400 Americans

[Spare_change]

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.

Oh, I'm sorry .... I cited published conclusions by one of the most prestigious think tanks, and you refute it with YOUR opinion, without a single piece of counter-evidence.

I forgot just how omniscient you truly are .....

give me a break!

 

[Conservative65]

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?

As many times as it takes. If a company requires that

You're a pathetic race baiter who can't argue with logic or positive empirical results because liberalism has none, so you sink to the lowest depths of political smear, You're a racist. It's all you have. No brains, no dick, just the lowest form of political pandering. I have no respect for you or the rest of you morally decrepit liberal scum who can't argue with reason, so you don't even try. You just go to fear and hate based divisive politics. If you ever do decide to enter into manhood and defend your views with facts and reason let me know. In the meantime you're just on my not to be taken seriously list. People like you are the ones destroying discourse in this country. There can be nothing to follow, you're a racist. Have a good one, asshole.

So what you are saying is that there is some other reason that the RNC has these terrific problems with minorities and women. No doubt, you are prepared to blame them for hating the Republican party much like some of you Republicans have, in the past, blamed the victims of rape for being raped. So, bubba, tell me, what other reason can you cite as to why minorities and women don't flock to your political causes? Oh I know the mantra you folks cite: It's the Democrats' fault that Republicans are not viewed favorably by women and minorities. It couldn't be anything else, like the words and deeds of your own people. Naw, it could't be that.

It's the words, deeds, and pandering by the Democrats as to why minorities flock to you. When you promise them the world at someone else's expense, it's not hard to figure out why those whou would rather have someone else do for them than do for themselves come to you. That's not blaming the Democrat party. It's saying it's no surprise people, when promised things and told that they deserve it, flock to the party that has convinced them that bullshit is true.

So what you are saying is that women and minorities are so gullible and stupid that they cannot figure out for themselves which party has their best interest at heart. Got it.

Are you saying the Democrat pandering means they have the best interests of women and minorities at heart? If you are, you're saying their stupid because you have to pander to them to get them. If what you're doing is so good, pandering wouldn't be necessary.

Great post, that's dead on. Democrats pander because that's the way to get them, not because they have their best interest at heart.

The Democrats operate under the Peter and Paul concept. If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on the support of Paul.

 

[Spare_change]

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?

As many times as it takes. If a company requires that

So what you are saying is that there is some other reason that the RNC has these terrific problems with minorities and women. No doubt, you are prepared to blame them for hating the Republican party much like some of you Republicans have, in the past, blamed the victims of rape for being raped. So, bubba, tell me, what other reason can you cite as to why minorities and women don't flock to your political causes? Oh I know the mantra you folks cite: It's the Democrats' fault that Republicans are not viewed favorably by women and minorities. It couldn't be anything else, like the words and deeds of your own people. Naw, it could't be that.

It's the words, deeds, and pandering by the Democrats as to why minorities flock to you. When you promise them the world at someone else's expense, it's not hard to figure out why those whou would rather have someone else do for them than do for themselves come to you. That's not blaming the Democrat party. It's saying it's no surprise people, when promised things and told that they deserve it, flock to the party that has convinced them that bullshit is true.

So what you are saying is that women and minorities are so gullible and stupid that they cannot figure out for themselves which party has their best interest at heart. Got it.

Are you saying the Democrat pandering means they have the best interests of women and minorities at heart? If you are, you're saying their stupid because you have to pander to them to get them. If what you're doing is so good, pandering wouldn't be necessary.

Great post, that's dead on. Democrats pander because that's the way to get them, not because they have their best interest at heart.

The Democrats operate under the Peter and Paul concept. If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on the support of Paul.

... but I heard Peter really gets sore about it ... and there is NOTHING worse than a sore Peter.

 

[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.

Oh, I'm sorry .... I cited published conclusions by one of the most prestigious think tanks, and you refute it with YOUR opinion, without a single piece of counter-evidence.

I forgot just how omniscient you truly are .....

give me a break!

Oh really. You just want to have a battle of the think tanks. And here I thought you might want to offer a few independent thoughts. How silly of me.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

As many times as it takes. If a company requires that

It's the words, deeds, and pandering by the Democrats as to why minorities flock to you. When you promise them the world at someone else's expense, it's not hard to figure out why those whou would rather have someone else do for them than do for themselves come to you. That's not blaming the Democrat party. It's saying it's no surprise people, when promised things and told that they deserve it, flock to the party that has convinced them that bullshit is true.

So what you are saying is that women and minorities are so gullible and stupid that they cannot figure out for themselves which party has their best interest at heart. Got it.

