, I don’t have the actual numbers for cost of living then, but I can assure you that it was more than $1 a day ($30 a month), or even $8 a day ($160 a month).

            “i see you are not going to demand a low wage for your self. ”

            LIBERAL BS AGAIN. Why do you people think that we need to DEMAND LESS PAY? We accept the accepted market value of our skills, demanding that your employer pay you less, would be stupid. It might even lose you the job.

            “you simply give asinine reasons everyone else should accept those low wages.”

            NO, it is asinine to think that the government has the right to impose unnatural prices on commodities, such as labor.

            “typical. ”

            Typical of what, someone that uses logic, instead of emotional hyperbole for reasoning?

            “that last argument is really amusing. you get paid what the company is willing to pay. regardless of how productive you may or may not be. ”

            NO, the employer will pay what the market forces them to pay to keep good workers. I have never worked at McDonalds, but I am sure I can step up and fry burgers, or run a french fry machine. Almost all healthy, working age, Americans could do this so there is no pressure for a company to pay them high wages.

            “mcdonalds pays a very small amount for their labor. ”

            McDonalds provides cheap fast food, they can do this because the cost of labor is low. Raising that cost will raise the price of their food.

            “that same labor you consider to be worthless makes mcdonalds a fair amount of profit. ”

            You are the only person, in this exchange, that has referred to them as WORTHLESS. They are paid what they are worth, what the current market forces have deemed to be a fair compensation for their unskilled services.

            “tho even mcdonalds and walmart are starting to see the detrimental affects of low wages.”

            Lets see the logic behind that ridiculous statement. A corrupt, large national Union, has instigated protests against McDonalds. They are demanding a LIVING WAGE for people that have nothing to offer. The protesting workers can, and will, lose their jobs for this stupidity. McDonalds is not suffering from all this rhetoric, only the crybaby liberals feel better about themselves for causing trouble. And Walmart? HAHAHA, walmart is thumbing it nose at this liberal crap. They cancelled 3 new stores because of higher wage demands. OOPS, hundreds of low wage workers suddenly became no wage workers. And that is called true capitalism winning in the war against liberal policies.

          • rbrooks

            you can not show where your customer base is going to come from. you continue to talk, in circles.

            your entire tirade is in support of low wages. low wage, or minimum wage positions, have not been called entry level positions for a couple of decades now.

            money is printed on rag paper. made from cotton and linen. not from tree cellulose.

            you have made several references pertaining to the ‘worth’ of an individual.

            >They are demanding a LIVING WAGE for people that have nothing to offer.<

            walmart has seen sales revenue and profits drop. as has mcdonalds, dell, hp and all of the other low wage corporations.

            your logic is as poor as walmart not increasing market share. thumbing your nose at a paying customer.

            your knowledge of economics is as poor as your knowledge of 'paper' money.

          • Frank Kahn

            liberal bs mixed with marxism is all you have.

            “you can not show where your customer base is going to come from. ”

            If you want a detailed description of customer base for business, it will take me about 10 years and several books to give you a definitive answer. The customer base for walmart is much different than for Costco. One is made up of low wage earners and the other is rich people. Much the same as McDonalds, it is low wage earners whereas Outback Steak house panders to more wealthy clientele. While, it is possible for more affluent people to patronize these two stores, their main customer base is the poor. They set their prices at a level where the poor can afford their products. A, minimum wage burger flipper, at McDonalds, can afford to eat at McDonalds, however, if they are smart they won’t waste their money on fast food.

            “you continue to talk, in circles. your entire tirade is in support of low wages. low wage, or minimum
            wage positions, have not been called entry level positions for a couple of decades now. ”

            Wrong again, McDonalds is an entry level position, as is a stock boy or sales clerk at Walmart. Minimum wage is not intended for providing a living wage, never was, and never should be. If you can’t move up from minimum wage then you have a personal problem.

            “money is printed on rag paper. made from cotton and linen. not from tree cellulose.”

            BIG DIDDLY SQUAT, IT IS FRICKIN PAPER.

            “you have made several references pertaining to the ‘worth’ of an individual. ”

            WORTH OF A PERSON AS AN EMPLOYEE, OR WAGE EARNER. NOT TO BE CONFUSED AS WORTH AS A PERSON.

            “>They are demanding a LIVING WAGE for people that have nothing to offer.<"

            Correct, they are making an unreasonable, and unreasoning demand for a living wage for doing a menial task that is not meant to be a life supporting occupation.

            "walmart has seen sales revenue and profits drop. as has mcdonalds, dell, hp and all of the other low wage corporations."

            Strange, you are the only person I have encountered who spouts this nonsense. The current loss of revenue, and profits, is due to the worthless economy that Obama has created.

            "your logic is as poor as walmart not increasing market share. thumbing your nose at a paying customer."

            LIBERAL BS AGAIN, WALMART IS THUMBING ITS NOSE AT LIBERAL BUREAUCRATS THAT WANT TO FORCE THEM OUT OF BUSINESS. WALMARTS MAKET SHARE IS DETERMINED BY ITS ABILITY TO PROVIDE GOODS AT EXTREMELY LOW PRICES. TO DO THIS THEY NEED TO KEEP THE COST OF RUNNING THE STORE LOW. HENCE THE LOW WAGES. AND MY LOGIC IS BASED ON SOLID FACTS, YOUR LOGIC IS BASED ON LIBERAL EMOTIONAL BS.

            "your knowledge of economics is as poor as your knowledge of 'paper' money."

            COME ON MORON, SHOW ME SOME ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE! Maybe your liberal Keynesian economic bs will help you find solace in a totally dead economy. I sure hope so, because that is exactly where you and Obama are leading this country.

          • rbrooks

            it took me a couple minutes to show what a customer base is and how it affects business.

            your own philosophy is leading to a shrinking customer base.

            mcdonalds workers are not able to afford the products they produce. which is the problem.

            you should study henry ford. he understood how the game is played.

            the supply side low wage economy we currently have started back in the early 80’s. the end results were predicted. you will have to find someone other than obama or bush to blame for that.

            you have shown how low wages are the cause and the affect.

            you may find all of those low wage folks to be worthless.

            what would you do without them.

            proven economic models always include a balanced wage/cola ratio. your model does not have that and we see the detrimental results.

          • rbrooks

            >However, if you take into consideration the additional jobs created by
            the companies that are supporting the automation, there is probably a
            net increase in actual jobs.<

            you had to look up what supply side economics is.

            you ignore the results and the goal of bonzo's policy's.

            you lack the knowledge to have an intelligent discussion on this issue.

            you sound a lot like old daveh.

            keep pushing your neo socialist policy.

            stop whining about the results.

          • Frank Kahn

            Yes, I had the intelligence to research my response, instead of going off half cocked without facts.

            “you had to look up what supply side economics is.”

            Not exactly true, I had to do some research to see if the assertion made was ever discussed in the time of its implementation. IT WAS NOT.

            “you ignore the results and the goal of bonzo’s policy’s.”

            I did not ignore anything. The goal of Reagan’s policies was to improve the economy. It was to create a dynamic structure that would increase jobs creation. It was also focused on increasing revenue through a stronger economy. It had nothing to do with creating low wage jobs.

            “you lack the knowledge to have an intelligent discussion on this issue. ”

            You lack the ability to reason, you use your own personal, emotion based, opinions to put forth incorrect ideas.

            “you sound a lot like old daveh. ”

            I would allow anyone on the site, that is not a liberal moron, to either dispute or validate that piece of nonsense.

            “keep pushing your neo socialist policy. ”

            Let me see here a liberal (socialist / Marxist) by definition is accusing me of socialist policy when I am pushing free market capitalism?

            “stop whining about the results.”

            I have a perfect RIGHT to complain about the results of massive socialistic policies being forced on us by liberals in government.

            When we start treating people like humans, with morals and ethics, we will be a great nation again. As long as we keep pushing people onto welfare, murdering babies and worshiping queers we will suffer.

          • rbrooks

            lol. you admitted to having to look it up.

            you claim they may be, probably is, a net increase in jobs due to the 2nd industrial revolution. i guess you missed the numerous studies showing the opposite. you have no idea.

            you have no idea what a liberal or a socialist is. nor any clue what socialism is.

            socialism is simply a form of economics. nothing more.

            you simply parrot labels when you are unable to support your ridiculous position.

            reagans goal was a bit more than your statement. and his end results have been incorrectly blamed on both bush and obama.

            you probably missed his wonderful changes to social security as well.

            he did want to create jobs. little bush tried to sell the same failed policy that you are trying to sell. lower taxes, additional subsidizes for business and increased cheap labor immigrants which has resulted in lower wages

            you complain about the lack of higher paying positions while ignoring what happened to those positions. the job still exists. the wage has been lowered.

            you have failed to show how you will keep the current customer base, much less where any new customers will come from.

            the public was your answer. the public includes all of those low wage positions you want to increase.

            marketable skills is a meaningless phrase. you can not show where where these – marketable skill- higher paying jobs are or how you are going to create the additional positions that are expanding population will require.

            minimum wage has not kept with cola. even worse, the national average wage has not kept up with cola.

            you blame one side for all of the problems. it has been a combined effort. an effort that you have supported.

            you suffer from ignorant emotions.

          • Frank Kahn

            BS does not really cover the total stupidity of your mind.

            “lol. you admitted to having to look it up.”

            Since you are incapable of understanding the facts, maybe looking it up would be a good idea for you. Your so f’in stupid I doubt it will help though.

            “you claim they may be, probably is, a net increase in jobs due to the 2nd industrial revolution. i guess you missed the numerous studies showing the opposite. you have no idea. ”

            I don’t need liberal studies, I was living it, there was no major loss of jobs during the 1980 – 1995 era.

            “you have no idea what a liberal or a socialist is. nor any clue what socialism is. socialism is simply a form of economics. nothing more. ”

            Socialism is not simply economics, only an ignorant idiot like you would make such an insane declaration. Socialism is government control of supply and services, it is government control of all production and ownership. It depends on the type of socialism, and the definition of government is more broad than just what we call government. But, socialism is government (the rule of the minority) controlling the economy, for the benefit of those it (the ruling minority) considers to be deserving. Socialism is completely antithetical to free market capitalism. I understand the two concepts perfectly. I just don’t understand how any supposed human can be so bereft of an iota of intellect, as you seem to be.

