400 Americans

[JoeNormal]

In 1980 we were sold the theory of Supply Side Economics or Trickle Down Economics. Specifically, if we make more money available to the investment class, than they'll use that money to grow the economy, which will brings jobs, material gain and opportunities to the lower classes.

In practice this theory had uneven success. Much of the extra wealth on top went into buying politicians so that our capitalists could create the trade and regulatory environment to ship production to dirt cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations. Another problem was that Supply Side Economics advocated for lower American wages (so that our suppliers would have lower operating costs and hence more incentive to invest). Taken together these things destroyed consumer purchasing power, which is why starting with Reagan The American family started to take on massive amounts of debt (to compensate for lost jobs and lower wages/benefits).

As a result, Reaganomics has left us with an upper class that has more concentrated wealth than any such class in history, coupled with a middle class that is too indebted to consume. This isn't a temporary crisis, it's a structural flaw that we keep trying to fix with more credit and a toxic cycle of asset bubbles.

But it gets worse. You know how republicans hate concentrated political power - well, take a guess what our singularly massive amount of concentrated wealth amounts to? Reaganomics, by concentrating wealth in the hands of the suppliers (which is spread across the entire investment class), has created exactly the kind of concentrated power that they claim to be against. This is why wealthy individuals on both sides of the political aisle own politicians. This is why lobbyists and not voters determine legislation.

Republicans don't get it.

We swallowed poison in 1980.

Turn off talk radio.

The money never trickled down you fucking fools.

It trickled into the pockets of politicians. This was predicted when Reagan announced that he was bringing the wealthy American back.

Your lack of understanding of even the most fundamental capitalism concepts is stunning !!!

You attack without facts; you accuse without proof; you bitch without having a solution.

In short, pretty much a waste of time. Bring something to the table other than accusations, innuendo and empty rhetoric.

He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.

Supply side economics argued that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services as well as invest in capital.

"Like most economic theories, supply-side economics tries to explain both macroeconomic phenomena and - based on these explanations - offer policy prescriptions for stable economic growth. In general, supply-side theory has three pillars: tax policy, regulatory policy and monetary policy.

However, the single idea behind all three pillars is that production (i.e. the "supply" of goods and services) is most important in determining economic growth. The supply-side theory is typically held in stark contrast to Keynesian theory which, among other facets, includes the idea that demand can falter, so if lagging consumer demand drags the economy into recession, the government should intervene with fiscal and monetary stimuli.

This is the single big distinction: a pure Keynesian believes that consumers and their demand for goods and services are key economic drivers, while a supply-sider believes that producers and their willingness to create goods and services set the pace of economic growth." Understanding Supply-Side Economics

" ...the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

• Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
• Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
• Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
• The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years." Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record Cato Institute

The following - http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf - addresses the myths fomented by liberals about the supposedly disastrous supply-side period of Reagan. It specifically disabuses 12 'misstatements' used by liberals today. I won't address all of them, but I will post a couple specifically appropriate to this thread. (all referenced tables, etc., are available at the cited website).

Fable 9: Workers Had to Work Harder for Smaller Paychecks in the 1980s
Caught between the lawmakers in Washington and the dealmakers on Wall Street have been millions of American workers forced to move from jobs that once paid $15 an hour into jobs that now pay $7.

Barlett and Steele never back up such anecdotal claims with any facts. Here they are: the correct way to measure changes in worker pay from one period to the next is not by examining wages alone, but by tallying the total compensation per hour --a measure that includes wages and benefits--paid to a worker.

Nonwage benefits have been an increasing share of total hourly worker compensation. In 1960, 9 percent of worker compensation was in the form of fringe benefits; in 1975, 16 percent of worker compensation was wage supplements; and by 1990, that percentage had risen to 20 percent.

So although it is true that average real wages have been falling over the past 20 years, real compensation has been generally rising. The average real wage in 1990 dollars fell from about $11.00 an hour in 1980 to about $10.00 in 1988, a 9 percent decline. But real compensation per hour rose from $15.00 per hourin 1981 to $16.50 an hour in 1988.

Fable 10: In the 1980s the Rich Got Richer and the Poor Got Poorer
During the 1980s the bucket of liberty and economic freedom rose, while the bucket of income equality fell. Upper-tier Americans significantly expanded their share of national wealth, while low-income citizens lost ground. Reagan policies were critical to the shift.

