If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Click Orlando)   The death of the middle class continues, as the average income of middle-class families has decreased 40% compared to twenty years ago   (clickorlando.com) divider line 170
    More: Sick, consumer finance, account balances, middle class, families  
•       •       •

10677 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-12 03:03:16 AM
20 votes:

I sound fat:

Dont let the door hit you on the way out.... sounds like a job just opened up in America for someone who wants to be here.


Why would anyone want to live in a Country where a tonsillectomy or an appendectomy can cost a years gross wages, and a Police officer can shoot your dog or you on a whim? Why would anyone want to live in a Country where the wealthiest citizens are allowed to gather so much wealth that they could never spend it in a million lifetimes, while the people that work for them are being told to starve and like it?

You can't throw people out of work and then accuse them of being lazy when they can't find a job. You can't price education so high where only the wealthy can afford it, and then sneer at people who aren't educated. Thats the exact reason why we kicked the British out. Twice.
2012-06-11 11:48:27 PM
19 votes:

FloydA: GAT_00: Wangiss: Double the taxes! Triple the taxes! Squeeze every drop out of those insolent, musical peasants.

Don't forget, more tax cuts on the rich will fix everything! Never mind how, they totally will!

It will trickle down, by and by, we just have to do it harder. The reason that the wealth hasn't tricked down at all, even one cent, for the past 32 years is that we just haven't been kind enough to the top 1%.


I swear, I don't know what it'll take to convince the supply-siders that trickle down doesn't work. It'll probably never happen, because Jim Bob down in Wanksburg, AL, believes whatever bullshiat Karl Rove's slinging with a gold plated shovel bought by the Koch Brothers, and he just knows he'll be one of them billionuhmaires someday so he don't want to pay that outright Communisms top bracket, so he's sure not voting for somebody with a D after their name, because Better Dead Than Red!

At this point, we need Paul Krugman to forge a guillotine from his beard and cock, name it "The Paradox of Thrift," set it up on Wall Street, and use it execute Grover Norquist, followed by anyone who uses the phrase "You can't spend your way out of a recession!"
2012-06-12 03:41:23 AM
15 votes:

untaken_name: Quite sure. Today, Americans practice all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto in one form or another. Oh, we call them by different names, which totally means they're different, of course. In case you're actually interested, I will start you with the first plank: Abolition of all right to property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose. This is how land works in the US. If you think you own some land, stop paying rent (property tax), and watch the true owner claim his property and sell it on the courthouse steps. If you truly OWNED the land, that could not happen (and, in fact, did not happen in this country as little as 1 century ago.)


Let me explain to you something about property:

Your property, and by proxy your rights, do not exist as independent value sets to be taken and given by anyone. Ownership -- of oneself, of property, of things in a complex modern society -- is a social conceit, not an individual one. You can claim you own something, but your ownership is meaningless if no one else recognizes that ownership. In other words, property and rights are not an *I* thing, they are a *WE* thing.

Now, you need a system to honor your property/rights, and to build the kind of infrastructure that makes your ownership meaningful, makes your property valuable, but more importantly, keeps it protected from theft or ruination. That kind of system entails rules, laws, government, and the social contract.

What you are suggesting is that you want all the benefits and entitlements of living and owning property in such a complex system, but you don't want to pay your share to help maintain it. That makes you, among other things, a mooching, selfish libertarian scumbag.

I think the question you should be asking isn't "Why should I pay taxes on property I own?" but rather "Why should the rest of us permit you to own property if you don't want to pay for the infrastructure necessary to ensure that ownership?"
2012-06-12 02:58:57 AM
9 votes:
It's interesting to note that those who are vociferously anti-communist are doing everything they can to destroy the middle-class, which will put the US into a feudal system, which will lead to a very bloody communistic uprising when the peasant class has enough of the oppression. Russia went through that where the aristocracy were taken over by the Bolsheviks. China went through that where the local feudal lords were taken out by the communist groups led by Mao. French aristocracy also went through that, but the outcome wasn't exactly communism (since it occurred roughly soon after the creation of the US of A, the revolution in France mirrored the origins of the US, and that pre-dated communism by about 150 years).

I'm quite surprised that these 1%'ers really think they can outwit history.
2012-06-12 02:47:59 AM
9 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Hey Kids! Have you considered a career in the fast-paced, high-paying, always-in-demand world of engineering? You can have a degree in as little as 6 months!

/operators are standing by


I'm snickering.

25 years as a machinist, currently in school toward a degree in Manufacturing engineering, seriously considering and MFA after that. The recruiters I've talked to over the last 3 or so months are all telling me that that combination would get me 6 figures as soon as I finish school. I don't really believe it, but one can hope. There's always Australia, or Japan.

To hell with the US. It's a capitalist wet dream. A mostly politically illiterate population, coupled with a dream combination of capitalist bootlickers and millionaires sycophants and the politicians that nobody wants to put in jail because they all claim to be "christians". So when they die with the national treasuries billions in their Cayman island and Monaco bank accounts, they'll be forgiven.