            “you simply parrot labels when you are unable to support your ridiculous position. ”

            I use the correct labels, you use idiotic, emotional, fantasy based opinions, with no facts.

            “reagans goal was a bit more than your statement. and his end results have been incorrectly blamed on both bush and obama.”

            YOUR PATHETICALLY INSANE LIBERAL / SOCIALIST / MARXIST DILLUISIONS IS TO BLAME FOR YOUR IDIOTIC IDEAS. You FEEL (EMOTIONS) that Reagan must have caused something that YOU THINK is BAD. You have no proof, no way of connecting action to result. Obama has no cover, his lack of leadership, disdain for normal market forces and his desire to be a hero to the Muslim Brotherhood is the cause of most problems in the world today.

            “you probably missed his wonderful changes to social security as well. ”

            OBAMA IS THE PROBLEM, YOU F’N LIBERALS CAN WHINE AND CRY IT WAS ALL REAGAN’S OR BUSH’S FAULT, BUT FACTS ALL POINT TO IT BEING THE WORK OF OBAMA AND THE WORTHLESS MORONIC LIBERALS IN CONTROL OF THE NATION THAT IS PUSHING US THROUGH THE MOST DEVASTATING DEPRESSION EVER WITNESSED IN THE FREE WORLD.

            “he did want to create jobs. little bush tried to sell the same failed policy that you are trying to sell. lower taxes, additional subsidizes for business and increased cheap labor immigrants which has resulted in lower wages”

            You cannot claim that bush tried to sell the same policies as me and then state the exact opposite of what I am espousing. Lower taxes is good for the economy, any respectable economist will agree with that statement. I have always condemned subsidies in any form. And I think all worthless, uneducated, low wage earning immigrants should be either deported or shot.

            “you complain about the lack of higher paying positions while ignoring what happened to those positions. the job still exists. the wage has been lowered. ”

            PURE LIBERAL BS, THE WAGE FOR THE POSITIONS HAS NOT BEEN LOWERED, THE POSITIONS HAVE BEEN OUTSOURCED. IT IS A LOSS OF JOBS NOT A REDUCTION IN WAGES THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

            “you have failed to show how you will keep the current customer base, much less where any new customers will come from.”

            I don’t need to show how to keep the customer base, without the elimination of or death of all you pathos liberals there will never be a customer base. It has died because of the liberal mantra that welfare is economic stimulus.

            “the public was your answer. the public includes all of those low wage positions you want to increase.”

            PLEASE STOP YOUR F’N LYING PATHETIC BS. I DON’T EVER SUPPORT INCREASE OF LOW WAGE POSITIONS. IT IS OBAMA ANY THE REST OF YOU A$$ KISSING LIBERALS THAT ARE MAKING LOW WAGE PART TIME JOBS THE NEW NORM IN OUR SOCIETY.

            “marketable skills is a meaningless phrase. you can not show where where these – marketable skill- higher paying jobs are or how you are going to create the additional positions that are expanding population will require. ”

            MARKETABLE SKILLS IS MEANINGLESS TO A LIBERAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NONE. THEY THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR BEING ALIVE SO THEY DON’T NEED TO ACQUIRE SKILLS. JUST DEMAND MORE MONEY WITHOUT EARNING IT.

            “minimum wage has not kept with cola. ”

            I AM BEGINNING TO BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE A RETIRED MILITARY OFFICER. IF YOU ARE YOU ARE A TERRIBLY PATHETIC ONE. BUT THE TERM COLA IS GOVERNMENT, NOT CIVILIAN. AND THE A IS NOT A PART OF THE EQUATION FOR WAGES IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

            “even worse, the national average wage has not kept up with cola. ”

            TRY TO USE THE RIGHT WORDS MORON, IT IS INFLATION NOT COLA. AND INFLATION IS CAUSED BY GOVERNMENT AND UNIONS.

            “you blame one side for all of the problems. it has been a combined effort. an effort that you have supported. ”

            I HAVE NOT SUPPORTED ANYTHING YOU HAVE STATED. IT IS YOU AND YOUR LIBERAL BUTT KISSING BUDDIES THAT CREATE AND SUPPORT THESE THINGS.

            “”

            SINCE YOU HAVE NOT INTELLIGENCE, I WILL NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN HOW STUPID THAT SET OF DISPARATE ITEMS IS WRONG. USE THE ENTIRE STATEMENTS OR GIVE UP. YOU CAN’T DEFEND THE ITEMS SO YOU IGNORE THEM.

            you suffer from ignorant emotions.”

            NOTHING IGNORANT ABOUT MY STANCE, IT IS LIBERAL IGNORANCE THAT IS THE PROBLEM. QUEERS ARE AN ABOMINATION TO NATURE. ABORTION IS MURDERING UNBORN BABIES. WELFARE CREATES SLAVES TO GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS.

            TRY TO PROVE ME WRONG BUT STOP YOUR F’N IGNORANT BIGOTED RANTING. LETS MEET ON A FIRING RANGE AND SEE HOW DEEP YOU NEED TO BE BURIED.

          • rbrooks

            a bit of an emotionally ignorant response.

            it is amusing that bush and obama have simply followed reagans old game plan.

            you support reagan and bush and whine about obama.

            they are all the same.

            i could send you a bottle of midol and a box of tampons if that will help you out.

            firing range? figures. shooting at unarmed targets would be about all of the courage you could muster.

            it is worth noting that several states are currently trying to pass new minimum wage laws. $10 an hour seems to be the standard wage they are seeking.

            the amusing part of all of this, is that we are following your form of economics. which is an abject failure.

            lowering taxes is great. as long as you maintain the balance between spending and revenue.

            old reagan claimed that deficits are irrelevant.

            those lower taxes have sure run up a lot of debt.

            your answer is to end services. that should work out well.

            you may have been alive in the 80’s but you were wearing blinders and are obviously brain dead.

            the temp jobs exploded in the 80’s. they have been major employers ever since the early 80’s. they still are.

            tis obvious you are unable to rationally show any validity for your form of economics.

            you have to resort to childish temper tantrums.

            you could have been one of reagans kids.

            you act like them.

          • Frank Kahn

            YOU ARE AN IGNORANT PIECE OF BULL CRAP THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM IS DEATH. PERIOD, YOU LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID. I INVITE YOU TO THE FIRING RANGE SO YOU CAN DIE.

          • rbrooks

            you have to be 18 to own a gun in the u.s.

            you act like a 2 year old.

            typical root follower.

          • Frank Kahn

            I HAVE AN IDEA FOR YOU, BUT THEY WONT LET ME SAY IT HERE. WANT TO MEET IN PERSON AS SEE WHICH OF US IS MORE MATURE?

          • rbrooks

            all anyone has to do is read your childish rants, typed in caps, to realise what a child you are. you are simply too stupid to realise how stupid you really are.

          • Frank Kahn

            And all they have to do is read your garbage to realize what a moron you are. You have no comprehension ability in either life or reading. You are worthless trash that deserves to die a painful tortured death.

          • rbrooks

            the majority of the public disagrees with you. they elected little bush and obama, twice. it is why the authors, and you faithful few, constantly whine and complain. you can not get enough support for your idiotic ideals and ideas to get anyone of your kind elected to office.

            you are a true representative of al qaeda. a poster child for radical islam. you must be a relative of himmler.

          • Frank Kahn

            Actually, you pathetic piece of sh!t, the majority of the public did not vote. Obama won by a slim margin of less than 1/2 of the population. We dont need to put up a good candidate. And by we I mean the intelligent people of this nation. What we need is to eliminate the stupidity of the human race from the world. I am willing to meet you at the airport and help you make that final journey to be judged by God. Pick your time, date and weapon. Please don’t make the weapon one that requires intelligent operation. I dont want any unfair advantages.

          • rbrooks

            speaking of intelligent people, you have been left out. it is amusing to watch your childish temper tantrums.

            old bob complains about the excess scrutiny conservative sites, like his, have drawn.

            he has enough morons like you to deserve the scrutiny.

            i do agree with your plan to eliminate all of the brain dead folks like yourself.

            i doubt anyone ever concerns them self with someone like you.

            the internet has allowed a lot of you cockroaches to be pretentious. no one really believes you.

          • rbrooks

            in 1971, in my home town, gas cost $.25/gal, bread was $.35, a carton of camels was $2, my 2 bedroom house was $40 a month.

            today, gas is $3.31, bread is $3.85, a carton of camels is $60 and that 2 bedroom house in $600 a month.

            minimum wage is 7.5 times higher. the cost of living has out paced the wage.

            you must not have had much value as a worker. i made $2.85 an hour the summer of 71 working in a dept store and $5 an hour setting cabinets in the summer of 72.

            then i spent the next 24 months making $335 a month.

            even old rush limbaugh has stated that today’s minimum wage should be $25 an hour to have maintained pace with cola.

            adding hundreds of low wage workers does not add hundreds of new customers.

            so far, you have done an admirable job of showing how detrimental low wages are to the economy.

          • Frank Kahn

            You over simplified the inflation factor.

            “in 1971, in my home town, gas cost $.25/gal, bread was $.35, a carton of camels was $2, my 2 bedroom house was $40 a month.

            today, gas is $3.31, bread is $3.85, a carton of camels is $60 and that 2 bedroom house in $600 a month.

            minimum wage is 7.5 times higher. the cost of living has out paced the wage. ”

            According to the small sampling of items, your total inflation (cost of living increase) is about 15.66%. Now, while it is about twice the amount of the minimum wage increase, it is not massive. It would indicate that, the new minimum wage should be $15.66, not the $25 that you say Rush advocated.