During the Reagan years, the total share of national income tilted toward the wealthiest Americans. From 1980 to 1988 the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans increased their share of total income from 16.5 to 18.3 while the poorest fifth saw their share fall from 4.2 to 3.8 percent.

Yet it is not true that the gains by the wealthiest Americans came at the expense of low-income Americans. From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile--from the richest to the poorest--gained income according to the Census Bureau economic data (see Figure 11).

The reason the wealthiest Americans saw their share of total income rise is that they gained income at a faster pace than did the middle class and the poor. But Reaganomics did create a rising tide that lifted nearly all boats.

Tens of millions of Americans moved up the income scale in the 1980s--an economic fact that is obscured when only the static income quintile data from the start of the decade to the end are examined. Figure 12 shows that 86 percent of households that were in the poorest income quintile in 1980 had moved up the economic ladder to a higher income quintile by 1990. Incredibly, a poor household in 1980 was more likely to have moved all the way up to the richest income quintile by 1990 (15 percent) than to still be in the poorest quintile (14 percent).

Fable 11: The Poor and Minorities Lost Ground under Reagan's Economic Policies
The 1980s was the first decade since the 1930s in which large numbers of Americans actually suffered a serious decline in living standard.

The poorest 20 percent of Americans experienced a 6 percent gain in real income in the 1980s and have suffered a 3 percent loss in income in the 1990s. Figure 13, which compares the income trends for the poorest fifth of Americans over the past 20 years, shows that the poor did the best during the Reagan years. Black Americans saw their incomes grow at a slightly faster pace (11.0%) than whites (9.8%) in the Reagan years (see Table 9).

-----------
In short, you have bought into the liberal rhetoric that the Reagan economic model failed. Obviously, that is simply false. But, it's important that you believe it, because the left has invested itself so thoroughly in Keynesian economics, that they can't afford to allow you to decide for yourself. In addition, in order for the liberal model to be correct, there MUST be a wronged class. That's why they foment racial division, gender division, and class division. They MUST have a victim group, or they don't have anybody to 'save'.

Don't buy their rhetoric - look at the facts.

As one of the people who've created the technologies that have increased productivity (mainly scientists and engineers), I came to the conclusion on my own back in the mid 90's that the average American had been gamed. It's been proven in many was since then - in the most easily understood way by the productivity versus hourly wage graph that I'm sure everyone has seen by now and by the graph that shows growth of the wealth concentrations in the upper wealth percentiles. I don't know how anyone could see these and not conclude that the productivity gains had been gobbled up by the people at the very top. How do you reconcile that - as the greatest of coincidences?

As for one of the statements in the conclusions you posted:

Nonwage benefits have been an increasing share of total hourly worker compensation. In 1960, 9 percent of worker compensation was in the form of fringe benefits; in 1975, 16 percent of worker compensation was wage supplements; and by 1990, that percentage had risen to 20 percent.

This reflects the increasing costs of healthcare and (excused me for being jaded) these benefits are the best way for employers to lock in employees that has been devised to date.

The Reagan economy is representative of the strategies (and I use that term loosely) that have been used in the corporate and banking worlds ever since. Juice the system for short term, unsustainable gains and let whoever comes after deal with the consequences. We allowed ourselves to be painted into a corner by the people who assured us that the rising tide would lift all boats.

 

[kaz]

I went through the check out line the other day and heard them discussing medieval French literature and nuclear power patents.

Gee, how obtuse you are. And how many jobs in medieval French literature and nuclear power would you say there are?

As I said:
The guy with the PhD apparently has not kept his skills relevant to the labor market.
His fault.

So how many times must a person re-educate themselves to keep up with labor trends? And should companies pay that cost?

Through their entire career.

And how many times have you had to re-educate yourself? Don't you think it would be easier if companies would refrain from moving their operations every five years just so they can exploit the latest low wage workers they managed to convince should work for them? Don't you think that companies should be held to at least a modicum of ethical standards in thre 21st century?

The only constant is change, which liberals use to use your chief tool of fear. If it was up to liberals, we would still have blacksmiths.

As to your question on companies, that would work until American companies collapsed and went under and we all lost our jobs and then we have to retrain to get a job with a foreign company that wasn't so stupid.

As for me, I own a business with 7 1/2 employees I run and I just started a six figure finance job with a fortune 10 company. I have never had a finance job before. I have worked in financial services and management. So yes, I continually retrain. That is life. This could explain your fear and dependence on government.