Are you saying the Democrat pandering means they have the best interests of women and minorities at heart? If you are, you're saying their stupid because you have to pander to them to get them. If what you're doing is so good, pandering wouldn't be necessary.

Great post, that's dead on. Democrats pander because that's the way to get them, not because they have their best interest at heart.

The Democrats operate under the Peter and Paul concept. If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on the support of Paul.

... but I heard Peter really gets sore about it ... and there is NOTHING worse than a sore Peter.

The problems is those making Peters sore don't have a problem telling them too bad.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Oh, I'm sorry .... I cited published conclusions by one of the most prestigious think tanks, and you refute it with YOUR opinion, without a single piece of counter-evidence.

I forgot just how omniscient you truly are .....

give me a break!

Oh really. You just want to have a battle of the think tanks. And here I thought you might want to offer a few independent thoughts. How silly of me.

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

 

[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.

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.

Oh, I'm sorry .... I cited published conclusions by one of the most prestigious think tanks, and you refute it with YOUR opinion, without a single piece of counter-evidence.

I forgot just how omniscient you truly are .....

give me a break!

Oh really. You just want to have a battle of the think tanks. And here I thought you might want to offer a few independent thoughts. How silly of me.

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Oh, I'm sorry .... I cited published conclusions by one of the most prestigious think tanks, and you refute it with YOUR opinion, without a single piece of counter-evidence.

I forgot just how omniscient you truly are .....

give me a break!

Oh really. You just want to have a battle of the think tanks. And here I thought you might want to offer a few independent thoughts. How silly of me.

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

Mmmm --- let's see what I know about that era.

I lived in a country filled with despair, malaise, and disappointment - nobody believed any more. Nobody believed in the government, nobody believed in the future. I remember long gas lines - and 79 Americans being held by a foreign power. I remember the absolute conviction that we were all going to die in a fiery death at the hands of the Russians. I saw long gas lines and a people who had given up.

Then, I remember a leader who came to the front - talked about shining cities on the hill, and the brightness of the future - turned us from a disheveled, disheartened country to one who began to believe in our destiny again. I saw that leader defeat our greatest enemy, and never fired a shot. I saw a leader that staked the future of his country on his belief in the American worker. I saw a leader who cut taxes, put more money back into the hands of the people.

Because I believed in that vision, I started a new company - grew it to about 300 employees during that period. Worked 70-80 hours a week - first nine months, I didn't get paid a nickel. Risked everything - but it worked. That company now employs 4,000 people.

I saw a country emerge from the darkness of rampant progressiveness, into a bright future. I saw non-performers and hangers-on swept by the wayside. Which one were you?

 

[francoHFW]

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.

And Pubs make it as difficult and expensive as possible

 

[francoHFW]

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:

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.

Oh, I'm sorry .... I cited published conclusions by one of the most prestigious think tanks, and you refute it with YOUR opinion, without a single piece of counter-evidence.

I forgot just how omniscient you truly are .....

give me a break!

Oh really. You just want to have a battle of the think tanks. And here I thought you might want to offer a few independent thoughts. How silly of me.

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

Mmmm --- let's see what I know about that era.

I lived in a country filled with despair, malaise, and disappointment - nobody believed any more. Nobody believed in the government, nobody believed in the future. I remember long gas lines - and 79 Americans being held by a foreign power. I remember the absolute conviction that we were all going to die in a fiery death at the hands of the Russians. I saw long gas lines and a people who had given up.

Then, I remember a leader who came to the front - talked about shining cities on the hill, and the brightness of the future - turned us from a disheveled, disheartened country to one who began to believe in our destiny again. I saw that leader defeat our greatest enemy, and never fired a shot. I saw a leader that staked the future of his country on his belief in the American worker. I saw a leader who cut taxes, put more money back into the hands of the people.

Because I believed in that vision, I started a new company - grew it to about 300 employees during that period. Worked 70-80 hours a week - first nine months, I didn't get paid a nickel. Risked everything - but it worked. That company now employs 4,000 people.

I saw a country emerge from the darkness of rampant progressiveness, into a bright future.

Great acting job! Then the bill came due- doubled the debt, S+L recession, long term ruin of the nonrich...see sig pp1.

Iran hostage Crisis- beginning of 24/7 news cycle of whining.

 

[JoeNormal]

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:

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.

Oh, I'm sorry .... I cited published conclusions by one of the most prestigious think tanks, and you refute it with YOUR opinion, without a single piece of counter-evidence.

