Democrats and Republicans are one

[georgephillip]

The problem started way back with the de-regulation of the banks. All pushed by Republicans who think companies will regulate themselves.

We know how well that worked out.

One or two provisions removed from the registrar does not constitute a de-reguation. No matter how unrelated those provisions might have been, as I have already explained that with George boy who doesn't understand heads or tales about what he is posting.

I'm beginning to think people don't understand the difference between de-regulation, mis-regulation and no-regulation.

In 1970 the richest 1% earned about 8% of US income and in 2010 they "earn" about 20%, any connection to your graph? Would it stretch your wanna-be rich bitch imagination too far to consider the possibility that authentic rich bitches bribe politicians to bury the middle class and small business owners in regulations while the "big fish" get bigger every generation?

 

[AmazonTania]

In 1970 the richest 1% earned about 8% of US income and in 2010 they "earn" about 20%, any connection to your graph?

Yes, the Top 1% earn a greater share of the income. This can be attributed to many things. Lower taxes, asset bubbles, inflation, etc. The only problem is that you are only looking at statistical categories and not flesh and blood individuals.

Three-fourths of the bottom percentage of income earners in 1975 were in the Top 40% in 1991. Only 5% of people who were in the bottom quintile in 1975 was still there in 1991. Also, among 25-year-olds who filed their income returns in 1996 had a 91% increase in their income. It's also important to recognise is that people in the Top 1% in 1996 had a 20% drop in their income by 2005.

I have all the data if you would like to see. But essentially, people are moving up and down the brackets all the time. People start off poor, and gradually become richer. The poor move up and become the new middle class and in some cases, the new rich. The new people entering the labour force becomes the new poor and in some cases the rich sees a drop in their income.

Income inequality doesn't really tell you very much if all you are looking at is statistical categories. Just because someone has a lower share of wealth doesn't make one truly poorer.

Would it stretch your wanna-be rich bitch imagination too far to consider the possibility that authentic rich bitches bribe politicians to bury the middle class and small business owners in regulations while the "big fish" get bigger every generation?

This isn't new to me. That's call defacto protectionism, or corporate capitalism in most cases. Government has power. The Wealthy has money. Government is willing to sell that power and the wealthy are willing to buy that influence. How would the wealthy be able to buy the influence of the Government if the Government didn't have this power to begin with.

For example, Government has the power to increase the minimum wage. This is something Wal-mart is in favor for, and yet, Wal-mart already pays above the minimum wage. Why on Earth would Wal-mart want to do this?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How would the wealthy be able to buy the influence of the Government if the Government didn't have this power to begin with.

this leaves liberals very very confused. They want the government to have more and more power yet they know that it leads to more and more socialist corruption.

They simply lack the IQ to understand why our saintly Founders wanted a small government!

"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence." -Thomas Jefferson

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem started way back with the de-regulation of the banks. All pushed by Republicans who think companies will regulate themselves.

We know how well that worked out.

One or two provisions removed from the registrar does not constitute a de-reguation. No matter how unrelated those provisions might have been, as I have already explained that with George boy who doesn't understand heads or tales about what he is posting.

I'm beginning to think people don't understand the difference between de-regulation, mis-regulation and no-regulation.

In 1970 the richest 1% earned about 8% of US income and in 2010 they "earn" about 20%, any connection to your graph? Would it stretch your wanna-be rich bitch imagination too far to consider the possibility that authentic rich bitches bribe politicians to bury the middle class and small business owners in regulations while the "big fish" get bigger every generation?

That’s exactly why conservatives push for deregulation and the removal of government from the position where it can sell power. I thought that was clear.

Are you trying to say something different here as I would not have pegged you as a small government or lower regulation type of guy?

 

[georgephillip]

One or two provisions removed from the registrar does not constitute a de-reguation. No matter how unrelated those provisions might have been, as I have already explained that with George boy who doesn't understand heads or tales about what he is posting.

I'm beginning to think people don't understand the difference between de-regulation, mis-regulation and no-regulation.