I started my career in IT, went into IT management, then management consulting, then entrepreneurial, now I'm in finance. I'm debating whether to sell my business or not. I want to do my job a few months first and see how it's going.

 

[JoeNormal]

He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.

It was a history lesson by a retard, for the retard. He's completely full of shit, the facts don't back it up. Only a hand full of whack jobs say the Reagan years were bad or wrong for America.

The problem is you assholes have nothing. So you try to diminish everything around you to look better. It ain't working.

I voted for Reagan twice in spite of warnings at the time from my more politically aware friends. Turns out they were right.

LOL, another hard leftist who was a Republican. Sure you were, sure you were. What is the fascination with you people of making that ridiculous claim?

So to pretend for a second, you have to explain what made you change your view that personal accountability is bunk and we need government to run our lives for us? None of you can ever explain that in a way that demonstrates in any way that you ever grasped anything but authoritarian leftism.

You find it hard to believe that anyone could evolve politically because your political beliefs have crystallized and now you shape your perceptions in order to preserve those beliefs. I used to do that too. It's a shitty way to live. Oh, and I'm not hard leftist either. You're just so far to the right that you can't tell.

 

[kaz]

You're going to have to walk me through that logic. So if I use a phrase, and you use it back to me ... wrong. That isn't using it wrong?

This is clearly wrong, that question wasn't "begged." Seriously, you are on the internet with a browser. If you don't know what something means, and then you use it wrong and are told you don't know what it means, why don't you Google it instead of compounding your stupidity?

I'm starting to get why you go with race whoring instead of addressing actual Republican positions.

Clearly you are having a problem with sarcasm as well as irony. What congregation do you belong to, anyway?

I have addressed Republican positions on many forums. I don't address them much here because all those positions deserve from me is scorn.

So when you said using begging the question back to me wrong isn't wrong didn't fly, now you're going with that using begging the question wrong is "sarcasm." LOL, you are a hoot even if you're useless to engage in actual political discussion with.

Here's an idea. What about saying, oops, I didn't know what it means and used it wrong. So I Googled it and now I know. You know, manning up to your mistake?

Because I would be lying if I said I didn't know what it means. How about instead of using this non-issue to divert attention from the fact that you didn't address the issue I raised, you instead address the issue I raised. How about you do that!

You are complaining about debating non issues? The race slut who is obsessed with people's religious views?



BTW, I only respond every time you deny it. And if you know what it means, why did you use it completely wrong?

You really are obsessed with diverting the conversation, aren't you? What are you afraid of?

Responding to your deflections is an attempt to divert, got it. What if you stop deflecting?

 

[kaz]

He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.

It was a history lesson by a retard, for the retard. He's completely full of shit, the facts don't back it up. Only a hand full of whack jobs say the Reagan years were bad or wrong for America.

The problem is you assholes have nothing. So you try to diminish everything around you to look better. It ain't working.

I voted for Reagan twice in spite of warnings at the time from my more politically aware friends. Turns out they were right.

LOL, another hard leftist who was a Republican. Sure you were, sure you were. What is the fascination with you people of making that ridiculous claim?

So to pretend for a second, you have to explain what made you change your view that personal accountability is bunk and we need government to run our lives for us? None of you can ever explain that in a way that demonstrates in any way that you ever grasped anything but authoritarian leftism.

You find it hard to believe that anyone could evolve politically because your political beliefs have crystallized and now you shape your perceptions in order to preserve those beliefs. I used to do that too. It's a shitty way to live. Oh, and I'm not hard leftist either. You're just so far to the right that you can't tell.

Deflection. I asked for a demonstration that you understand what anyone but a hard leftist thinks. Every time a liberal claims to be or have been a conservative, they are completely unable to explain anything that a Republican thinks. They just repeat liberal positions justified by liberal talking points. If you were a Republican, you could explain so a Republican knows you do know what they think. I was a Republican, left circa 90. I know what they think, I just disagree. You use nothing but leftist talking points.

 

[kaz]

You know --- maybe we should identify Reagan's performance against the current WH occupant.

Oh wait ---- he's a leftist. He can't do anything wrong.

50 months of growth despite mindless opposition, no corrupt bubble, averted a full blown depress- only cost 6-7 trillion. Thanks for the meltdown/disaster, functional shyttehead.

You think the economy is good? You need to get off your boat and come on shore more often. Or at all.

I recognize you have a good news blackout lol...4% growth ok? Oil/gas boom?