            “you must not have had much value as a worker. i made $2.85 an hour the summer of 71 working in a dept store and $5 an hour setting cabinets in the summer of 72. ”

            First off, the town where I grew up did not have department stores. Secondly, cabinet setting is a skilled labor job, not an unskilled minimum wage job.

            “then i spent the next 24 months making $335 a month.”

            Just wondering why you took a pay reduction. In your earlier statement you were making $5 an hour, which would make your monthly income (full time) of over $800.

            “even old rush limbaugh has stated that today’s minimum wage should be $25 an hour to have maintained pace with cola. ”

            Already covered the discrepancy with this statement.

            “adding hundreds of low wage workers does not add hundreds of new customers. ”

            And, yet, the current administration tried to say that welfare money stimulates the economy. According to them, any form of income creates more customers. If you give someone $1,000 a month, you are increasing the revenue for business to make profits. Full time, minimum wage, is over $1,200 a month. If welfare, or unemployment payments, can stimulate the economy, then a minimum wage job can too.

            “so far, you have done an admirable job of showing how detrimental low wages are to the economy.”

            NO, that is liberal hyperbole again. It is deceptive and inaccurate. Low wages, across the board, is bad for the economy. Assuming that everyone was suddenly forced to work for minimum wage, that would destroy the economy. Having a certain percentage of people earning minimum wage does not destroy the economy. Having government policies, that motivate employers to lower wages, and/or hours, of its workers is destructive. Unilaterally increasing the base pay of millions of low wage workers, would be bad for the economy. As I stated before, raising the cost of production will always increase the cost of the final product. If you increase the cost of fast food, to keep pace with the draconian pay increases, the minimum wage employees will still not be able to afford the products they produce, any better than they did before. And, since inflation is cumulative, an increase in those products, will result in an increase in other products and services.

            And, to your previous post, about minimum wage jobs not being entry level, what world are you living in? Flipping burgers at a fast food restaurant is entry level. All, normal intelligent, humans can, with very little training, perform that job. It is called “entry level” because that is where you start in that business. Unless you have an education, that would qualify you for management, you have to learn the skills necessary, at the lower levels, before you can move up to higher paying positions there. If you have never worked in that type of business, the company is not going to hire you as a supervisor, or manager, right off the street.

          • rbrooks

            i saw no need to go into the greater details of cola that old rush used to draw his conclusion.

            massive difference in wage would be a personal definition that would be applied by individual perspective. you are just as guilty of that.

            >15.66%. Now, while it is about twice the amount of the minimum wage increase, it is not massive.to keep pace with the draconian pay increases<

            you went from it is not a massive increase to a draconian increase. (i question the use of draconian as appropriate in this setting.)

            well, you may find setting cabinets to require a deal of skill, i would not agree. building the cabinet requires far more skill. i have taught many to set cabinets or various other trade skills.

            we had a little war going at that time. perhaps you remember it? i had the distinct displeasure of serving in it.

            this is not the first administration that has been wrong about welfare or subsidization. neither have been successful. if you are arguing that welfare, individual or corporate, is an abject failure, i would be in complete agreement.

            low wage positions have been increasing over the past 30 years. as has out over all unemployment. combined they are the cause.

            an entry level position is designed to lead to a higher skill, and supposedly, a higher paying position.

            walmart and mcdonalds, amongst many others, are not offering entry level positions. they are simply offering low wage positions.

            and there in lies the fallacy of your economic model.

            there are not enough of these higher paying positions for the workers to move up and in to. quite the opposite. we have too many part time & temp positions that continue to offer decreasing wages and fewer hours with no benefits.

            your notion of worthless, or valueless, workers is absurd. with out those workers, whom would perform those tasks. how did you determine that those workers were not deserving of the american dream or even a decent standard of living.

            as to a customer. all that is required is the demand and the means to purchase.

            low wage workers have the demand.

            they do not have the means.

            keep increasing the number of low wage workers and watch the customer base continue to shrink.

            btw- i do agree with your assessment of education, but, education is only as good as the one who is able to apply it.

            many of the best business owners in our past had very little formal education.

          • Frank Kahn

            At some point we have to come to a consensus on the cause and effects here. You blame the effect as the cause instead of the proper sequence.

            “massive difference in wage would be a personal definition that would be applied by individual perspective. you are just as guilty of that.”

            Unless you have a comprehension problem, there is no way to say that I indicated a massive difference in wages. I was referring to the difference between inflation and rise of minimum wage.

            “>15.66%. Now, while it is about twice the amount of the minimum wage increase, it is not massive.to keep pace with the draconian pay increases<

            you went from it is not a massive increase to a draconian increase. (i question the use of draconian as appropriate in this setting.) "

            The two items are not mutually exclusive. Draconian is in reference to the punishment for non compliance, not for the amount of the increase.

            "well, you may find setting cabinets to require a deal of skill, i would not agree. building the cabinet requires far more skill. i have taught many to set cabinets or various other trade skills."

            It is a "skilled" job, the level of skills is not the issue. If you don't teach someone how to set cabinets, there will be some major malfunctions in the results.

            "we had a little war going at that time. perhaps you remember it? i had the distinct displeasure of serving in it."

            Not sure what this was supposed to be in reference to. I am a veteran from the 1971 -1975 years also. I am quite aware of the military exercises in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

            "this is not the first administration that has been wrong about welfare or subsidization. neither have been successful. if you are arguing that welfare, individual or corporate, is an abject failure, i would be in complete agreement. "

            The policies don't change much from one administration to the next, however, what I was saying is that the idiots in power now, claim entitlements stimulate the economy.

            "low wage positions have been increasing over the past 30 years. as has out over all unemployment. combined they are the cause. "

            An increase in low wage positions is natural and acceptable. Every economy has low and high wage positions. It is when high wage jobs become low wage jobs that there is a problem. You cannot fix that problem, by making low wage jobs higher wage jobs. You have to reinstate the higher paying positions.

            "an entry level position is designed to lead to a higher skill, and supposedly, a higher paying position.

            walmart and mcdonalds, amongst many others, are not offering entry level positions. they are simply offering low wage positions. "

            Although, marginally, true, it is unreasonable, and unfair, to deride those two businesses for a situation that is present in 100% of every business in the world. There is no way that you can have as many managers as you do workers. To even contemplate such an idea is insane.

            "and there in lies the fallacy of your economic model.

            there are not enough of these higher paying positions for the workers to move up and in to. quite the opposite. we have too many part time & temp positions that continue to offer decreasing wages and fewer
            hours with no benefits. "

            Once again you confuse the effect for the cause. Having more low wage jobs is a direct result of a glut in the unskilled work force. As long as you have millions of people applying for thousands of jobs, it will drive the pay scale down. One of the biggest, current, causes for this problem is the unbridled, illegal alien invasion. 30 – 40 million new, unskilled, laborers will simply reduce the motivation for businesses to increase the wages paid.

            "your notion of worthless, or valueless, workers is absurd. with out those workers, whom would perform those tasks. "

            Worthless, and valueless is not the point. It is a matter of levels, they should be paid for their level of value, nothing more.

            "how did you determine that those workers were not deserving of the american dream or even a decent standard of living."

            Ah, the vaunted American dream. What is that exactly? To many immigrants it meant the opportunity to come here, work hard, and advance in their skills and abilities so they could attain a greater standard of living. They did not come here to have everything handed to them for free. They expected to work for what they got. The real American dreamers don't sit around and keep flipping burgers, and making french fries. They don't expect the government to force businesses to pay them more than their job is worth. They strive to better their skills so they can climb the ladder to success.

            "as to a customer. all that is required is the demand and the means to purchase.

            low wage workers have the demand.

            they do not have the means. "

            So, get an education, learn some skills, get a better job.

            "keep increasing the number of low wage workers and watch the customer base continue to shrink.

            btw- i do agree with your assessment of education, but, education is only as good as the one who is able to apply it.

            many of the best business owners in our past had very little formal education"

            Formal education is seldom the best indicator of success. Practical, on the job, experience is the best education.

          • rbrooks

            as to nam. it was a bit more than an exercise. from a first hand ground experience, i am not sure what the difference between a war and a police action is.

            you are correct that we have an over abundance of labor. it is a deliberate manipulation of the labor market. it is designed to create more low wage positions.

            we do not need, did not need, this many immigrants brought into this labor market.

            value being determined by whom? how much value do you place on the service being performed.

            i prefer to have waste management pick up my trash. if i have to pay a bit more to keep the labor required. i am not going to be upset.

            i am not deriding just walmart or mcDonalds. i simply used them as convenient and recognizable examples. they are just one of too many company’s offering low wage positions.

            having an education and or experience is not an absolute guarantee of a job. much less a high paying position. we have an abundance of skilled, educated and experienced workers in the market at this time.

            rescind the work visas’, require citizenship to obtain employment, and there will be no need to address wage laws or any need for unions.

            we will see a return to a more balanced labor market and an increase in wages.

            without that, increasing minimum wage is the only way to off set the importation of cheap immigrant labor.

            those immigrants that you describe are the very ones demanding a higher wage. many of them did receive, and still are receiving, hand outs thru various refugee and immigration programs. employers are rewarded for hiring them thru various tax cuts and subsidies.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indochina_Migration_and_Refugee_Assistance_Act

            not a complete rendering, but it will give you some idea of assistance obtained by various immigrant groups over the years.

          • Frank Kahn

            Okay, getting into a more structured cause and effect scenario here.

            “as to nam. it was a bit more than an exercise. from a first hand ground experience, i am not sure what the difference between a war and a police action is. ”

            I used military exercise, you might also call it a political exercise. It was an exercise in futility? Or was it stupidity? Our nations leaders did not want us to win. I understand that it is different when you are in country fighting for your life, but winning was not the main goal.

            “you are correct that we have an over abundance of labor. it is a deliberate manipulation of the labor market. it is designed to create more low wage positions. ”

            Not sure if that is the correct motivation, or just a consequence. Our country has been mired in, what I consider, stupidity. We think we need to pay for all the damage done by everyone in every military action we are a part of. Even if we are not directly involved, militarily, we feel a need to give aid to all the poor slobs that are displaced by the conflicts. I was being somewhat narrow minded, when I used illegal aliens as my example. We also give, practically, unrestricted immigration acceptance to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people from other countries. We even give asylum to Russians. It would be difficult to list all the multitudes of nations that we have accepted refugees from.