I forgot just how omniscient you truly are .....

give me a break!

Oh really. You just want to have a battle of the think tanks. And here I thought you might want to offer a few independent thoughts. How silly of me.

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

Mmmm --- let's see what I know about that era.

I lived in a country filled with despair, malaise, and disappointment - nobody believed any more. Nobody believed in the government, nobody believed in the future. I remember long gas lines - and 79 Americans being held by a foreign power. I remember the absolute conviction that we were all going to die in a fiery death at the hands of the Russians. I saw long gas lines and a people who had given up.

Then, I remember a leader who came to the front - talked about shining cities on the hill, and the brightness of the future - turned us from a disheveled, disheartened country to one who began to believe in our destiny again. I saw that leader defeat our greatest enemy, and never fired a shot. I saw a leader that staked the future of his country on his belief in the American worker. I saw a leader who cut taxes, put more money back into the hands of the people.

Because I believed in that vision, I started a new company - grew it to about 300 employees during that period. Worked 70-80 hours a week - first nine months, I didn't get paid a nickel. Risked everything - but it worked. That company now employs 4,000 people.

I saw a country emerge from the darkness of rampant progressiveness, into a bright future. I saw non-performers and hangers-on swept by the wayside. Which one were you?

Ok, I'll admit there's some truth to what you've said. And at the time, Reagan looked like a particularly strong leader because Carter appeared so weak.

I'm not sure what you think he did for the American worker however. Probably the pivotal moment in the downward spiral of the working class was his firing of the flight controllers. I didn't see it at the time and maybe neither did he. It should be enough to deny him sainthood though.

I do detect a faint hint of bullshit in your claim that you started a company that now employs 4,000. Why would you be here? If you're running a company that size, you wouldn't have time and if you sold it, why aren't you travelling the world or something? As for me, I'm one of the few remaining upper middle class. I rarely check in here on weekends and the only reason I come here at all is to take a break from my workaday life.

 

[Spare_change]

Oh, I'm sorry .... I cited published conclusions by one of the most prestigious think tanks, and you refute it with YOUR opinion, without a single piece of counter-evidence.

I forgot just how omniscient you truly are .....

give me a break!

Oh really. You just want to have a battle of the think tanks. And here I thought you might want to offer a few independent thoughts. How silly of me.

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

Mmmm --- let's see what I know about that era.

I lived in a country filled with despair, malaise, and disappointment - nobody believed any more. Nobody believed in the government, nobody believed in the future. I remember long gas lines - and 79 Americans being held by a foreign power. I remember the absolute conviction that we were all going to die in a fiery death at the hands of the Russians. I saw long gas lines and a people who had given up.

Then, I remember a leader who came to the front - talked about shining cities on the hill, and the brightness of the future - turned us from a disheveled, disheartened country to one who began to believe in our destiny again. I saw that leader defeat our greatest enemy, and never fired a shot. I saw a leader that staked the future of his country on his belief in the American worker. I saw a leader who cut taxes, put more money back into the hands of the people.

Because I believed in that vision, I started a new company - grew it to about 300 employees during that period. Worked 70-80 hours a week - first nine months, I didn't get paid a nickel. Risked everything - but it worked. That company now employs 4,000 people.

I saw a country emerge from the darkness of rampant progressiveness, into a bright future.

Great acting job! Then the bill came due- doubled the debt, S+L recession, long term ruin of the nonrich...see sig pp1.

Iran hostage Crisis- beginning of 24/7 news cycle of whining.

I would suggest, given the current WH occupant, that you probably don't want to bring up the national debt.

The only thing that 'ruined the nonrich [sic]' is the progressive education system that has turned out two generations of failure. six, pp 1 is a joke, foisted on you by those who want you to think you're a victim

24/7 news cycle is a bad thing, now? This is the same news cycle that serves as water carriers for the progressive movement?

Let me guess - you were swept aside in the 80s, right?

Acting? LOL - son, if you ain't lived it, you need to go home and study up. You're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[Spare_change]

Oh, I'm sorry .... I cited published conclusions by one of the most prestigious think tanks, and you refute it with YOUR opinion, without a single piece of counter-evidence.

I forgot just how omniscient you truly are .....

give me a break!

Oh really. You just want to have a battle of the think tanks. And here I thought you might want to offer a few independent thoughts. How silly of me.

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

Mmmm --- let's see what I know about that era.

I lived in a country filled with despair, malaise, and disappointment - nobody believed any more. Nobody believed in the government, nobody believed in the future. I remember long gas lines - and 79 Americans being held by a foreign power. I remember the absolute conviction that we were all going to die in a fiery death at the hands of the Russians. I saw long gas lines and a people who had given up.