So one quarter of decent growth is all it takes to make you happy? I'm guessing if the guy in the White House had an "R" after his name that wouldn't do it for you...

Actually, now your a-hole heroes have cut the phony crises and shutdown threats, we're at about full growth. Too bad we still can't have a jobs infrastructure act, at a perfect time for it.

I'm for America whoever's in charge. Too bad with Pubs it's usually a corrupt bubble for insiders.

I'm a Republican...



That never gets old, well played. Who saw that coming just because it's where you go with every post. Very clever.

 

[JoeNormal]

He provided an accurate history lesson as anyone who lived through the supply-side economics era can testify. Show us where he's wrong.

It was a history lesson by a retard, for the retard. He's completely full of shit, the facts don't back it up. Only a hand full of whack jobs say the Reagan years were bad or wrong for America.

The problem is you assholes have nothing. So you try to diminish everything around you to look better. It ain't working.

I voted for Reagan twice in spite of warnings at the time from my more politically aware friends. Turns out they were right.

LOL, another hard leftist who was a Republican. Sure you were, sure you were. What is the fascination with you people of making that ridiculous claim?

So to pretend for a second, you have to explain what made you change your view that personal accountability is bunk and we need government to run our lives for us? None of you can ever explain that in a way that demonstrates in any way that you ever grasped anything but authoritarian leftism.

You find it hard to believe that anyone could evolve politically because your political beliefs have crystallized and now you shape your perceptions in order to preserve those beliefs. I used to do that too. It's a shitty way to live. Oh, and I'm not hard leftist either. You're just so far to the right that you can't tell.

Deflection. I asked for a demonstration that you understand what anyone but a hard leftist thinks. Every time a liberal claims to be or have been a conservative, they are completely unable to explain anything that a Republican thinks. They just repeat liberal positions justified by liberal talking points. If you were a Republican, you could explain so a Republican knows you do know what they think. I was a Republican, left circa 90. I know what they think, I just disagree. You use nothing but leftist talking points.

Well, first of all, the republican party that Reagan belonged to wasn't the same party that exists today. Back then, you could have considered them the adults in the room. Now, they are a bunch of toddlers who seem to think that obstructionism is a viable - even desirable - way to run the country. They also pander to the stupid and the religious. Were you even alive when Reagan was in office? What do you think I'm missing?

 

[francoHFW]

I'm for America whoever's in charge. Too bad with Pubs it's usually a corrupt bubble for insiders.

The corrupt bubble is between your ears.

Moron. S+L, Real estate bubble world depression, Harding, Coolidge, Grant, etc etc.

 

[francoHFW]

50 months of growth despite mindless opposition, no corrupt bubble, averted a full blown depress- only cost 6-7 trillion. Thanks for the meltdown/disaster, functional shyttehead.

You think the economy is good? You need to get off your boat and come on shore more often. Or at all.

I recognize you have a good news blackout lol...4% growth ok? Oil/gas boom?

So one quarter of decent growth is all it takes to make you happy? I'm guessing if the guy in the White House had an "R" after his name that wouldn't do it for you...

Actually, now your a-hole heroes have cut the phony crises and shutdown threats, we're at about full growth. Too bad we still can't have a jobs infrastructure act, at a perfect time for it.

I'm for America whoever's in charge. Too bad with Pubs it's usually a corrupt bubble for insiders.

I'm a Republican...



That never gets old, well played. Who saw that coming just because it's where you go with every post. Very clever.

Try being an American and a human being, brainwashed, going to hell shyttehead. Praying for you selfish, racist a-hole angry white hater dupes.

How bout those sabres?! Bills only have to beat Denver, GB, and NE to make the playoffs!

 

[kaz]

It was a history lesson by a retard, for the retard. He's completely full of shit, the facts don't back it up. Only a hand full of whack jobs say the Reagan years were bad or wrong for America.

The problem is you assholes have nothing. So you try to diminish everything around you to look better. It ain't working.

I voted for Reagan twice in spite of warnings at the time from my more politically aware friends. Turns out they were right.

LOL, another hard leftist who was a Republican. Sure you were, sure you were. What is the fascination with you people of making that ridiculous claim?

So to pretend for a second, you have to explain what made you change your view that personal accountability is bunk and we need government to run our lives for us? None of you can ever explain that in a way that demonstrates in any way that you ever grasped anything but authoritarian leftism.

