Republican war on the Middle Class: what's next?

[RightField]

Again, the Republicans are trying to RESCUE the middle class. We, as a nation, have to re-establish sound economic conditions that are conducive to growth.

By reducing the barriers to investment, production and growth and reducing the amount of "drag" put on our economy by excessive regulations, rent seeking democrats and excessive government costs (and taxes). Reducing spending will also serve to reduce the amount of interest payments we have make (which is close to becoming the single biggest line item in our national spending).

 

[Drixxx]

It's pretty accurate.

No it's not. Sorry.

 

[overthebow]

Competition is what keeps wages up

This is totally clueless.

Competition drives wages down.

The idea that competition will keep wages up is moronic.

 

[RightField]

No it's not. Sorry.

I give you credit for not launching into a hissy fit of personal insults which is the usual liberal response.

IF you don't like my explanation, why do you think the economy tanked?

 

[unregistered]

 

[RightField]

This is totally clueless.

Competition drives wages down.

The idea that competition will keep wages up is moronic.

Look, competition works both ways. It's the balance between supply and demand.

Lots of people meet the physical, mental and effective training criteria for being a janitor and there's lots of demand for janitors, but at this time, in this economy, there's probably more people seeking work as janitors than there are positions for janitors so organizations that need janitors don't have to provide big pay or other benefits to attract competent people in the field.

However, there are not a lot of people who meet the physical, mental and effective trainig criteria for being a brain surgeon. Although the demand for brain surgeons is small, the demand is very acute and the supply of people with the physical, mental and effective training is very small and the rates of pay needed to fill the demand is pretty high (they make a good salary).

It's just the way things work. As much as Obama wants to dictate what people are allowed to make (he appointed a pay Czar after he was elected), it's the market seeking equilibrium that determines the wages/cost.

I'll also concede that "other" forces sometimes skew equilibrium such as government decrees, things like standard medicaid reimbursement rates and even government unions, but in large part, we still work on the basis of supply and demand.

If government wants to get involved with professional sports, I sometimes think I'd welcome it...If they make a law requiring every NBA team to have a white, average-sized, middle-aged guy on each team (you know, in the spirit of "fairness") at "prevailing market rates" based on the average salary for the rest of the league, I'm all over that!

 

[Lancecastor]

No it's not. Sorry.

Well, you're alone then, as it's the prevailing view on all sides of those silly fuckers with MBA's and PhD's in economic policy.

Then again, you're a robot on a sex forum.

 

[overthebow]

It's just the way things work. As much as Obama wants to dictate what people are allowed to make (he appointed a pay Czar after he was elected), it's the market seeking equilibrium that determines the wages/cost.

Stop fucking lying.

There are wage controls?

Stop fucking lying.

 

[Drixxx]

I give you credit for not launching into a hissy fit of personal insults which is the usual liberal response.

IF you don't like my explanation, why do you think the economy tanked?

Because unbridled, naked, greed of the corporate class. The notion that the poor or agents of the poor caused the economy tank is ludicrous. The prime culprits are unnecessary wars, massive tax breaks for the rich, outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, and deregulation, especially of the financial industry. I know right wingers really want to blame this mess on undocumented motel maids and inner city working poor but that's just scapegoating.

 

[Setanta84]

When people are arguing that the GOP is on the side of the working man--after taking unemployment insurance hostage to gain leverage for tax cuts for the super-rich, adopting the stance that this country could do without a manufacturing base for ten years, and routinely demonizing the unemployed and unions, and so on--that public workers aren't middle class (your mail carriers, park rangers, firefighters, state and municipal police, sanitation workers, and soldiers are just rolling in dough, really) and that less regulation is the answer--when it's abundantly clear that the lack of regulations is what enabled moneyed interests to essentially throw the economy on a roulette wheel--I don't really know how fruitful developing a discussion can be. Everyone talking sense agrees with each other and the other people are just wholly divorced from reality and letting Rush Limbaugh and Fox News dictate their thoughts to them.