            “we do not need, did not need, this many immigrants brought into this labor market.

            value being determined by whom? how much value do you place on the service being performed. ”

            Not by whom, by what. The market determines the value of the product or service. I am willing to pay $1.00 for a double cheese burger, I am not willing to pay $3.00 for one. If the government forces the price to triple, then I want my pay to triple to make up for my inconvenience.

            “i prefer to have waste management pick up my trash. if i have to pay a bit more to keep the labor required. i am not going to be upset. ”

            If everyone, or at least the vast majority of customers agree with you then that is what the market will support.

            “i am not deriding just walmart or mcDonalds. i simply used them as convenient and recognizable examples. they are just one of too many company’s offering low wage positions. ”

            Sorry to say it, but either you accept the low wage positions or you do without your convenience.

            “having an education and or experience is not an absolute guarantee of a job. much less a high paying position. we have an abundance of skilled, educated and experienced workers in the market at this time. ”

            Yes, because the government made it more profitable for companies to move all their jobs to other countries. Even tech support positions are out sourced to countries like India.

            “rescind the work visas’, require citizenship to obtain employment, and there will be no need to address wage laws or any need for unions. ”

            Not true, and a bad idea. What is needed is a more restrictive and controlled work visa system. Bring in skilled, educated, immigrants that contribute to a better innovation and progress of our industry.

            “we will see a return to a more balanced labor market and an increase in wages.

            without that, increasing minimum wage is the only way to off set the importation of cheap immigrant labor.”

            Sorry, you just went stupid on me. Raising the minimum wage will not off set a damn thing. It will only give those immigrants more incentive to come here and get minimum wage jobs.

            “those immigrants that you describe are the very ones demanding a higher wage. many of them did receive, and still are receiving, hand outs thru various refugee and immigration programs. employers are rewarded for hiring them thru various tax cuts and subsidies. ”

            The immigration programs are not the real problem. It is usually our insane tax and entitlement systems that rewards these bothersome immigrants. If you don’t fix the lax mindless handing out of thousands of dollars in unearned benefits, there will never be a solution to the immigration problem or the deficit.

          • rbrooks

            nam was just another in a long list of stupid and futile wars. we have two of those now and the moron in office wants to start another.

            you agree that low wage positions are not beneficial to the economy. you agree we currently have too many low wage positions.

            you seem to be at a loss of how to correct that.

            we currently have an abundance of labor vs the number of job openings. you agree that has driven wages down and is keeping wages down. it is an increasing problem.

            rescinding work visas’, or better yet, requiring citizenship prior to obtaining employment (or any social services) would create a shortage of labor.

            employers would have to pay more for even those, unskilled, positions. they would have to to do even more for those who are skilled or more productive.

            i concur that an increase in minimum wage would encourage more to immigrate here. the question is how many employers would continue to hire the same unskilled immigrant that the employe today.

            how are you going to fix the immigration problem or the assistance we give them? both party’s continue to demand an increase in the number of immigrants and the subsidies that they receive.

            your take on job loss in this country is wrong. we have lost some jobs to off shore cheap labor. that has come back to bite many of those who left.

            the biggest job loss has come from industrialization. those jobs lost are permanently lost.

            the remainder of job loss is derived from a lack of means. the money. which is not paper money.

            you are still trying to run the economy on supply side economics coupled with an increasing number of low wage positions.

            supply side is a short term remedy. 30 years of that, & low wages, is the problem.

            you can forget about fixing the deficit or the debt. a lot of folks whine about that, but they are not willing to be the ones who actually start paying it. most of those whining want to pay even less.

          • Frank Kahn

            Since you used the term “supply side economics”, I had to go read up on the concept. While some of the concepts put forth in the idea of supply side economics are valid, some are questionable. However, I have not put forth an agenda that matches this agenda. I am only discussing free market forces and their push for equilibrium.

            “nam was just another in a long list of stupid and futile wars. we have two of those now and the
            moron in office wants to start another.”

            Actually, all wars are stupid, but futility depends on the objective of the endeavor.

            “you agree that low wage positions are not beneficial to the economy. you agree we currently have too many low wage positions.”

            I object to your assessment that I agree we have too many low wage positions. I agree that we are losing too many high wage positions. There is a major difference in the two.

            “you seem to be at a loss of how to correct that.”

            NO, I am simply stating that forced increases in payment is bad, it has never worked, and never will. It is not a solution, it is a band-aide, that only hides the problem.

            “we currently have an abundance of labor vs the number of job openings. you agree that has driven wages down and is keeping wages
            down. it is an increasing problem.”

            Yes, properly stated, the problem is that we have too many unemployed workers for the number of available jobs.

            “rescinding work visas’, or better yet, requiring citizenship prior to obtaining employment (or any social services) would create a shortage of labor. ”

            NO, it would only reduce the increase of unemployed workers, not eliminate it.

            “employers would have to pay more for even those, unskilled, positions. ”

            In theory, the market would adjust to the reduced supply by increasing the value. It would motivate businesses to pay more.

            “they would have to to do even more for those who are skilled or more productive. ”

            “i concur that an increase in minimum wage would encourage more to immigrate here. the question is how many employers would continue to hire the same unskilled immigrant that the employe today.”

            An unskilled worker is an unskilled worker, being an immigrant makes no difference. It is the government policies that makes it more lucrative to hire immigrants as opposed to citizens.

            “how are you going to fix the immigration problem or the assistance we give them? both party’s continue to demand an increase in the number of immigrants and the subsidies that they receive. ”

            I am not going to fix it. I know how, but I am certain that nobody will be willing to do what has to be done. We are afraid of looking like we don’t care for the less fortunate.

            “your take on job loss in this country is wrong. we have lost some jobs to off shore cheap labor. that has come back to bite many of those who left.”

            Almost all American made automobiles are not. They are almost all made in other countries. Last I heard, there is no American made T.V.’s. Almost all goods are made in China, most computers and cell phones are made overseas in Taiwan or some other country. A large portion of all the produce sold in this country comes from other countries.

            “the biggest job loss has come from industrialization. those jobs lost are permanently lost. ”

            Industrialization, which I think you are misnaming, is not a cause of lost jobs. It is a repositioning of jobs. Some jobs are lost but others are created in turn. What I think you are actually referring to is automation, not industrialization. In this case, the actual assembly is automated, but there is a need for maintenance of the machines. In other industries, such as canned or packaged goods, the automation serves several purposes. Without it there would be no way to mass produce the amount of goods that are needed by the population. It also reduces the cost of the product being packaged. Without automation a bottle of coke might cost you upwards of $15. But, hey, you are supporting 10 more workers. But, considering this type of automation has been around for decades, it is not the source of the current loss of jobs. I remember when there was public panic about computers taking over the office. It would eliminate all the office workers jobs. This never happened, and in fact, more jobs were created to support the information technology.

            “the remainder of job loss is derived from a lack of means. the money. which is not paper money.”

            Not really sure what your point is here. You mention two things that are not directly related. Job loss is not due to lack of means. It would be rather silly to even attempt to support that statement. It is actually reversing the cause and effect. It is the loss of jobs that is causing the reduction of means.

            “you are still trying to run the economy on supply side economics coupled with an increasing number of low wage positions.

            supply side is a short term remedy. 30 years of that, & low wages, is the problem. ”

            NOW WE COME TO YOUR LIBERAL BS AGAIN. I did not at anytime put forth the idea of supply side economics. Also named Reaganomics or trickle down economics. One of the main impetus’ for this theory involves taxation and the Laffer curve. It is correct in the point of diminishing returns from higher taxation, but it has nothing to do with free market forces. It was, however, correct in stating that the market will perform better (create jobs) if the government avoids interfering with the natural market forces. The name is misleading also, it is not really about supply side anything. It is about natural forces in markets and the effects of government intervention. A free market is not driven by either supply or demand alone. It is the equilibrium of the two that forces a stable price for value.

            “you can forget about fixing the deficit or the debt. a lot of folks whine about that, but they are not willing to be the ones who actually start paying it. most of those whining want to pay even less.”

            AND A HEAPING HELPING OF LIBERAL BS. It is not a matter of nobody wanting to pay for it. It is a matter of not wanting to incur the cost in the first place. If liberals will suddenly realize that it is a spending problem and not a revenue problem, the deficit will be eliminated and the debt will shrink. And, after the debt is eliminated, we will all be able to pay less.

            On that last note, I need to clarify my use of the label liberal. Anyone, who thinks we need to subsidize people or things in the market, is a liberal. Anyone that thinks we owe a living to all citizens is a liberal. Anyone that uses the term “living wage” when pushing for higher wages, is a liberal.