You find it hard to believe that anyone could evolve politically because your political beliefs have crystallized and now you shape your perceptions in order to preserve those beliefs. I used to do that too. It's a shitty way to live. Oh, and I'm not hard leftist either. You're just so far to the right that you can't tell.

Deflection. I asked for a demonstration that you understand what anyone but a hard leftist thinks. Every time a liberal claims to be or have been a conservative, they are completely unable to explain anything that a Republican thinks. They just repeat liberal positions justified by liberal talking points. If you were a Republican, you could explain so a Republican knows you do know what they think. I was a Republican, left circa 90. I know what they think, I just disagree. You use nothing but leftist talking points.

Well, first of all, the republican party that Reagan belonged to wasn't the same party that exists today. Back then, you could have considered them the adults in the room. Now, they are a bunch of toddlers who seem to think that obstructionism is a viable - even desirable - way to run the country. They also pander to the stupid and the religious. Were you even alive when Reagan was in office? What do you think I'm missing?

You are completely and utterly missing anything below 50K feet. You just made sweeping statements. You also contradicted that before you said you were wrong for voting for Reagan, now you like him again.

 

[kaz]

You think the economy is good? You need to get off your boat and come on shore more often. Or at all.

I recognize you have a good news blackout lol...4% growth ok? Oil/gas boom?

So one quarter of decent growth is all it takes to make you happy? I'm guessing if the guy in the White House had an "R" after his name that wouldn't do it for you...

Actually, now your a-hole heroes have cut the phony crises and shutdown threats, we're at about full growth. Too bad we still can't have a jobs infrastructure act, at a perfect time for it.

I'm for America whoever's in charge. Too bad with Pubs it's usually a corrupt bubble for insiders.

I'm a Republican...



That never gets old, well played. Who saw that coming just because it's where you go with every post. Very clever.

Try being an American and a human being, brainwashed, going to hell shyttehead. Praying for you selfish, racist a-hole angry white hater dupes.

How bout those sabres?! Bills only have to beat Denver, GB, and NE to make the playoffs!

Damn, I'm a Republican. You are a rhetorical genius. How do you come up with that? It's incredible.

 

[francoHFW]

Reagan was a demented corporate/defense shill. His greatest role. His policies, taken to extremes, have ruined the country over 30 years- see sig. Later.

 

[JoeNormal]

I voted for Reagan twice in spite of warnings at the time from my more politically aware friends. Turns out they were right.

LOL, another hard leftist who was a Republican. Sure you were, sure you were. What is the fascination with you people of making that ridiculous claim?

So to pretend for a second, you have to explain what made you change your view that personal accountability is bunk and we need government to run our lives for us? None of you can ever explain that in a way that demonstrates in any way that you ever grasped anything but authoritarian leftism.

You find it hard to believe that anyone could evolve politically because your political beliefs have crystallized and now you shape your perceptions in order to preserve those beliefs. I used to do that too. It's a shitty way to live. Oh, and I'm not hard leftist either. You're just so far to the right that you can't tell.

Deflection. I asked for a demonstration that you understand what anyone but a hard leftist thinks. Every time a liberal claims to be or have been a conservative, they are completely unable to explain anything that a Republican thinks. They just repeat liberal positions justified by liberal talking points. If you were a Republican, you could explain so a Republican knows you do know what they think. I was a Republican, left circa 90. I know what they think, I just disagree. You use nothing but leftist talking points.

Well, first of all, the republican party that Reagan belonged to wasn't the same party that exists today. Back then, you could have considered them the adults in the room. Now, they are a bunch of toddlers who seem to think that obstructionism is a viable - even desirable - way to run the country. They also pander to the stupid and the religious. Were you even alive when Reagan was in office? What do you think I'm missing?

You are completely and utterly missing anything below 50K feet. You just made sweeping statements. You also contradicted that before you said you were wrong for voting for Reagan, now you like him again.

No, I don't like what he did. I was unaware of the course he put us on at the time because I was a college student and had more on my plate than scrutinizing the potential for disaster that his policies would have. Not everyone was taken in though and I wish I'd have listened to them. Of course, I think there are larger forces at work and if he wasn't the one to put us on the road to plutocracy, it would possibly have been someone else.

 

[Iceweasel]

LOL. The libtard is strong in this thread. "Wepubwicans are ebil!
Weagan made my diaper dirty...waaaaAAAA......WAAAAAAA"

 

[JoeNormal]

LOL. The libtard is strong in this thread. "Wepubwicans are ebil!
Weagan made my diaper dirty...waaaaAAAA......WAAAAAAA"

Um, yeah. I think I made a comment about republican toddlers a little earlier.