Then, I remember a leader who came to the front - talked about shining cities on the hill, and the brightness of the future - turned us from a disheveled, disheartened country to one who began to believe in our destiny again. I saw that leader defeat our greatest enemy, and never fired a shot. I saw a leader that staked the future of his country on his belief in the American worker. I saw a leader who cut taxes, put more money back into the hands of the people.

Because I believed in that vision, I started a new company - grew it to about 300 employees during that period. Worked 70-80 hours a week - first nine months, I didn't get paid a nickel. Risked everything - but it worked. That company now employs 4,000 people.

I saw a country emerge from the darkness of rampant progressiveness, into a bright future. I saw non-performers and hangers-on swept by the wayside. Which one were you?

Ok, I'll admit there's some truth to what you've said. And at the time, Reagan looked like a particularly strong leader because Carter appeared so weak.

I'm not sure what you think he did for the American worker however. Probably the pivotal moment in the downward spiral of the working class was his firing of the flight controllers. I didn't see it at the time and maybe neither did he. It should be enough to deny him sainthood though.

I do detect a faint hint of bullshit in your claim that you started a company that now employs 4,000. Why would you be here? If you're running a company that size, you wouldn't have time and if you sold it, why aren't you travelling the world or something. As for me, I'm one of the few remaining upper middle class. I rarely check in here on weekends and the only reason I come here at all is to take a break from my workaday life.

Whoa!!!! Hold it!!!

"If you're running a company that size, you wouldn't have time ... " I thought I was one of those guys ripping off the workers - you said so - you mean the top 1% might actually work for their money???

Now, as to whether it is bullshit - I can assure you it's true. And, yes, I'm now retired. Just hanging out - those two charities (one of which I'm chairman of the board) take almost no time at all. And, the fact that I still serve as a consultant to the House Select Committee on Intelligence - no time at all. And, those times when I go to USC (Southern Cal) and lecture in my role as an adjunct professor - piece of cake.

Why am I here? Because I didn't realize how misinformed the general public is about the reality of the business and political world, until I was invited here by one of your long-time members. I am horrified at the level of total ignorance demonstrated by most of the posters here. It's kinda like driving by a bad car accident - you can't stand what you see, but you can't force yourself not to look. I spend a lot of time in a hotel room. You guys have become by 'reality show'. (I kinda relate you to Snookie)

You're "... one of the few remaining upper middle class ..." Where were you during the 80s? 90s? How did you get to be one of the UMC? Why didn't you "get sabotaged" like all the others? Just lucky? Did you use the government to get ahead? Did you have to work for what you got? You and I are the very proof that your rants are nonsensical.

 

[JoeNormal]

Oh really. You just want to have a battle of the think tanks. And here I thought you might want to offer a few independent thoughts. How silly of me.

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

Mmmm --- let's see what I know about that era.

I lived in a country filled with despair, malaise, and disappointment - nobody believed any more. Nobody believed in the government, nobody believed in the future. I remember long gas lines - and 79 Americans being held by a foreign power. I remember the absolute conviction that we were all going to die in a fiery death at the hands of the Russians. I saw long gas lines and a people who had given up.

Then, I remember a leader who came to the front - talked about shining cities on the hill, and the brightness of the future - turned us from a disheveled, disheartened country to one who began to believe in our destiny again. I saw that leader defeat our greatest enemy, and never fired a shot. I saw a leader that staked the future of his country on his belief in the American worker. I saw a leader who cut taxes, put more money back into the hands of the people.

Because I believed in that vision, I started a new company - grew it to about 300 employees during that period. Worked 70-80 hours a week - first nine months, I didn't get paid a nickel. Risked everything - but it worked. That company now employs 4,000 people.

I saw a country emerge from the darkness of rampant progressiveness, into a bright future. I saw non-performers and hangers-on swept by the wayside. Which one were you?

Ok, I'll admit there's some truth to what you've said. And at the time, Reagan looked like a particularly strong leader because Carter appeared so weak.

I'm not sure what you think he did for the American worker however. Probably the pivotal moment in the downward spiral of the working class was his firing of the flight controllers. I didn't see it at the time and maybe neither did he. It should be enough to deny him sainthood though.

I do detect a faint hint of bullshit in your claim that you started a company that now employs 4,000. Why would you be here? If you're running a company that size, you wouldn't have time and if you sold it, why aren't you travelling the world or something. As for me, I'm one of the few remaining upper middle class. I rarely check in here on weekends and the only reason I come here at all is to take a break from my workaday life.