          • rbrooks

            supply side economics is what we have. it is what we have been using. it does work, at least for a limited time and for what it was designed to do.

            reagan wrinkle was the inclusion of, or the addition of, lower paying, part time and temp positions.

            i agree that the govt should not be involved. but you only want to remove portions of govt involvement.

            the govt supplys the country with a never ending source of non american labor. you only want to slow that. not to end it. you are trying to straddle the fence based on your own personal definitions and bias.

            industrialization, or automation if you prefer, has lost jobs. when an automation process replaces 100 jobs and only requires 10 to perform that same task, we have lost a net number of jobs. to make that worse, we have an increasing population. some argue those are two separate issues, yet the new numbers in the population will require employment at some point.

            your solution seems to be one of anarchy.

            livingston wrote a short piece on food stamps. he left out all of the consequences that will occur when support systems are removed. you have ignored those consequences as well.

            a return to anarchy, a peonage, a feudal, etc., system will create far more problems than we currently have. there is no guarantee that you will wind up on the high side, wealthy side, of that.

            if you throw millions of people in the street, claiming they have no value, and are not worthy of decent life style, you should expect at least some of them to object. violently object. i would think you would object if you were to be included in those who had no value.

            your definition of a liberal is rather amusing. it would include virtually everyone. we use socialism and subsidization daily in this country and always have.

            it is used in infrastructure, public and private sectors equally.

            if you are stating that we have abused and mis-used socialism and subsidization, than i would agree. if you are stating that we can end both and survive, then you are going to be disappointed with the results.

            it is a matter of not wanting to pay for it. the country as a whole, did want the results of the programs and services. we have two wars that were supported by a large portion of this population. now they want to whine about the cost. we have sent trillions over seas for a variety of programs. most of that was supported by the population. now they whine when the payment comes due.
            the cost of that never ending war on drugs.

            just to name a few.

            there is no free lunch. somebody has to pay for it.

            anyone that fails to understand the requirements to be a customer, and the vital need for that customer, is never going to be able to resolve the current economic problems. i want more potential customers that i can sell. not more unemployed or under employed individuals that are unable to pay.

            you can save the rant on taxes. taxes are a necessity. the way they are used needs to be changed.
            corporations and business’ do not pay taxes. you can keep selling that old line to the ignorant public. i simply administer the taxes i collect from my customers and send it to the govt.

            i am not against your proposal to decrease the population. i actually support much of your proposal. i am against the way you propose to reach your goals.

            i would prefer to avoid the violence, the tragedy and despair that will result from the implementation of your proposals.

            it may not be possible to avoid some of that. it should be a last resort.

            do you really want to bring the poverty of africa, china, much of south america, to this country?

            they place very little value on human life. that would include you.

            it may seem meaningless sitting in the comfort and relative safety of your house. i can assure you there is a difference when you have to try to live in a situation where life has no relevance or meaning.

            this site has been an interesting study and has provided several surprising revelations.

          • Frank Kahn

            Some interesting conjecture here.

            “supply side economics is what we have. it is what we have been using. it does work, at least for a limited time and for what it was designed to do.

            reagan wrinkle was the inclusion of, or the addition of, lower paying, part time and temp positions. ”

            Having lived in the 80’s, and with a fairly good memory, I cannot accept your position. I have even researched his policy moves, and can find no historical reference to his intentionally increasing low wage jobs or temp positions. These MIGHT have been an unintended and somewhat negative consequence, but it was not stated as an objective. The numbers indicate a significant increase in median wages for the country. This would not be expected if the main impetus was to create more LOW PAYING jobs.

            “i agree that the govt should not be involved. but you only want to remove portions of govt involvement. ”

            What it “seems” to you is not important. I don’t have the time or drive to list the thousands of changes needed to make a total improvement in the economy.

            “the govt supplys the country with a never ending source of non american labor. you only want to slow that. not to end it. you are trying to straddle the fence based on your own personal definitions and bias.”

            NOT TRUE, I am simply pointing out that your theory is flawed. Even if you become totally isolationist (no new immigrants), you will not reduce the work force currently in this country. You will only slow the rate of increase of workers (new people joining the work force). That increase is not only from immigration, it is also from new citizens reaching the age of employment. I was not basing things on personal definitions and bias. I have tried to include all illegal, and / or subsidized immigration. The new illegal immigrant AMNESTY, bill is extremely harmful, but so is the new push to allow people from 3rd world countries that are seeking asylum from their governments.

            “industrialization, or automation if you prefer, has lost jobs. when an automation process replaces 100 jobs and only requires 10 to perform that same task, we have lost a net number of jobs. ”

            NOT TRUE AGAIN, if you look at an assembly line, in one company, it might appear that way. However, if you take into consideration the additional jobs created by the companies that are supporting the automation, there is probably a net increase in actual jobs. You have to walk the chain of support industry. How many jobs are created in the development and building of the new machinery? How many new jobs are created to support the workers in those new jobs.

            “to make that worse, we have an increasing population. some argue those are two separate
            issues, yet the new numbers in the population will require employment at some point. ”

            EXACTLY, there is a need for a constant increase in available jobs. And, in our current, low wage dominated, economy, it needs to be higher wage jobs that are created.

            “your solution seems to be one of anarchy. ”

            I have ran into some liberals who claim that personal freedom and small government are anarchy, but this is pure BS. Reducing the interference of government, by hobbling regulation, does not mean anarchy. It means greater freedom to operate, innovate and produce. This allows for greater amounts of jobs creation.

            “livingston wrote a short piece on food stamps. he left out all of the consequences that will occur when support systems are removed. you have ignored those consequences as well. ”

            And, liberals, ignore the consequences of massive support systems, that remove the need and / or desire to be productive. Welfare, is a non-productive drain on the economy. The more people using it, the greater the burden on everyone else. If the only thing that a welfare recipient produces, is more children, then they are not even a zero sum system, it is a negative sum game. Everyone loses. The entitlement system is more than simply broken, it is eating itself from within, it cannot sustain itself and it cannot be sustained by the producers.

            “a return to anarchy, a peonage, a feudal, etc., system will create far more problems than we currently have. there is no guarantee that you will wind up on the high side, wealthy side, of that.”

            Funny, you should say that, you are correct. Nobody, in their right mind, is advocating anarchy. Peonage is exactly what entitlements produce. Feudal? Maybe you need to explain that one. The current government policies are creating surfs (slaves to government money), it is destroying our ability to grow and prosper as a nation.

            “if you throw millions of people in the street, claiming they have no value, and are not worthy of decent life style, you should expect at least some of them to object. violently object. i would think you would object if you were to be included in those who had no value.”

            Like a little kid screaming “i want more ice cream”? Well, Johnny / Jane, when you get a job and make some money you can buy more ice cream. That does not mean Johnny / Jane have no value. It means that they need to produce something so they can have more of what they want. Also, if you keep increasing their allowance, so they can buy more of what they want, they will never have a motivation to get a job and earn their own. That is what welfare does. Most, traditional, welfare is paid to single parent (mother) households. While, you might say that it is a problem caused by women, it really isn’t. It is caused by a society that condones (allows) single parent households to be created. If the fathers of these children were forced to take responsibility for their children (monetary support), there would be much less dependence on welfare. And, if young women were taught normal ethics, they would realize that having babies that they cannot support is wrong. It is not societies responsibility to pay the cost of raising children that are produced by people that are not ready to be responsible for them.

            “your definition of a liberal is rather amusing. it would include virtually everyone. we use socialism and subsidization daily in this country and always have. ”

            Wrong, the fact that we use socialism in this country does not mean that everyone is in support of it. Socialism is bad, it is always bad, it will never be good for an economy. There is a limited need for some temporary support for people that hit a sudden bump in the road. That is not socialism, that is charity. When you give them permanent assistance, that is socialism.

            “it is used in infrastructure, public and private sectors equally.

            if you are stating that we have abused and mis-used socialism and subsidization, than i would agree. if you are stating that we can end both and survive, then you are going to be disappointed with the results. ”

            NO, you are wrong, we can end both. Socialism is not necessary if charity is allowed to continue in the private sector. And subsidies can be totally eliminated, over time, if we stop thinking that the subsidies do anything besides destroy the market.

            “it is a matter of not wanting to pay for it. the country as a whole, did want the results of the programs and services. ”

            A safety net was what we wanted. What we have is not just a safety net, it is a complete support system for life.

            “we have two wars that were supported by a large portion of this population. now they want to whine about the cost. ”

            Some, liberal idiots, want to blame it all on Bush. The majority of the cost of Afghanistan is on Obama. He has also been instrumental in the cost of several military interventions in other countries. We are stuck with the current debt. What is not acceptable is increasing that debt, with more ridiculous adventures. And, the liberals idea of increasing revenue, to pay for the debt is insane. There is not enough assets in this nation to pay the debt. The current budget is so large that confiscation of all the assets of the nation would only pay the budget for about 9 months. That leaves a 3 month deficit that will increase the debt.

            “we have sent trillions over seas for a variety of
            programs. most of that was supported by the population. now they whine when the payment comes due. ”

            I get real upset with people, like you, that always want to blame the people for not wanting to pay for what the government buys. Lets stop the governments waste of money so we don’t need to pay for it.

            “the cost of that never ending war on drugs. ”

            The ridiculous war on terror.

            “just to name a few. ”

            You only named one.

            “there is no free lunch. somebody has to pay for it.

            anyone that fails to understand the requirements to be a customer, and the vital need for that customer, is never going to be able to resolve the current economic problems. ”

            YES, AND UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THEY NEED MORE MARKETABLE SKILLS, THEY WILL NEVER GET WHAT THEY NEED.

            “i want more potential customers that i can sell. not more unemployed or under employed individuals that
            are unable to pay. ”

            Fine, find a way to create more high paying jobs, but don’t try to destroy the economy by raising the wages of non skilled workers.

            “you can save the rant on taxes. taxes are a necessity. the way they are used needs to be changed. ”

            I don’t recall ever opposing the idea of changing the insane spending of our government.

            “corporations and business’ do not pay taxes. you can keep selling that old line to the ignorant public. i simply administer the taxes i collect from my customers and send it to the govt. ”

            Really, your business does not make any profit? You don’t have any employees? You don’t buy any supplies? You don’t have an office? Do you have a business license? If the answer to all these questions is NO, then maybe you don’t pay any taxes. But, then you don’t have a business, unless it is non-profit.

            “i am not against your proposal to decrease the population. i actually support much of your proposal. i am against the way you propose to reach your goals. ”

            You are using some liberal logic here, I never stated any proposal for population reduction. You think that having a free market will cause death? Are you insane?

            “i would prefer to avoid the violence, the tragedy and despair that will result from the implementation of your proposals. ”

            If the liberals, and those lazy people that think an unskilled job is supposed to pay a living wage, revolt then they deserve to die for their stupidity. It won’t get them higher wages, it won’t improve their standard of living, so why get all stupid about it.

            “it may not be possible to avoid some of that. it should be a last resort. ”

            You cannot treat liberals for their disease, it is incurable. The same goes for low wage earners that believe that society owes them a better life.