 

[RightField]

Stop fucking lying.

There are wage controls?

Stop fucking lying.

When the banking crisis hit and Obama gave banks money to maintain solvency, he also decided that pay rates were too high and issued a number of statements that bankers were paid too much and that he was going to control the pay of people at banks that received government bailouts, then appointed the "pay czar". Of course, the banks didn't want to see this at all and did everything they could to pay the loans back so they wouldn't be subjects of overly intrusive government (which would drive them out of business). I don't think that getting the loans paid back quickly was Obama's intention in threatening to set pay scales, but it certainly caused a great panic in the market and got the banks to pay the money back quickly. He was actually disappointed that the banks paid the money back so quickly because I honestly believe that he thought it would "fair" and right for him to set pay scales at banks.

Obamacare is an effort to get wage and price control over the medical field. Everything would have to meet government standards and they'd pay standard rates (there's even a board designed to do that in the bill).

This is one of the reasons so many people were up in arms about the Obamacare bill, because it would skew market equilibrium with doctors and other medical professionals. It would reduce the pay for doctors in many ways (forcing them out of their own practices because of onerous paperwork, issuing reduced reimbursement based on board's rulings, etc) and people feared that while the number of people seeking government paid medical services would go up, because remuneratoin would go down, there'd be many more patients and many fewer doctors which, logically, will result in greater scarcity of medical care and longer waiting lines (just like what has happened in many other countries that have adopted similar plans).

 

[Drixxx]

Well, you're alone then, as it's the prevailing view on all sides of those silly fuckers with MBA's and PhD's in economic policy.

Then again, you're a robot on a sex forum.

Really? Please name which MBA's and PhD's blame people who were hoodwinked into loans they couldn't afford and thrown out of the homes they were told they could. Which economic powerhouses claim bankers were feckless victims to the cunning schemes of poor people from which they could not defend themselves.

 

[RightField]

Because unbridled, naked, greed of the corporate class. The notion that the poor or agents of the poor caused the economy tank is ludicrous. The prime culprits are unnecessary wars, massive tax breaks for the rich, outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, and deregulation, especially of the financial industry. I know right wingers really want to blame this mess on undocumented motel maids and inner city working poor but that's just scapegoating.

What caused the economy to tank was the bursting of the real estate bubble which was caused by the illusary increase in demand caused by the unnatural undergirding of sub-prime and other government gimmics to "make things more fair". When real estate prices flattened and then receded, many people found themselves in loans they couldn't pay back. This caused a contraction in the economy and jobs started dissappearing (you don't call a maintenance to your house if you can't make the payments) and more people got in trouble as they got laid off and couldn't make their payments.

The war is costly, but lets keep this in perspective. The total costs of the two wars over the entire period up till last summer was LESS than the "stimulus" bill which was not really a stimulus, it was really just an effort to prevent government union layoffs.

The outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has several causes. The primary one is that the democrats are just making it too difficult (regulations) and expensive (taxes, healthcare, special fees, etc) to do business here in the US. They are literally chasing jobs out of the country and then blaming the people who they chase out.

Deregulation is an effort to create a more hospitable environment for businesses to get started and to thrive...and to create jobs. It does not cause economic hardship or drive down the economy except in the minds of politicians like the ones who relaxed lending standards and promised to guarantee bad loans and then were surprised that we got a high number of defaulting loans.

It's like Obama saying "I'm all for new jobs, economic independance and weaning our nation from foreign oil, and, by the way, I'm implementing a moratorium on new oil drilling." I think you're not understanding the modus operandi of this particular brand of politician.

 

[Luk]

The war is costly, but lets keep this in perspective. The total costs of the two wars over the entire period up till last summer was LESS than the "stimulus" bill which was not really a stimulus, it was really just an effort to prevent government union layoffs.

You really have no idea what the hell you're talking about and this proves that fact.