Whoa!!!! Hold it!!!

"If you're running a company that size, you wouldn't have time ... " I thought I was one of those guys ripping off the workers - you said so - you mean the top 1% might actually work for their money???

Now, as to whether it is bullshit - I can assure you it's true. And, yes, I'm now retired. Just hanging out - those two charities (one of which I'm chairman of the board) take almost no time at all. And, the fact that I still serve as a consultant to the House Select Committee on Intelligence - no time at all. And, those times when I go to USC (Southern Cal) and lecture in my role as an adjunct professor - piece of cake.

Why am I here? Because I didn't realize how misinformed the general public is about the reality of the business and political world, until I was invited here by one of your long-time members. I am horrified at the level of total ignorance demonstrated by most of the posters here. It's kinda like driving by a bad car accident - you can't stand what you see, but you can't force yourself not to look. I spend a lot of time in a hotel room. You guys have become by 'reality show'. (I kinda relate you to Snookie)

You're "... one of the few remaining upper middle class ..." Where were you during the 80s? 90s? How did you get to be one of the UMC? Why didn't you "get sabotaged" like all the others? Just lucky? Did you use the government to get ahead? Did you have to work for what you got? You and I are the very proof that your rants are nonsensical.

Mine was a long and strange trip. My first degree was in a 'glamour profession' which didn't get me where I wanted to go. Went back to school in engineering and started my career in defense. Hated it and moved to California to see what I might find. Got into a career I loved, moved, traveled, got a creative position that takes advantage of the glamour part of my training to some extent. Put off settling down until I was well established and lived a pretty average life. I can't complain in most respects but what I do resent is that the goalposts are being moved by the guys who've benefited the most from the advanced society we've created. Super stress to meet deadlines that get other people their bonuses. Having to come up to speed on systems that are too complex for them to understand... Now I have to wonder if I'll be able to retire at what was a common age for such a thing because even with all this added productivity, a social safety net is just out of the question.

 

[francoHFW]

Oh really. You just want to have a battle of the think tanks. And here I thought you might want to offer a few independent thoughts. How silly of me.

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

Mmmm --- let's see what I know about that era.

I lived in a country filled with despair, malaise, and disappointment - nobody believed any more. Nobody believed in the government, nobody believed in the future. I remember long gas lines - and 79 Americans being held by a foreign power. I remember the absolute conviction that we were all going to die in a fiery death at the hands of the Russians. I saw long gas lines and a people who had given up.

Then, I remember a leader who came to the front - talked about shining cities on the hill, and the brightness of the future - turned us from a disheveled, disheartened country to one who began to believe in our destiny again. I saw that leader defeat our greatest enemy, and never fired a shot. I saw a leader that staked the future of his country on his belief in the American worker. I saw a leader who cut taxes, put more money back into the hands of the people.

Because I believed in that vision, I started a new company - grew it to about 300 employees during that period. Worked 70-80 hours a week - first nine months, I didn't get paid a nickel. Risked everything - but it worked. That company now employs 4,000 people.

I saw a country emerge from the darkness of rampant progressiveness, into a bright future.

Great acting job! Then the bill came due- doubled the debt, S+L recession, long term ruin of the nonrich...see sig pp1.

Iran hostage Crisis- beginning of 24/7 news cycle of whining.

I would suggest, given the current WH occupant, that you probably don't want to bring up the national debt.

The only thing that 'ruined the nonrich [sic]' is the progressive education system that has turned out two generations of failure. six, pp 1 is a joke, foisted on you by those who want you to think you're a victim

24/7 news cycle is a bad thing, now? This is the same news cycle that serves as water carriers for the progressive movement?

Let me guess - you were swept aside in the 80s, right?

Acting? LOL - son, if you ain't lived it, you need to go home and study up. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Any actual argument beside misdirection?

Obama's debt is mainly averting ANOTHER corrupt Pub meltdown and assisting the victims- STILL 400 billion/year. Librul media is a joke. Seen a single story on any of the millions saved by ACA? Only MSNBC is Dem, and nobody watches the underfunded pundit fest, as the dupes always go on about....cowardly corporate news just isn't pure Pubcrappe you're used to..

 

[francoHFW]

Oh really. You just want to have a battle of the think tanks. And here I thought you might want to offer a few independent thoughts. How silly of me.

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

Mmmm --- let's see what I know about that era.