In 1970 the richest 1% earned about 8% of US income and in 2010 they "earn" about 20%, any connection to your graph? Would it stretch your wanna-be rich bitch imagination too far to consider the possibility that authentic rich bitches bribe politicians to bury the middle class and small business owners in regulations while the "big fish" get bigger every generation?

That’s exactly why conservatives push for deregulation and the removal of government from the position where it can sell power. I thought that was clear.

Are you trying to say something different here as I would not have pegged you as a small government or lower regulation type of guy?

I guess my fundamental confusion is how to craft a democracy powerful enough to charter corporations but not powerful enough to regulate them? Private wealth has controlled every government for thousands of years, and today the corporation is the primary tool for wealth creation. I would think a wall between private wealth and the state might be a starting point; however, wouldn't one or the other be required to control the monopoly of violence?

 

[FA_Q2]

In 1970 the richest 1% earned about 8% of US income and in 2010 they "earn" about 20%, any connection to your graph? Would it stretch your wanna-be rich bitch imagination too far to consider the possibility that authentic rich bitches bribe politicians to bury the middle class and small business owners in regulations while the "big fish" get bigger every generation?

That’s exactly why conservatives push for deregulation and the removal of government from the position where it can sell power. I thought that was clear.

Are you trying to say something different here as I would not have pegged you as a small government or lower regulation type of guy?

I guess my fundamental confusion is how to craft a democracy powerful enough to charter corporations but not powerful enough to regulate them? Private wealth has controlled every government for thousands of years, and today the corporation is the primary tool for wealth creation. I would think a wall between private wealth and the state might be a starting point; however, wouldn't one or the other be required to control the monopoly of violence?

That is the rub though, isn’t it? It is a VERY fine line and no one said that it is easy to accomplish this.

That wall is a good place and you are right, we still need some protections. We can’t allow the cigarette companies to sell an addicting product and lie about the fact that it is addicting and deadly. That would not be right so we need protections that include honesty. We can’t have another Rockefeller either so we need regulations that prevent monopolies. We also cannot allow a company to dump waste into a nearby river so there needs to be health regulations.

The key here for me is the purpose of government regulations. The ONLY regulations that should be allowed are those that protect people, their rights and ensure healthy competition. Today, most regulation has nothing to do with those three things. Instead, we have replaced protecting people with a vague ‘general welfare’ mentality where regulation is good as long as it can be justified with a minute ‘positive’ effect. I cited some of those asinine regulations in this thread as well as some others. The number or screws in a steel stud, the manner in which you wipe a child’s rear end, the height or a light switch or outlet, the number of water closets you must have per employee, the size of your drink, the amount of sugar or salt in your food and on and on. None of those protect you from anything other than yourself and are all unnecessary and bloated. The other problem lies in the simple fact that regulation is law and yet not law. It should always be law, period. There is no reasonable way of justifying congress writing their job off to some other bullshit regulatory agency. Why do we elect these individuals and pay them almost 200K a year to if they are going to simply write off their job to someone else.

Those agencies might need to exist in a smaller capacity as an enforcement agency and to offer advice to congress but they have no right to pass law. This also has the direct benefit of reducing the amount of bureaucracy involved in the process. Bureaucratic elements within an agency will create regulation when it is not needed to simply justify their existence in the first place.

Another Idea might to be to make most regulation sunset and therefore it would have to be reexamined on a regular basis. Part of the problem also lies in the pure buildup of regulation as it lasts damn near forever.

Basically, to summarize, the government DOES need some of that power but if we limit its scope I think that would take care of the majority of the problem.

 

[georgephillip]

In 1970 the richest 1% earned about 8% of US income and in 2010 they "earn" about 20%, any connection to your graph?

Yes, the Top 1% earn a greater share of the income. This can be attributed to many things. Lower taxes, asset bubbles, inflation, etc. The only problem is that you are only looking at statistical categories and not flesh and blood individuals.