            “do you really want to bring the poverty of africa, china, much of south america, to this country? ”

            Poverty? What do we know of poverty? I have seen no real poverty in my country. I have seen poor. I have seen homeless. I have seen stupidity. I have not seen true poverty. I talk to people, daily, that consider someone to be extremely rich to make $1,200 a month. I talk to people that beg for enough money to buy a kilo (2.2 pounds) of rice so they can feed their family for 5 days. They consider themselves rich if they can buy a pair of flip flops for their kids. Renting a small 8 foot square room is a luxury. Birthdays, hell, if they have bread and margarine to celebrate a kids birthday it is a blessing. They survive on less than $100 a month. And you are complaining that our people can’t survive on $1,200. You want them to make $30,000 a year instead of $14,000, so they can buy a car, a house and have a college education. Not being able to have those things is not poverty, it is poor.

            “they place very little value on human life. that would include you. ”

            I don’t see your point here, I don’t support those countries ideologies, so why would I care if they don’t value me?

            “it may seem meaningless sitting in the comfort and relative safety of your house. i can assure you there is a difference when you have to try to live in a situation where life has no relevance or meaning.”

            Remember those people I talk about in poverty? Are you saying that their lives have no meaning? That they are irrelevant? That they don’t have hope and dreams? They are normal people, they have value and relevance to themselves. They have dreams for a better life for their children. They have hope that they will be able to improve. THEY LOVE GOD. They ask a simple request. A little money for rice and $20 a year so their kid can attend school and have a better life. They work hard so their children can have a better life through education.

            “this site has been an interesting study and has provided several surprising revelations.”

            Yes it has, and it does. I was totally ignorant of the ignorance of some people. I did not know how insane some people are. How they seem to think that personal greed is better than any other. Help them lift themselves out of poverty. Give them a hand up, but don’t destroy their lives by giving them everything.

          • Bill

            Good comments, Frank
            I hear this over and over again. “Well, what regulations are you talking about”.
            You did a great job of scratching the surface of the multitude of asinine regulations that are causing the private sector to out source the jobs to other countries.
            It is the cost of doing business that is causing business to look elsewhere to try and make a profit.
            Oh, my god, did I use the terrible “P” word

    • J. Brown

      Does that include the Secretary of State?

    • Ried

      “Tax breaks” will not fix this economy. Throwing out the cumbersome, archaic, bureaucratic tax code, and getting rid of the unproductive IRS, tax lawyers, and tax accountants will. A tax code that is thousands of pages long is a drain on the economy. A new tax code less than 100 pages is needed. Something similar to the “Flat Tax” should be openly debated in Congress and a new code issued. Paying for government services should be simple and easy for the average person to understand, not the current 1040 gibberish.

      • John Cherish

        There is a simple tax code given in the Bible that is everyone pays a tithe that is 10% for those uneducated or who don’t know the Bible. it is very simple EVERYONE PAYS 10% of their income no loop holes no exemptions.

        • Ried

          That form of government is a theocracy . . . did not work well for Jews due to their human nature. The founding fathers of the US avoided the theocratic form of governance for a constitutional republic. Might work ok, but again our human nature wants to pervert it into a democracy. The current democratic form is not working out well for us right now. Again our human nature causes us to want to shirk responsibility.

          • Cashu

            That human phenomenon that causes people to want to shirk responsibility and, at the same time, try to get something for nothing is exactly what the problem is in the country now. The answer is to once again allow a dynamic, greed-driven, free market capitalist economic system to function – very similar to what this country was built on for the first hundred and twenty-five years… you know… when America was the shining example for the entire world.

            The only limit on that model should be basic laws to protect the consumer from monopolies and dishonest business practices – without any socialist manipulation or tweaking. When a society is under the aegis of a completely free economy, where the earner benefits from ALL his earnings without having to relinquish a large portion to the government, everyone benefits. Trickle down has always worked the most in the most fair manner if you want to promote fairness of opportunity and not fairness of outcome.

            And besides, as Jefferson stated so succinctly, it is totally unjust to compel anyone to be forced to fund or support any development or cause with which he disagrees. (paraphrase) We can ALL point to myriad government rules and requirements and social constructs that we each, varyingly, disagree with having our money taken from us to support.

            Cashu

            ==================

      • Bill

        Ried
        What is your answer to fixing the economy

        • Ried

          What about “the economy” needs fixing? People seem to think it is something to “oil”, “tweak” or “remedy”. With a stable currency, an open marketplace, and honest people, “the economy” should be able to run smoothly and not need “fixing”.

          • Bill

            Ried
            Seems like you are just dancing around the subject and saying anything

          • Ried

            Tell me how you think the economy is broken? Why does it need to be fixed? Did somebody mess it up? Careful what you ask for, “some one” might try to “fix” things real good. [Politicians love to dance, why can’t I?] Maybe we should let “the economy” fix itself without meddling.

    • Deerinwater

      well, hell ~ why don’t you shine their shoes? ~ and give then the whole country. ~ ~ The Rich don’t have to do anything! ~ It’s they money, ~ are you to insisted that they spend it?

      I’m not rich and I create jobs. ~ ~ This mindset, ~ of waiting for a rich man to give you a job ~~ is bull$hit ~ it’s killing us.

      • Robbie

        Deer: I hope you realize I was being sarcastic. The Bush tax cuts to the mega rich is the dumbest thing ever conceived.

        • Deerinwater

          Sorry Robbie,~ not knowing you well, ` the sarcasm was not obvious to me. ~

          We was told (if not promised) that tax cut “incite growth”, but they didn’t say who’s growth nor was there any mandate to share this “growth”.

          Our problems did not start with the current administration and they won’t end with it, regardless of what is done by the current administration.

          There is a “Earning Disparity” taking place in our nation that has been in effect for 30 years. ~

          We were slow getting to where we are at today, ~ and if we ever manage to climb out of this hole at all ~ it too will be slow.

          So buckle up and enjoy the ride. Count your blessings that it’s no worse than it is.

          I just took in a young woman and her two children, ~ I’m not real happy about it. ~ but I could not turn my back and walk away and leave them where I found them, in a criminal and drug environment. ~ I ‘m Working to get the children enrolled into school.

          The mother wanted to honor a evening “date” commitment she had made prior the first day in my home. ~ I don’t think so! ~can you believe that? ~ seems we have priority problems.

          Tell me I haven’t bite off a big one here, ~ Looks like I’ve three to straighten out here. ~ I’ll have to keep reminding myself ~of the conditions I found them in as I work though this mini drama.

          The 10th of each month ~ they are up for review, ~ while I offers housing and stability. ~ which is subject to termination.

          This is not my first “project” ~ and under no illusions, but I might be my last.

          The children deserve better.

          • Robbie

            Best of luck.

          • WTS/JAY

            Bless your heart, Deer. Yours is the true charity. Rest assured, it will not go unnoticed. Much thanks to you and people like you. You are to be emulated. :)

          • Deerinwater

            Haha! ~ thanks for the kind words Jay.

            It’s early and premature to offer much but one of my biggest concerns was the 14 year old boy, Jacob. ~ At that age, ~ the “imprinting” is strong and so to is the will to “resist” anything. ~ so far, I’m impressed, ~ I am getting the feeling he’s had to mature quickly for the lacking in his mother’s maturity.

            Molly is 10, ~ while reserve at first, ~ I think she will come around . ~ It’s 104 outside and she been exploring the grounds with talk of “Can I build a “Play House?” ~ seems the tree swing requires lowering, ~ (I’ll get right on that lol !)

            We’ll see in good time how this works out. ~ I know why I’m doing it and I do believe that I know how, having done it before with “mixed results”. ~ It’s a mixture of heartache and labor of love. ~ High hopes and low expectations to protect against disappointment. To the dentist next week for mom and having cable TV reactivated to the house. ~ Back to the Good Fight, kicking back the darkness lighting one candle at a time.

            They arrived with only their cloths, which is good as I’m having to throwing away things to make room. My bag and golf clubs wasn’t on at the curb 30 minutes before they disappeared.

            Wish us all luck.

          • WTS/JAY

            Absolutely, my friend. Best of luck, and God’s speed. I will do what i can from where i am; keep you, and the dispossessed in my prayers, that you and they be strengthened and blessed. Again, bless your heart my friend, and keep up the good fight! :)

          • Bob666

            You’re a better man than I am deer.

          • Deerinwater

            Oh,~I don’t know about that Bob. ~ We all have this ability to rise to the occasions and reach far beyond our comfort zones. Whether it’s the moons gravitational pull or something else that triggers this impulse, I can’t say.

            There’s been times that I haven’t and I must confess they haunt me at times. ~ The “what if and if only’s”

            The lure of the road less traveled can be your demise

            I’m playing it by the minute with full knowledge it’s not a short term project.

          • Bob666

            Well Deer,
            I would say this, The kids are lucky to have you. I’m 71 and have a 15 year old daughter and she keeps me on my toes and current with life. Having two might kill me, but I guess that I would figure it out.

            Concentrate on the kids-they are smarter than adults give them credit for and they will always remember and appreciate your efforts.

            Shame about about the golf clubs………..

          • Deerinwater

            Thanks for your insights Bob , they tend to reinforce some of my thoughts. ~ I do want to stay connected with life and not left to see the world only through an old mans eyes. ~ I’ve missed having children in my life. ~

            To buy a 10 year old her school; supplies once again, ~ the decision of crayons and her personal choice was sort of a hoot! ~

            And yes, you are so correct, ~ the children are quick and pickup on everything.

            All three have done a lot of sleeping since arriving. ~ They were tired. ~ exhausted from living 5 months in a small bedroom of Apartment house where drug activity went on all day and all night long. People coming n and out constantly with all the associated “Drama” and bad behavior.

            The mother began to show signs of calming down yesterday. Her behavior was much like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs her first day, ~ Stressed, accelerated, over reacting, displaying disjointed reasoning that I attribute to living conditions , bad diet, complexion poor, ~ under weight, ~ girly butt all but disappeared, Not skin and bone, but headed that way for sure.

            She is from my home town, a railroad town here in Texas, ~ at some point in the distant past, ~ our family’s have connected by work, school or church. ~ As time pasts , we will connect these dots. ~ all things in good time.