I lived in a country filled with despair, malaise, and disappointment - nobody believed any more. Nobody believed in the government, nobody believed in the future. I remember long gas lines - and 79 Americans being held by a foreign power. I remember the absolute conviction that we were all going to die in a fiery death at the hands of the Russians. I saw long gas lines and a people who had given up.

Then, I remember a leader who came to the front - talked about shining cities on the hill, and the brightness of the future - turned us from a disheveled, disheartened country to one who began to believe in our destiny again. I saw that leader defeat our greatest enemy, and never fired a shot. I saw a leader that staked the future of his country on his belief in the American worker. I saw a leader who cut taxes, put more money back into the hands of the people.

Because I believed in that vision, I started a new company - grew it to about 300 employees during that period. Worked 70-80 hours a week - first nine months, I didn't get paid a nickel. Risked everything - but it worked. That company now employs 4,000 people.

I saw a country emerge from the darkness of rampant progressiveness, into a bright future. I saw non-performers and hangers-on swept by the wayside. Which one were you?

Ok, I'll admit there's some truth to what you've said. And at the time, Reagan looked like a particularly strong leader because Carter appeared so weak.

I'm not sure what you think he did for the American worker however. Probably the pivotal moment in the downward spiral of the working class was his firing of the flight controllers. I didn't see it at the time and maybe neither did he. It should be enough to deny him sainthood though.

I do detect a faint hint of bullshit in your claim that you started a company that now employs 4,000. Why would you be here? If you're running a company that size, you wouldn't have time and if you sold it, why aren't you travelling the world or something. As for me, I'm one of the few remaining upper middle class. I rarely check in here on weekends and the only reason I come here at all is to take a break from my workaday life.

Whoa!!!! Hold it!!!

"If you're running a company that size, you wouldn't have time ... " I thought I was one of those guys ripping off the workers - you said so - you mean the top 1% might actually work for their money???

Now, as to whether it is bullshit - I can assure you it's true. And, yes, I'm now retired. Just hanging out - those two charities (one of which I'm chairman of the board) take almost no time at all. And, the fact that I still serve as a consultant to the House Select Committee on Intelligence - no time at all. And, those times when I go to USC (Southern Cal) and lecture in my role as an adjunct professor - piece of cake.

Why am I here? Because I didn't realize how misinformed the general public is about the reality of the business and political world, until I was invited here by one of your long-time members. I am horrified at the level of total ignorance demonstrated by most of the posters here. It's kinda like driving by a bad car accident - you can't stand what you see, but you can't force yourself not to look. I spend a lot of time in a hotel room. You guys have become by 'reality show'. (I kinda relate you to Snookie)

You're "... one of the few remaining upper middle class ..." Where were you during the 80s? 90s? How did you get to be one of the UMC? Why didn't you "get sabotaged" like all the others? Just lucky? Did you use the government to get ahead? Did you have to work for what you got? You and I are the very proof that your rants are nonsensical.

No, you're more and more exceptions to the rule- upwardly mobile. And obviously your expertise doesn't reach to real world Pub disfunction and slow ruin of the non-rich....see sig pp1.

 

[francoHFW]

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

Mmmm --- let's see what I know about that era.

I lived in a country filled with despair, malaise, and disappointment - nobody believed any more. Nobody believed in the government, nobody believed in the future. I remember long gas lines - and 79 Americans being held by a foreign power. I remember the absolute conviction that we were all going to die in a fiery death at the hands of the Russians. I saw long gas lines and a people who had given up.

Then, I remember a leader who came to the front - talked about shining cities on the hill, and the brightness of the future - turned us from a disheveled, disheartened country to one who began to believe in our destiny again. I saw that leader defeat our greatest enemy, and never fired a shot. I saw a leader that staked the future of his country on his belief in the American worker. I saw a leader who cut taxes, put more money back into the hands of the people.

Because I believed in that vision, I started a new company - grew it to about 300 employees during that period. Worked 70-80 hours a week - first nine months, I didn't get paid a nickel. Risked everything - but it worked. That company now employs 4,000 people.

I saw a country emerge from the darkness of rampant progressiveness, into a bright future. I saw non-performers and hangers-on swept by the wayside. Which one were you?

Ok, I'll admit there's some truth to what you've said. And at the time, Reagan looked like a particularly strong leader because Carter appeared so weak.

I'm not sure what you think he did for the American worker however. Probably the pivotal moment in the downward spiral of the working class was his firing of the flight controllers. I didn't see it at the time and maybe neither did he. It should be enough to deny him sainthood though.