Three-fourths of the bottom percentage of income earners in 1975 were in the Top 40% in 1991. Only 5% of people who were in the bottom quintile in 1975 was still there in 1991. Also, among 25-year-olds who filed their income returns in 1996 had a 91% increase in their income. It's also important to recognise is that people in the Top 1% in 1996 had a 20% drop in their income by 2005.

I have all the data if you would like to see. But essentially, people are moving up and down the brackets all the time. People start off poor, and gradually become richer. The poor move up and become the new middle class and in some cases, the new rich. The new people entering the labour force becomes the new poor and in some cases the rich sees a drop in their income.

Income inequality doesn't really tell you very much if all you are looking at is statistical categories. Just because someone has a lower share of wealth doesn't make one truly poorer.

Would it stretch your wanna-be rich bitch imagination too far to consider the possibility that authentic rich bitches bribe politicians to bury the middle class and small business owners in regulations while the "big fish" get bigger every generation?

This isn't new to me. That's call defacto protectionism, or corporate capitalism in most cases. Government has power. The Wealthy has money. Government is willing to sell that power and the wealthy are willing to buy that influence. How would the wealthy be able to buy the influence of the Government if the Government didn't have this power to begin with.

For example, Government has the power to increase the minimum wage. This is something Wal-mart is in favor for, and yet, Wal-mart already pays above the minimum wage. Why on Earth would Wal-mart want to do this?

Crony capitalism in the form of taxpayer supplied subsidies, perhaps?

"ALBANY, N.Y. — Several labor unions say more than $400,000 in contributions by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. since 2010 helped bring about the creation of an unusual taxpayer-paid subsidy last month to help employers offset a higher minimum wage in New York."

Republicans deny the charges; however, whether Walmart pays above minimum wage or not, many of their employees rely on public assistance to feed their families.

Walmart Campaign Contributions Influenced New York Minimum Wage Deal, Unions Claim

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In 1970 the richest 1% earned about 8% of US income and in 2010 they "earn" about 20%,

You would expect this under increasing liberalism. The more people living well off liberal entitlements the more those who work will make relative to those living off welfare.

Do you want to steal from the top 1% or put the bottom 50% back to work so they can catch up? Obviously it makes more sense for everyone to work rather than to put even more on welfare provided by the top 1%

Keep in mind that the top 1% now pay 42% of all federal income taxes while they paid only 21% under Reagan. The top 1% let themselves get ripped off that way and so do provide the welfare for the bottom 50%. In that sense the top1% are culpable for the cripplping lifestyle of the bottom 50%.

 

[AmazonTania]

Crony capitalism in the form of taxpayer supplied subsidies, perhaps?

"ALBANY, N.Y. — Several labor unions say more than $400,000 in contributions by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. since 2010 helped bring about the creation of an unusual taxpayer-paid subsidy last month to help employers offset a higher minimum wage in New York."

Yeah. Sure. Why not...

Republicans deny the charges; however, whether Walmart pays above minimum wage or not, many of their employees rely on public assistance to feed their families.

Walmart Campaign Contributions Influenced New York Minimum Wage Deal, Unions Claim

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Why has Wal-mart lobbied in favor for a the minimum wage inrease -- effectively increasing the wages of it's own employees -- when Wal-mart already pays above the minimum wage.

 

[georgephillip]

Crony capitalism in the form of taxpayer supplied subsidies, perhaps?

"ALBANY, N.Y. — Several labor unions say more than $400,000 in contributions by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. since 2010 helped bring about the creation of an unusual taxpayer-paid subsidy last month to help employers offset a higher minimum wage in New York."

Yeah. Sure. Why not...

Republicans deny the charges; however, whether Walmart pays above minimum wage or not, many of their employees rely on public assistance to feed their families.

Walmart Campaign Contributions Influenced New York Minimum Wage Deal, Unions Claim

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Why has Wal-mart lobbied in favor for a the minimum wage inrease -- effectively increasing the wages of it's own employees -- when Wal-mart already pays above the minimum wage.