 

[RightField]

Really? Please name which MBA's and PhD's blame people who were hoodwinked into loans they couldn't afford and thrown out of the homes they were told they could. Which economic powerhouses claim bankers were feckless victims to the cunning schemes of poor people from which they could not defend themselves.

I think you need to re-read what was written. It was mostly democratic politicians that rigged things to go awry. I believe that they mean well, that they want to help make the country better, but when they take actions, they really screw things up and cause many more problems than the ones they set out to fix. It is a noble idea to help people who are not high on the earnings scale get a home of their own. Home ownership has always been good for the country. However, any freshman econ major could have told them that screwing around with loan origination standards was playing with fire.

I too want our whole nation to do well. I want people to prosper and to have the money and leisure time for their own "pursuit of happiness". I just believe that the way to do this is to establish a basic foundation of government and set the conditions for economic growth. I believe that economic growth is good for the entire nation and the wealth that it creates gives us lots more options for helping people who need help in contrast to the dems "control" approach that causes economic shrinkage and destroys wealth. I'm perfectly happy with the approach described in the Constitution and wish we would lean closer in that direction as opposed to the modern democrat nanny state that causes pain and hardship for almost everyone, but causes more acute dispossion for the least capable amongst us.

 

[RightField]

You really have no idea what the hell you're talking about and this sentence proves that fact.

lol... nice to see you too. Hope you had a good day.

U.S. stimulus to cost more than Iraq, Afghan war so far
Reuters Jan 29, 2009

WASHINGTON – Republican critics of the Democratic-backed landmark stimulus package are pointing out that its 800-billion-dollar-plus price tag would — “in one fell swoop,” as Republican Representative Todd Akin put it — consume more resources than have been laid out for two wars, so far.

The Pentagon says the United States has committed $524.6 billion to the nearly six-year-old conflict in Iraq and $120.9 billion to the fighting in Afghanistan since 2001.

“I almost have to pinch myself, gentlemen, to think that just standing here a couple of hours ago, we just voted to spend $800 billion, more than the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the Republican Akin declared Wednesday after the House of Representatives passed the stimulus without a single Republican vote in favor.

“Can our economy handle that?” he asked.

For years, Democratic opponents of the war in Iraq have questioned its cost and the fact that the 2003 invasion under the Republican Bush administration and the occupation that followed were done on borrowed money, adding to U.S. debt that ultimately must be paid by taxpayers.

Now Republicans, who largely supported the Iraq war, are trying to turn the tables on their Democratic critics and ask whether it is wise to borrow as much cash again all at once, taking on even more interest costs. “I know the Bush administration was savaged for the money that’s spent on the war in Iraq,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican, said this week.

 

[Luk]

U.S. stimulus to cost more than Iraq, Afghan war so far
Reuters Jan 29, 2009

Considering there is no way to measure what the stimulus package "cost" versus what money or jobs it has saved up until now, it's a dumb statement. Not only that, would we need the stimulus if we were not fighting two useless wars?

 

[Setanta84]

lol... nice to see you too. Hope you had a good day.

U.S. stimulus to cost more than Iraq, Afghan war so far
Reuters Jan 29, 2009

WASHINGTON – Republican critics of the Democratic-backed landmark stimulus package are pointing out that its 800-billion-dollar-plus price tag would — “in one fell swoop,” as Republican Representative Todd Akin put it — consume more resources than have been laid out for two wars, so far.

The Pentagon says the United States has committed $524.6 billion to the nearly six-year-old conflict in Iraq and $120.9 billion to the fighting in Afghanistan since 2001.

“I almost have to pinch myself, gentlemen, to think that just standing here a couple of hours ago, we just voted to spend $800 billion, more than the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the Republican Akin declared Wednesday after the House of Representatives passed the stimulus without a single Republican vote in favor.

“Can our economy handle that?” he asked.