I do detect a faint hint of bullshit in your claim that you started a company that now employs 4,000. Why would you be here? If you're running a company that size, you wouldn't have time and if you sold it, why aren't you travelling the world or something. As for me, I'm one of the few remaining upper middle class. I rarely check in here on weekends and the only reason I come here at all is to take a break from my workaday life.

Whoa!!!! Hold it!!!

"If you're running a company that size, you wouldn't have time ... " I thought I was one of those guys ripping off the workers - you said so - you mean the top 1% might actually work for their money???

Now, as to whether it is bullshit - I can assure you it's true. And, yes, I'm now retired. Just hanging out - those two charities (one of which I'm chairman of the board) take almost no time at all. And, the fact that I still serve as a consultant to the House Select Committee on Intelligence - no time at all. And, those times when I go to USC (Southern Cal) and lecture in my role as an adjunct professor - piece of cake.

Why am I here? Because I didn't realize how misinformed the general public is about the reality of the business and political world, until I was invited here by one of your long-time members. I am horrified at the level of total ignorance demonstrated by most of the posters here. It's kinda like driving by a bad car accident - you can't stand what you see, but you can't force yourself not to look. I spend a lot of time in a hotel room. You guys have become by 'reality show'. (I kinda relate you to Snookie)

You're "... one of the few remaining upper middle class ..." Where were you during the 80s? 90s? How did you get to be one of the UMC? Why didn't you "get sabotaged" like all the others? Just lucky? Did you use the government to get ahead? Did you have to work for what you got? You and I are the very proof that your rants are nonsensical.

.

No, you're more and more exceptions to the rule- upwardly mobile. And obviously your expertise doesn't reach to real world Pub disfunction and slow ruin of the non-rich and the country.....see sig pp1

 

[Listening]

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

Mmmm --- let's see what I know about that era.

I lived in a country filled with despair, malaise, and disappointment - nobody believed any more. Nobody believed in the government, nobody believed in the future. I remember long gas lines - and 79 Americans being held by a foreign power. I remember the absolute conviction that we were all going to die in a fiery death at the hands of the Russians. I saw long gas lines and a people who had given up.

Then, I remember a leader who came to the front - talked about shining cities on the hill, and the brightness of the future - turned us from a disheveled, disheartened country to one who began to believe in our destiny again. I saw that leader defeat our greatest enemy, and never fired a shot. I saw a leader that staked the future of his country on his belief in the American worker. I saw a leader who cut taxes, put more money back into the hands of the people.

Because I believed in that vision, I started a new company - grew it to about 300 employees during that period. Worked 70-80 hours a week - first nine months, I didn't get paid a nickel. Risked everything - but it worked. That company now employs 4,000 people.

I saw a country emerge from the darkness of rampant progressiveness, into a bright future.

Great acting job! Then the bill came due- doubled the debt, S+L recession, long term ruin of the nonrich...see sig pp1.

Iran hostage Crisis- beginning of 24/7 news cycle of whining.

I would suggest, given the current WH occupant, that you probably don't want to bring up the national debt.

The only thing that 'ruined the nonrich [sic]' is the progressive education system that has turned out two generations of failure. six, pp 1 is a joke, foisted on you by those who want you to think you're a victim

24/7 news cycle is a bad thing, now? This is the same news cycle that serves as water carriers for the progressive movement?

Let me guess - you were swept aside in the 80s, right?

Acting? LOL - son, if you ain't lived it, you need to go home and study up. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Any actual argument beside misdirection?

Obama's debt is mainly averting ANOTHER corrupt Pub meltdown and assisting the victims- STILL 400 billion/year. Librul media is a joke. Seen a single story on any of the millions saved by ACA? Only MSNBC is Dem, and nobody watches the underfunded pundit fest, as the dupes always go on about....cowardly corporate news just isn't pure Pubcrappe you're used to..

The only misdirection is your ass.

You can only whine and whine when you should be moving to Cuba.

You don't have any information that is useful.

Obamacare sucks....it is not what it promised and it is getting worse.

 

[Spare_change]

Actually, what I was hoping for was independent thoughts devoid of prejudices, agendas, and just plain ol' ignorance, grounded in reality, and facts. Unfortunately, you came up short - way short

Tell me what you know about that era firsthand.

Mmmm --- let's see what I know about that era.

I lived in a country filled with despair, malaise, and disappointment - nobody believed any more. Nobody believed in the government, nobody believed in the future. I remember long gas lines - and 79 Americans being held by a foreign power. I remember the absolute conviction that we were all going to die in a fiery death at the hands of the Russians. I saw long gas lines and a people who had given up.