When's the last time you fed yourself or family on minimum wage?
When the Walmart heirs start lobbying for a living wage, the subject of relevancy assumes some practical meaning.
Right now, parasites like the Walmart heirs bribe politicians to define minimum wage to suit the interests of those entitled to possess more wealth than the bottom 30% of all Americans.
It's Capitalism 101...Privatize profit; socialize cost.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When's the last time you fed yourself or family on minimum wage?

the problem is the minimum wage is now supplemented with so many welfare entitlements that liberals have destroyed the need to earn more than the minimum wage, so many don't.

 

[AmazonTania]

When's the last time you fed yourself or family on minimum wage?

I don't have a family, but still a minimum wage would be enough to feed them. And really it isn't suppose to. Minimum wage is generally treated as a start out wage for people entering the labor force or teenagers who want to get their first job.

When the Walmart heirs start lobbying for a living wage, the subject of relevancy assumes some practical meaning.

Over 200 sovereign nations in the world, and not one of them has a living wage. Why do your think that is?

Right now, parasites like the Walmart heirs bribe politicians to define minimum wage to suit the interests of those entitled to possess more wealth than the bottom 30% of all Americans.

In a way, you are right. Wal-Mart wants the minimum wage to go up, because it knows that it's Mom & Pop shop competitors won't be able to afford it. As I have said before, Big Business loves state regulation as much as the little guy does.

It's Capitalism 101...Privatize profit; socialize cost.

It's socialize cost for you because you choose to give the Government the authority to centrally plan your economy, at the expense of the tax payer.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Right now, parasites like the Walmart heirs bribe politicians to define minimum wage to suit the interests

of course as long as liberals give politicians all the power politicians will be bribed.

This is why Jefferson gave us limited government and Republicans.

 

[FA_Q2]

When's the last time you fed yourself or family on minimum wage?
When the Walmart heirs start lobbying for a living wage, the subject of relevancy assumes some practical meaning.
Right now, parasites like the Walmart heirs bribe politicians to define minimum wage to suit the interests of those entitled to possess more wealth than the bottom 30% of all Americans.
It's Capitalism 101...Privatize profit; socialize cost.

A ‘living wage’ is a misnomer anyway. There is no such thing. It seems that people think raising the wages of the bottom rung somehow magically gives them a greater share of the wealth when that is incorrect.

The end result is that products will increase in price, offshore workers or higher fewer workers with higher minimum wages. Those are the only three options that are available here. It does not make the poor wealthier, they stay just as poor. This is because the janitor is not making more product, he is just making it at a higher cost.

The McDonalds worker is going to be poor weather or not minimum wage is a dollar or a million dollars, that is a fact. You are not going to make a job that is 100 percent replaceable by a zombie, requires zero training, no qualifications and produces extremely chap products ever produce a high wage. That is simply impossible no matter how much dreaming anyone does to make it so.


BTW – the point was that Wal-Mart was lobbying to RAISE the minimum wage. You are the one asking government to define a wage and THAT is what allows the lobbying to occur. Want such to cease, the only way is to remove government in the first place.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Right now, parasites like the Walmart heirs bribe politicians to define minimum wage to suit the interests

of course as long as liberals give politicians all the power politicians will be bribed.

This is why Jefferson gave us limited government and Republicans.

"Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence". -Thomas Jefferson

George, I want to thank you so much for supporting the Republican position.

 

[georgephillip]

When's the last time you fed yourself or family on minimum wage?
When the Walmart heirs start lobbying for a living wage, the subject of relevancy assumes some practical meaning.
Right now, parasites like the Walmart heirs bribe politicians to define minimum wage to suit the interests of those entitled to possess more wealth than the bottom 30% of all Americans.
It's Capitalism 101...Privatize profit; socialize cost.

A ‘living wage’ is a misnomer anyway. There is no such thing. It seems that people think raising the wages of the bottom rung somehow magically gives them a greater share of the wealth when that is incorrect.

The end result is that products will increase in price, offshore workers or higher fewer workers with higher minimum wages. Those are the only three options that are available here. It does not make the poor wealthier, they stay just as poor. This is because the janitor is not making more product, he is just making it at a higher cost.