            As far the golf clubs goes, they were my first set . I was slow to part with them. ~ but it’s done. ~ Since i still need more room, ~ a lot more cleaning out and getting rid of is in the works.

            At 71, and you have a 15 year old daughter ~ you know exactly where I’m coming from with this adventure Bob and thanks for your encouragement.

        • Bill

          Sorry, Robbie,
          I mistook what you said

    • Bill

      No, Robbie
      The answer is to reduce taxes on EVERYONE

      • Robert Messmer

        Bill how do you reduce taxes on the 47% that pay NO taxes?

  • rbrooks

    blaming obama for the results of the second industrial revolution or reagans neo socialist low wage plan is a bit of a stretch.

    the little bush plan of giving away all of your revenue prior to decreasing your liability is not fiscally responsible.

    • peter

      Probably many agree that Bush was a disaster, but it is wise to remember that Obama brings criticism on himself for continuing Bush’s agenda instead of ” changing ” it, AS HE PROMISED! By exacerbating the same mistakes his predecessor made does not exonerate him from blame and blaming others all the time for one’s own very visible incompetence is what cowards do. When will he man up? Probably never, just like all Democrats.

      • rbrooks

        the problem is too few ever understand that all politicians are the same crooks. regardless of the ticket they run on.

        • momo

          You hit the nail on the head!

      • Robert Messmer

        peter you are unaware that Truman, a Democrat, said (not original with him but he did say it) “The buck stops here!” Not all Democrats refuse to own up to what they do, just the ones still alive.

    • Bill

      R,
      So, what is your answer to stimulate the economy

      • rbrooks

        jobs. jobs. and jobs.

        we have the jobs.

        we just need to put americans back in those jobs.

        • Bill

          R,
          I see you have been hitting the bottle again. You should back off of that stuff, It will warp your mind

          • rbrooks

            you have little knowledge of the job market. then again, you seem to have very little to work with.

          • Bill

            R, Yea, you are right. I have always went out and created my own work instead of sitting on my butt and crying like you because somebody did not give me something.
            Poor baby, you are a sad story

          • rbrooks

            so you are just another of the many morons who have no answer(s). you are so ignorant you are unable to see the problems that are right in front of you.

          • Bill

            R,
            I think you are creating your own problems. I see what the problems are; ignorant people that vote fools into office and then whine because they screw things up.
            You don’t strike me as the brightest bulb in the lamp

          • rbrooks

            so stop being an ignorant voter. then you won’t have to whine so much.

            you are just the burnt out bulb some fool put back in the lamp.

        • Robert Messmer

          So you are saying that we need to round up the 11 million or whatever the true number is of illegals and ship them all home? Are the jobs where the people are, ie Detroit?

          • rbrooks

            not even close to what i am saying.

          • Robert Messmer

            You said “we have the jobs.” and “we just need to put americans back in those jobs.” So what did you mean if you didn’t mean remove the illegals (non-americans) and give the jobs to americans?

          • rbrooks

            legal immigrants are americans?

            remove all non americans from the american job market. no more social services for non americans. they can stay or leave.

            you might want to research the number of non americans presently living and working in this country.

          • Robert Messmer

            No, immigrants are not Americans until/unless they are naturalized. Yes, I had completely forgot that in addition to all the illegals, we do also have legal immigrants. Without drastic changes to at least a couple of categories (Immigration and Employment, spring to mind as the two most obvious) of laws this change you suggest will never come to pass. We may wish to maintain the EB5 class since that requires an investment of between 500K to 1 M and the creation of at least 10 jobs for US Citizens.

          • rbrooks

            you are not aware that in addition to all of the legal immigrants we currently have, we also have a few illegal immigrants as well.

            i would end all work related visas’. at least at this moment. including the eb5. which has seen little use and has too many loop holes.

          • Robert Messmer

            A “few illegal immigrants”? More than a few, but you were the one who stated you were not talking about the illegals. Since the government won’t take care of the illegal problem, what makes you think they would even consider eliminating the work visas?

          • rbrooks

            the govt has convinced a large portion of the population that the problem is illegals.

            the public ignores the much larger number of legal immigrants that have been brought in.

            the govt no longer has to be concerned with the problem of too many non americans working in this country and who now have been granted access to social services.

            since the public is no longer aware of it.

            you brought up illegals without ever considering the number of legal immigrants.

            we have approximately 315 million people in the u.s. how many are americans?

            we add a new international, non american, to our population, about every 45 seconds.

            do you know how many currently active work visas’ there are?

            do a bit of research.

            there is a lot of debate over how many americans are actually unemployed.

            even using the far end numbers, we have more than twice as many non americans working in this country than we have unemployed americans.

            we have the jobs.

            we just need to put americans back in those jobs.

            western union and walmart will lose a lot of money of that happens.

          • Robert Messmer

            While there may be debate over the actual number, there is no debate that there are too many Americans out of work. Between the two groups, the illegals would be the easier to remove from the workforce but the government refuses to do so and is even in the process of granting amnesty.

          • rbrooks

            removing non americans from the work force is easily done.

            getting the govt and business to go along will be the difficult part.

          • Robert Messmer

            Since the government won’t, it is impossible.

          • rbrooks
  • RJ

    robbie ,how many poor people create jobs? if you cut taxes on the rich they tend to reinvest that money back into their buisness which means they update lets say their vehical fleet or buy more ink or open another production line etc which means more people makeing vehiles or ink or more people on the new line which means more people making money which increasses tax flow example if you have 5 people making 50 dollars you take 5 apeice you have 25 dollars but if you add another five people now you got 50 dollars and everybody has money left or you can just take another 5 dollars from the 5 people and they just have less and we have tried it the liberal way and history teaches us govt does not no how to spend money wisely thats why everybody is broke they cant manage anything correctly yet they think they can manage my healh care and everything else hah!

    • rbrooks

      the rich do not reinvest in job creation. why should they. under the bush tax cuts, the rich can make more with lower sales and fewer employees. they is no incentive to increase job productivity.

      you are correct when you state poor people do not create jobs.

      the problem is those low wage jobs. they do not make enough to pay a higher tax rate and do not have enough disposable income to generate new sales. without sales their is no need for new employees. normally that leads to fewer employees. which leads to fewer sales.

      which is how we got to this point in the economy.

      • Bill

        R,
        So it looks like you have two choices: you can take control of your own destiny and create your own work or you can go sit in the corner and cry. My second father was a concentration camp survivor who taught me what it was like to have a bad day.
        So your sad story does not bring a tear to mu eye

        • rbrooks

          why are you complaining about the state this country is in?

          sure are a lot of german immigrant story’s lately.

    • Bill

      Good comment RJ
      Hong Kong is the most robust economy in the world owned by a communist government. 4% GDP is considered a recession. What is their secret. They have two tax rates on income and no other taxes at all. 17% on business, 15% on personal. There is no sales tax, no property taxes no taxes to fund studies on the sex habits of the Australian swamp rat.
      They have also streamlined their public sector by outsourcing and it has
      so efficient that they refunded $6,000 to every Hong Kong resident.
      You are right, low taxes and less regulation is the only way to stimulate the economy.

    • Jack

      RJ:

      “Cut taxes on the rich they tend to reinvest that money back into their business …” Great Republican/Libertarian/conservative talking point. Unfortunately for all of us, it simply is not true. Most rich people do not even have “their own business”.

      Starting in 2001, Bush substantially cut taxes for the Rich. The only thing that really grew was the Nation’s debt.

      A common mistake that people make is to believe that when someone buys stock they are investing in a company. The only time a company gets any money from the sale of its stock is when someone buys the stock from the company – an initial offering. A company does not get a single penny when its shares are bought and sold in the stock market.

  • garygerke

    The Obama supporters are getting what they deserve!!!!

    • Deerinwater

      and you are too!

      • Nord

        Correct, we are getting what the Obama supporters deserve.

      • Bill

        Deer,
        So that means you are an Obama supporter? I was under the impression that you were smarter than that

        • Deerinwater

          I have traditionally supported all of out presidents and our armed services, even when I disagree with some of the things they do.

          Would you like to hear someone say, “W. Bush supporters are getting what they deserve?”

          For I assure you, ~ the cost paid have been made by all with the exception of a small few. ~ And you and I are not in that select group.

  • peter

    He left them hoping and ran away with all the change!

    • Bill

      Great analogy, Peter

  • TexRancher

    Those who continue to support Obama deserve what they get! Most voted for him because he’s black and no other reason. They didn’t bother to pay attention during the campaigns to learn and understand what this subversive intended to do to all of us.
    They fail to understand that the stream of benefits will eventually be cut off and the taxpayer will no longer supoort them. Then what? They don’t care, just keep the welfare, Obamaphones and food stamps coming along with gov. (Taxpayer) housing coming until we go over the cliff he’s driving us to.
    Welcome to Obama’s communism dummies!

    • John Cherish

      The sheer stupidity of it all is they want to kill off the middle-class without realizing that this is the tax base. But to democrats money is like monopoly money you just have to print more to get out of debt don’t have enough to pay your bills just print more. Their answer is to keep those presses running we need to get out of debt. What needs to happen to the US is a good dose of hyperinflation to adjust the real value of the dollar, or maybe we should all stop accepting dollars for payment of any kind since they are worthless. We need to all march on Washington and fix this mess the politicians and bankers caused

      • Bill

        Good comments, John
        I find this very funny that Obamas policies are the exact opposite of what needs to be done to stimulate the economy. The results are evident. Now, all of his supporters are crying the blues that they can’t make a living working at a fast food.
        Duh!!! Why don’t you try promoting capitalism for a change instead of socialism

        • fenix1

          EXACTLY…

    • Bill

      Tex, When the benefits are cut off is the time we will really need our guns

  • rbrooks
  • Shorty Stuff

    Sadly, the people that voted for him are too ignorant and inexperienced (to put it mildly) to realize he and the liberals in Congress are the problem, and not the solution. There should be some type of test required before being allowed to vote. Ignorance of the Constitution, history, and current events should be cause to revoke voting privileges.