Then, I remember a leader who came to the front - talked about shining cities on the hill, and the brightness of the future - turned us from a disheveled, disheartened country to one who began to believe in our destiny again. I saw that leader defeat our greatest enemy, and never fired a shot. I saw a leader that staked the future of his country on his belief in the American worker. I saw a leader who cut taxes, put more money back into the hands of the people.

Because I believed in that vision, I started a new company - grew it to about 300 employees during that period. Worked 70-80 hours a week - first nine months, I didn't get paid a nickel. Risked everything - but it worked. That company now employs 4,000 people.

I saw a country emerge from the darkness of rampant progressiveness, into a bright future. I saw non-performers and hangers-on swept by the wayside. Which one were you?

Ok, I'll admit there's some truth to what you've said. And at the time, Reagan looked like a particularly strong leader because Carter appeared so weak.

I'm not sure what you think he did for the American worker however. Probably the pivotal moment in the downward spiral of the working class was his firing of the flight controllers. I didn't see it at the time and maybe neither did he. It should be enough to deny him sainthood though.

I do detect a faint hint of bullshit in your claim that you started a company that now employs 4,000. Why would you be here? If you're running a company that size, you wouldn't have time and if you sold it, why aren't you travelling the world or something. As for me, I'm one of the few remaining upper middle class. I rarely check in here on weekends and the only reason I come here at all is to take a break from my workaday life.

Whoa!!!! Hold it!!!

"If you're running a company that size, you wouldn't have time ... " I thought I was one of those guys ripping off the workers - you said so - you mean the top 1% might actually work for their money???

Now, as to whether it is bullshit - I can assure you it's true. And, yes, I'm now retired. Just hanging out - those two charities (one of which I'm chairman of the board) take almost no time at all. And, the fact that I still serve as a consultant to the House Select Committee on Intelligence - no time at all. And, those times when I go to USC (Southern Cal) and lecture in my role as an adjunct professor - piece of cake.

Why am I here? Because I didn't realize how misinformed the general public is about the reality of the business and political world, until I was invited here by one of your long-time members. I am horrified at the level of total ignorance demonstrated by most of the posters here. It's kinda like driving by a bad car accident - you can't stand what you see, but you can't force yourself not to look. I spend a lot of time in a hotel room. You guys have become by 'reality show'. (I kinda relate you to Snookie)

You're "... one of the few remaining upper middle class ..." Where were you during the 80s? 90s? How did you get to be one of the UMC? Why didn't you "get sabotaged" like all the others? Just lucky? Did you use the government to get ahead? Did you have to work for what you got? You and I are the very proof that your rants are nonsensical.

Mine was a long and strange trip. My first degree was in a 'glamour profession' which didn't get me where I wanted to go. Went back to school in engineering and started my career in defense. Hated it and moved to California to see what I might find. Got into a career I loved, moved, traveled, got a creative position that takes advantage of the glamour part of my training to some extent. Put off settling down until I was well established and lived a pretty average life. I can't complain in most respects but what I do resent is that the goalposts are being moved by the guys who've benefited the most from the advanced society we've created. Super stress to meet deadlines that get other people their bonuses. Having to come up to speed on systems that are too complex for them to understand... Now I have to wonder if I'll be able to retire at what was a common age for such a thing because even with all this added productivity, a social safety net is just out of the question.

See my point? I didn't come from dirt poor --- we couldn't afford dirt. You had several starts and stops in your career, and thus, started late. Yet, we were successful. We are the very proof that it can be done ... if you want it, and are willing to pay the price to get it.

There are a thousand excuses why we fail - but there's only one formula to success. Nobody wants to admit that - nobody wants to say that they didn't work hard enough, or they didn't get enough schooling. Instead, they want excuses that allow them to avoid facing their own shortfalls - "The man kept me down", "I couldn't crack the glass ceiling", "The system is racist" are not the reasons for failure, but they make a great excuse for avoid accepting responsibility for your failure. It's always easier to blame somebody else.

 

[zeke]

Now, as to whether it is bullshit - I can assure you it's true. And, yes, I'm now retired. Just hanging out - those two charities (one of which I'm chairman of the board) take almost no time at all. And, the fact that I still serve as a consultant to the House Select Committee on Intelligence - no time at all. And, those times when I go to USC (Southern Cal) and lecture in my role as an adjunct professor - piece of cake.

Another 1%er out slumming eh? LMAO. Are you trying to show you really identify with us common people?

And if you are advising any committee on matters of intelligence, we are in trouble.

And you, wasting your time and efforts in Democratic academia. Why, when you could be in politics?

Are you da Boss in disguise?