For years, Democratic opponents of the war in Iraq have questioned its cost and the fact that the 2003 invasion under the Republican Bush administration and the occupation that followed were done on borrowed money, adding to U.S. debt that ultimately must be paid by taxpayers.

Now Republicans, who largely supported the Iraq war, are trying to turn the tables on their Democratic critics and ask whether it is wise to borrow as much cash again all at once, taking on even more interest costs. “I know the Bush administration was savaged for the money that’s spent on the war in Iraq,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican, said this week.

If you truly believe that 1) the combined cost of those two wars were under 900 billion at that point 2) Pentagon figures on expenditures are truthful and transparent and 3) the non-tax cut parts of the ARRA were non-stimulative, you kind of have no business talking politics or policy. Ever.

 

[Luk]

If you truly believe that 1) the combined cost of those two wars were under 900 billion at that point 2) Pentagon figures on expenditures are truthful and transparent and 3) the non-tax cut parts of the ARRA were non-stimulative, you kind of have no business talking politics or policy. Ever.

Eggzackery.

 

[RightField]

Just ask yourself this. In which environment do the most helpless do well:

1) Where there's a shrinking economic pie and people are fighting for the scraps or

2) Where there's a growing economy and there's plenty.

The smart and aggressive are going to do well in either case. The dems keep telling us that more regulation, more taxes, more government "checkboxers" are going to make things more fair (and leads to economic malaise). Obama even said that he'd trade economic growth for "fairness".

The Republicans say "Lets be competitive in the world, lets create an evironment that facilitates competition and growth" (and keep a basic safety net in place).

Reagan created tremdous growth, Clinton got some growth going (4.2%) (after Gingrich forced balanced budgets on him through a government shutdown) and Bush II created some growth, more modest, but still, he got the unemployment rate to 4.6% and our annual deficit down to $172M in the year before the democrats took over the House of Representatives and spiked up the deficit spending again).

 

[Setanta84]

Just ask yourself this. In which environment do the most helpless do well:

1) Where there's a shrinking economic pie and people are fighting for the scraps or

2) Where there's a growing economy and there's plenty.

The smart and aggressive are going to do well in either case. The dems keep telling us that more regulation, more taxes, more government "checkboxers" are going to make things more fair (and leads to economic malaise). Obama even said that he'd trade economic growth for "fairness".

The Republicans say "Lets be competitive in the world, lets create an evironment that facilitates competition and growth" (and keep a basic safety net in place).

Reagan created tremdous growth, Clinton got some growth going (4.2%) (after Gingrich forced balanced budgets on him through a government shutdown) and Bush II created some growth, more modest, but still, he got the unemployment rate to 4.6% and our annual deficit down to $172M in the year before the democrats took over the House of Representatives and spiked up the deficit spending again).

You realize that Reagan literally raised the national debt by 300% and started the ball rolling on the three decades of our civil infrastructure and public services, i.e. our crumbling roads and failing schools, right? You know what, fuck it. You live in this fantasy world where the recent near total market collapse didn't completely disprove the market fundamentalist view of how the world works. At this point, I might as well go down to the bus station and start a discussion with the most unhinged beggar I can find.

 

[RightField]

Since neither of you have a viable rebuttal, I'll leave you with this:

Save the country, save the middle class, vote Republican. The Democrats have once again proved that they can't Govern or lead. Good luck with your endeavors and have good evening.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

They produce services, and the way those services are distributed is without being 'sold'. You assume that everything must be 'sold'. This is a false assumption.

You're talking to the wrong dude. He sold his own mother and kids for a profit.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Since neither of you have a viable rebuttal, I'll leave you with this:

Save the country, save the middle class, vote Republican. The Democrats have once again proved that they can't Govern or lead. Good luck with your endeavors and have good evening.

The middle class never grew under any Republican administration in the last 30 years. Historical fact.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

look at the deal that Bush gave to wall street.

Fixed your post for historical accuracy's sake.