 

[francoHFW]

I recognize you have a good news blackout lol...4% growth ok? Oil/gas boom?

So one quarter of decent growth is all it takes to make you happy? I'm guessing if the guy in the White House had an "R" after his name that wouldn't do it for you...

Actually, now your a-hole heroes have cut the phony crises and shutdown threats, we're at about full growth. Too bad we still can't have a jobs infrastructure act, at a perfect time for it.

I'm for America whoever's in charge. Too bad with Pubs it's usually a corrupt bubble for insiders.

I'm a Republican...



That never gets old, well played. Who saw that coming just because it's where you go with every post. Very clever.

Try being an American and a human being, brainwashed, going to hell shyttehead. Praying for you selfish, racist a-hole angry white hater dupes.

How bout those sabres?! Bills only have to beat Denver, GB, and NE to make the playoffs!

Damn, I'm a Republican. You are a rhetorical genius. How do you come up with that? It's incredible.

The truth hurts, brainwashed dingbat- it's easy. The Sabres' 2nd string goalie has gone crazy good and they've won 6 of 7 against the bes.teams in the league, after starting 3-13, and worst in the NHL last year. Or the only Indian coach ever is a genius in his comeback with them. Got fired by the moron front office 15 years ago just after winning coach of the year.

 

[francoHFW]

Helped with that touch of snow we had...Bills too.

 

[kaz]

So one quarter of decent growth is all it takes to make you happy? I'm guessing if the guy in the White House had an "R" after his name that wouldn't do it for you...

Actually, now your a-hole heroes have cut the phony crises and shutdown threats, we're at about full growth. Too bad we still can't have a jobs infrastructure act, at a perfect time for it.

I'm for America whoever's in charge. Too bad with Pubs it's usually a corrupt bubble for insiders.

I'm a Republican...



That never gets old, well played. Who saw that coming just because it's where you go with every post. Very clever.

Try being an American and a human being, brainwashed, going to hell shyttehead. Praying for you selfish, racist a-hole angry white hater dupes.

How bout those sabres?! Bills only have to beat Denver, GB, and NE to make the playoffs!

Damn, I'm a Republican. You are a rhetorical genius. How do you come up with that? It's incredible.

The truth hurts, brainwashed dingbat- it's easy. The Sabres' 2nd string goalie has gone crazy good and they've won 6 of 7 against the bes.teams in the league, after starting 3-13, and worst in the NHL last year. Or the only Indian coach ever is a genius in his comeback with them. Got fired by the moron front office 15 years ago just after winning coach of the year.

The truth is that you're a mental eight year old who doesn't have any idea what a Republican is other than it's not Democrat. It's the worst word you know. Oh, remind me how you're smarter than Republicans because they are all black and white, they can't distinguish grey like you can. LOL.

I'm a Red Wing fan. "Kaz" is for Kalamazoo, Michigan, my home town.

 

[Spare_change]

Walmart provides more jobs to low-skilled workers than any other company. They languish at the low end of the wage scale, because that's where their abilities lie. Walmart has simply figured out a way to employ them, and make money doing it.
You're just jealous.

Bullshit. That simply isn't true. Walmart employees have a wide range of technical skills. But many have had to settle for the jobs they can get because that is what (barely) puts food on the table.

I went through the check out line the other day and heard them discussing medieval French literature and nuclear power patents.

Gee, how obtuse you are. And how many jobs in medieval French literature and nuclear power would you say there are?

As I said:
The guy with the PhD apparently has not kept his skills relevant to the labor market.
His fault.

So how many times must a person re-educate themselves to keep up with labor trends? And should companies pay that cost?

How many times? However many it takes ....

 

[The Rabbi]

Bullshit. That simply isn't true. Walmart employees have a wide range of technical skills. But many have had to settle for the jobs they can get because that is what (barely) puts food on the table.

I went through the check out line the other day and heard them discussing medieval French literature and nuclear power patents.

Gee, how obtuse you are. And how many jobs in medieval French literature and nuclear power would you say there are?

As I said:
The guy with the PhD apparently has not kept his skills relevant to the labor market.
His fault.

So how many times must a person re-educate themselves to keep up with labor trends? And should companies pay that cost?

How many times? However many it takes ....

True.
It is a person's responsibility to make himself employable.