    • Bill

      Also good comment, Shorty

    • Robert Messmer

      Why should the voters be held to a higher standard than the politicians they are voting for?

  • IBCAMN

    this is how it should be,if you supported this fool you should suffer!period!(obama wont though,he thinks he’s a king and spends tax money like one too)make the people suffer so the heads of state thrive!thats what this gov’t believes it should be and we aint dying fast enough for him and his fried chicken eating pet gorrilla michelle!what the hell is wrong with these people that supported this idiot?!how did he win again(oh yeah,fraud,fake votes,lost republican votes)voter fraud up the wazoo and no one blinked an eye!even though a whole bunch of gov’t employee’s were caught voting up to five times for obama,nobody does sh#t to find out the truth!this is yet another problem of whats wrong with this gov’t and nobody is doing nothing but crack!!!that has to be the answer as to why this is all being swept under the rug!!we all know he was born in kenya yet we sit and do nothing!impeachment trials against this idiot at least got to a real judge(it went to dozens of crooked ones)to at least get something rolling,as for how much,i dont know!it’s like putting this in the hands of that judge that knocked up the wife of the guy who’s dievorce proceedings he’s overtseeing!(that in itself is a mess)but yet hardly anyone knows about that!lamestream media has said nothing!it’s all a corrupt system that needs to be rebuilt from the ground up!and whenb you have a tyrant in charge,lying to the world and stealing the seat meant for an American!he brainwashed stupid people into voting for him,twice with no resaults,none,nothing!how stupid do you have to be not to realize what’s happening??!!
    stupidity should be painful,and you get what you deserve!so all you obama lovers are getting what you deserve!and if you survive,you will have a place to stay in a nice new camp they have built for you,then you’ll have a job alright!!!!

    • jaybird

      The problem is that those of us that didn’t vote for him are suffering also. I do not want him “impeached” because he can be pardoned.
      I want him convicted of “Treason” and put in prison, him and all his minions so that his Executive Orders, appointees, and everything that he did that was unconstitutional will be “null and void”.

      • Bill

        Good comment, Jay

      • Robert Messmer

        Even if he is imprisoned he can be pardoned, happens all the time. As far as his Executive Orders, they probably have to be voided one by one by new Executive Orders. If so, will more than likely be just like the “terrible, USA destroying Bush tax cuts” that Obama did not end and even extended. As we all know even tho NSA was wrong Obama has done nothing to dismantle it.

  • Alan

    There are always consequences for poor choices, now they can suffer them. Unfortunately the rest of us suffer the stupidity as well.

  • Deerinwater

    Well ~ hmm? ~ The economic efforts on the part of the Fed in the summer of 2009 and what is occurring today, you could compare to pulling the “Rip Cord” on a parachute. ~ It slowed the descent and minimized the damage at the bottom of the drop, turning total devastation into a rough landing.

    Now, ~ why we were experienced so many American’s in a free-fall in 2009 is not being presented in this article. While Mr. Livingston seems to be suggesting that current international events is being employed to divert American’s attention away from tightening household budget matter Claiming a softer landing never occurred, that there was no recovery. ~

    Well,? ~ to have survived such a Free-Fall, was a feat in itself. ~ As it was the Fed that propped up the States, allowing them time to get their economic house in ordered. ~ That the Recovery has not been “robust” leaving the opposition to tell us that the recovery never occurred is pure poppycock. ~ At what point in this plummeting decent should a person start feeling “grateful” ?

    “43” drove us in a ditch, and Obama is not getting us out fast enough”, as Bill Clinton sums it up ~ seems to still apply.

    Anything ~ can be employed as a diversion, ~ and politicians know how to use the media and it’s “News Cycles” to distract people. The American people fall for it , time and time again.

    It’s what is “not being talked about”,~ that is the real news. ~

    Example; ~ Obama’s efforts to stand down these Bush wars could only go as fast as American GI could be assimilated back into the private economy. ~ A nation can only “afford” to have so many “unemployed soldiers” without suffering greatly from it.

    This has never been discussed, ~ it’s never been “News”.

    Today’s Headlines Reads; “WASHINGTON — The economy added 169,000 net new jobs last month and the unemployment rate ticked down to a near post-Great Recession low of 7.3%, its lowest level since the end of 2008, the Labor Department said Friday.”

    ~ If you will notice, there is no mention of what kind of jobs were created, ~ they could have been Grave Digger jobs, ~ or a job that require a paper hat for all we know.

    BUT! ~ the economy has turned around , ~ the Free Fall is over, ~ for now! ~ This does have to be permanent and probably isn’t. ~ but we are now out of the ditch, ~ and moving on down the road at a slow pace with as few casualties as possible and attempting to leave no-one behind.

    • momo

      I agree “43” drove us into the ditch, but we might be out of the ditch and driving slowly down the road and over a cliff. That 7.3% number is bs, try looking at workforce participation, the lowest since Carter was in office. Yes, the FED has softened the fall, but at what cost? Their balance sheet had had about 3 trillion added to it, they seem to be the only buyer of government debt. The only people making out are the banksters, who are collecting 25 basis points on the money the FED has given them to lend.

      • WTS/JAY

        It wasn’t 43 that drove us into the ditch, and it is not Obama that is keeping us there; for the two, 43 and Obama are just the figure-head who represent the corrupt establishment that is taking this country over the cliff…venting your rage at the CEO’s is an exercise in futility, and doesn’t come close to addressing the real-issue; the establishment is corrupt, through and through. So, should the majority of Americans become too dissatisfied with the current CEO, no problem, as they’ll just replace the current with another just like him, and you’ll be no further ahead, except you’ll still be stuck in the ditch.

        • Bill

          Good comments , Jay
          You always seem to weed through the BS and get to the facts

  • garygerke

    [expletive deleted] and doesn’t know it!

    The rest of us have no choice, however, the tingle up your leg is diminishing big time!

  • Warrior

    Exactly Right. Obama voters suffer just BECAUSE they are Obama voters. Nincompoops!

  • RJ

    sorry been away for awhile here goes,jack if the rich dont own or create buisness & the poor dont or the middle class dont who does? & wheen did it become a crime to be rich? when you dont know what your govt is going to do you dont spend money or create jobs especially if the govt is just going to steal it ie: health care. its hard to invest your money into anything if you dont know if it will be taken away tomorrow. Bill so you are saying we should become communist & we will all be rich? look we have tried all your isims markisim,
    socialisim, facisim, nazisim communisim, yes they sound great but hear again
    history has proved time & time again they take from the rich so now the rich are & so the poor are poor now the only people that are rich are who? yep thats right the govt. if its so great why do all those isim countries revolt or come to america?used to be a dumb uneducated person could become rich if they put the effort into it. not sit around and complain and expect the 1% to pay for everything or the govt. yes hong kong is doing good but give the communist time, right know china is starting to have their own economic problems soon they will realize hong kong has money & guess what? well ask Tibet hows it going. r.brooks no incentive to reinvest question why does somebody start a buisness? is it to make money to give it all away or is it to make money? I would guess the latter. yes they should pay a fair wage & the good employers do, you might not beleive this but there are honest & fair employers, & I might say everyone of those low wage employees new accepted & signed the dotted line saying ILL TAKE THE JOB! ill tell all of you how to stimulate the economy, dont give bailouts to companies that cant manage or run them correctly (gm, fannie mae, freddy mac) dont insult the american people with a $300 or $750 bailout & say that will stimulate the economy, that did nothing pay one bill buy some grocerys. Give every american say $10,000 & watch the economy boom well buy cars, tvs, houses
    that will put us back to work & then maybe somebody guess I dont who will create new jobs get out of my pocket and life & watch what we can do
    more to follow stay tuned.

    • rbrooks

      well, a stagnant business will eventually be out of business. a shrinking customer base will close even more doors.

      the tax cuts were supposed to create jobs thru reinvestment. of course it didn’t. it was all a ruse.

      you are correct. we would have been better off if bush had given every american 10k. that would have driven the economy. created a demand. produced jobs.

      the problem, is too many low wage jobs. part time jobs. and temp jobs.

      the conclusion of supply side neo socialism, has always been predictable and inevitable.

      it will continue to get worse.

      • Bill

        R,
        But wait a second, in one of your posts below you say there are plenty of jobs but not enough people to fill them. You really have been hitting that bottle too hard

        • rbrooks

          your lack of comprehension is a real problem for you.

          try having someone read that post to you.

  • RJ

    part 2 you liberals want to take take take & tell me you can spend my money better than I can or tell me the govt can look they cant give me safe water secure borders a sound infastructure good food $600 for a toilet seat make me a criminal if i dont want their health care take my guns away and tell me to run from the bad guys dont offend anyone etc etc & what did the govt do to deserve my income? did they help me on my job? no did they sweat for me on my job? no did they smash a finger for me on my job? no so why is it I work my butt off to let them reach their grimy paws into my wallet & take part of my hard earned cash? here again if I buy it ill pay a tax if I sell it ill pay a tax & dont be holier than thou call me a sinner because I smoke & tax that I know its just a penny here 1/2 cent there guess what out of pennies.leave me alone I do rather well when you do. by the way not rich & unemployed dont blame anyone except the govt who ran this economy with all your regs or lack of into the ground you complain about the 1% then run out buy a lottery ticket so you can be come one look the republicans are to blame for some of this to but ill take the lesser of to evils I dont no what it is you campaine tell me things I agree vote you in you cross the line into washington head opens up & brains fall out you tell I have this great health plan & then you exempt yourself from it say what we wont take your guns its affordable drones ill fix it 4 years no second term lies cant wait to see the response I bet it involves name calling good nite america!

  • wandamurline

    Well, I guess they are getting what they voted for…unfortunately, the rest of us are suffering because of these morons. Obama told everyone that he was a Muslim and that he was going to change and transform everything. Unfortunately, the uninformed voters thought they would be getting more free stuff and be better off….what Obama meant was that he was going to change the middle class to the poor class, then we would all be poor together.