The McDonalds worker is going to be poor weather or not minimum wage is a dollar or a million dollars, that is a fact. You are not going to make a job that is 100 percent replaceable by a zombie, requires zero training, no qualifications and produces extremely chap products ever produce a high wage. That is simply impossible no matter how much dreaming anyone does to make it so.


BTW – the point was that Wal-Mart was lobbying to RAISE the minimum wage. You are the one asking government to define a wage and THAT is what allows the lobbying to occur. Want such to cease, the only way is to remove government in the first place.

When you say "remove government" are you proposing to substitute the corporation in it's place?
I'm not too sure many of the founding generation would agree if that's your plan.
According to these figures the federal minimum wage would stand at $10.70/hour today had it kept pace with inflation for the past forty years.

I was working a single minimum wage job in the mid-70s that paid enough to cover the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay-off and maintain a six year old car. Today a single $7.25/ hour job (federal minimum wage) will not pay the rent on that same one bedroom I rented forty years ago. That apartment's rent has increased by a factor of ten, at least; the minimum wage hasn't.

Perhaps we agree the government has been partially responsible for the richest 1% increasing their share of US income by a factor of three in that time. I chalk that up to the influence private wealth has on the best government money can buy. Rather than remove government, I would make it more democratic and ban the influence of private wealth on its levers.

Think one-strike laws for corporate crimes like control accounting fraud or violations of campaign finance reforms banning private money from all federal elections; with the clear understanding that the first conviction will entitle the defendant to 25 years in a real prison before becoming eligible for her first parole hearing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Perhaps we agree the government has been partially responsible for the richest 1% increasing their share of US income by a factor of three in that time.

of course, the top 1% pay 42% of all federal income tax now, while 40 years ago they paid 15%. Also, people like Gates and Jobs are wealthy because everyone loves to buy their very affordable products, not because government makes them buy the products!!

 

[georgephillip]

Perhaps we agree the government has been partially responsible for the richest 1% increasing their share of US income by a factor of three in that time.

of course, the top 1% pay 42% of all federal income tax now, while 40 years ago they paid 15%. Also, people like Gates and Jobs are wealthy because everyone loves to buy their very affordable products, not because government makes them buy the products!!

The government through the US taxpayer created the internet which is why parasites like Gates and Jobs are/were wealthy, remember?

The top 1% pay a greater percentage of income taxes today precisely because a significantly smaller percentage of productive workers earn enough every year to be required to pay income tax. As always, the rich pay a much smaller percentage of their total income in taxes than do the middle class and working poor.

 

[dilloduck]

Perhaps we agree the government has been partially responsible for the richest 1% increasing their share of US income by a factor of three in that time.

of course, the top 1% pay 42% of all federal income tax now, while 40 years ago they paid 15%. Also, people like Gates and Jobs are wealthy because everyone loves to buy their very affordable products, not because government makes them buy the products!!

The government through the US taxpayer created the internet which is why parasites like Gates and Jobs are/were wealthy, remember?

The top 1% pay a greater percentage of income taxes today precisely because a significantly smaller percentage of productive workers earn enough every year to be required to pay income tax. As always, the rich pay a much smaller percentage of their total income in taxes than do the middle class and working poor.

and the non working middle class and poor ? What about them ?

 

[georgephillip]

of course, the top 1% pay 42% of all federal income tax now, while 40 years ago they paid 15%. Also, people like Gates and Jobs are wealthy because everyone loves to buy their very affordable products, not because government makes them buy the products!!

The government through the US taxpayer created the internet which is why parasites like Gates and Jobs are/were wealthy, remember?

The top 1% pay a greater percentage of income taxes today precisely because a significantly smaller percentage of productive workers earn enough every year to be required to pay income tax. As always, the rich pay a much smaller percentage of their total income in taxes than do the middle class and working poor.

and the non working middle class and poor ? What about them ?

Prison or the military and US taxpayers seem to be fed up with war.
Surplus labor is becoming an existential threat to the US Republic; however, the Empire has found ways to profit from prisons and wars.