It's funny, the "trickle down" fanatics are all going on about how thats the only way an economy can work and they scream "liberal!" every time you ask them when it's going to start working that way. When you start asking them why workers wages are being reduced, they call you a communist.
2012-06-12 02:38:52 AM
6 votes:
If we keep telling our children that their home is not, in fact, a home, but an INVESTMENT whose value must be protected for the day it can be cashed in, then surely they will grow up well adjusted and have loving families of their own.
2012-06-11 11:28:18 PM
6 votes:

GAT_00: Wangiss: Double the taxes! Triple the taxes! Squeeze every drop out of those insolent, musical peasants.

Don't forget, more tax cuts on the rich will fix everything! Never mind how, they totally will!


It will trickle down, by and by, we just have to do it harder. The reason that the wealth hasn't tricked down at all, even one cent, for the past 32 years is that we just haven't been kind enough to the top 1%. Obviously, supply side economics will work, if we just manage to eliminate all of the demand. It's a simple question of supply and demand- as long as the wealth is in the hands of the "demand" sector, it can't be in the hands of the "supply" sector. The middle class still have too much wealth. If we can completely eliminate them, so that nobody other than the extremely wealthy have anything at all. *then* they will allow some of the wealth to trickle down and build a middle class. But we're going to have to eliminate the middle class first, if we want that to work.

It's obvious, really.
2012-06-12 09:04:02 AM
5 votes:
Supply side economics and the "philosophy" of Any Rand is a slave religion.....a religion where the sheep worship the jackals. Keep this in mind while I relate the following.

The situation today is very similar to what took place during Depression 1.0. Why was Roosevelt able to get things rolling again, while Obama has not? There is a critical missing element from back in the day as compares to the current situation.

Roosevelt knew that a direct government economic stimulus was what was called for. FDR also knew where to get the money for this stimulus: America's 1%. Roosevelt approached the 1% and said, "I need a lot of money, and I'm going to get it from you. You are going to give me half the money I require in the form of taxes, and you are going to loan me the rest with very reasonable terms."

"Why should we do this?", asked the 1%. "Because your lives depend on it.", was FDR's response. At that point Roosevelt parted the curtains behind him and said, "Have a look at the right, American fascists and Nazis. Now look to the left, homegrown communists and socialists. These two groups hate each other like poison, but there is one issue they can agree on, they both want to see you dead. Don't listen to me and you'll lose your fortunes, and possibly your lives. Go along and you can keep the bulk of your fortunes and live to enjoy them." The super rich only had one more question: "How many zeros do you want on the check?"

Few people today know that the USA was on the threshold of armed revolution back in the 1930's. American fascists like the adherents of Father Coughlin and the German-American Bund (the American Nazi Party) were powerful and influential. The American Communist Party was also large and militant. Both sides preached anti-capitalism. What do we have to today that can compare? OWS? Yes, I can see it now, Obama approaches the 1% and says, "Do what I want, or the OWS crowd will really, really, really annoy you."

Ultimately, all political power comes from violence, or the credible threat of violence. That's the missing element from back in the day as compares now. The 1% refuse to change because the 1% have no fear of losing their fortunes......or their lives. Only when they FEAR that they will need to run for it, or have their heads placed on the chopping block, will these people agree to anything. The first step in the process it that the majority of you need to stop worshiping your oppressors.
2012-06-12 03:40:32 AM
5 votes:

untaken_name:
Oh, really? Well, that sure clears things up. Nice rebuttal. You have some information which differs from what I said or do you prefer to just cast aspersions without actually backing them up in any way, shape, or form?



Until the early 1930's, if a bank held a mortgage on your property, it could foreclose on it and sell it any time they wanted to, even if you were current on your payments. It was also perfectly legal for them to lay claim to property if they had adjacent land to it that they wanted for something like digging a mine. That is exactly what is happening now. It was also perfectly legal for them to take your money out of your bank account and gamble it on the stock market. It was also perfectly legal for them to bet on the fall or rise of stocks without actually owning any of that stock and then using that leverage to purchase stocks or sell them short, against those bets.

You sir, are a baldfaced liar.
2012-06-12 02:50:03 AM
5 votes:
Better article on the same data - and a better graph
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/06/fed-income-and-wealth- ha ve-plummeted

www.motherjones.com
(hot)
2012-06-12 12:41:53 AM
5 votes:
FFS subby
net worth NOT EQUAL TO income

net worth
was down 40%, mostly from drops in housing market and stock market
income was donw 7-8%, which is still a lot ... but 40%??? LOL
2012-06-11 09:31:25 PM
5 votes:
Double the taxes! Triple the taxes! Squeeze every drop out of those insolent, musical peasants.
2012-06-12 08:57:17 AM
4 votes:
That's why (if I was American) I'd vote republican.
www.prosebeforehos.com
2012-06-12 07:01:43 AM
4 votes:
I hate these threads, mainly because I know little about extensive politics and therefore can't spew relentless shiat.

What I've come to understand after spending years watching you all go back and forth is that we're all somehow to blame. It's true. It's taken a very specific series of actions to get where we are today.

If I were to really think about it (one of you political-savvy individuals can correct me on this point), I think our economy started the downward spiral after we started sending all of our manufacturing jobs overseas. Because ultimately, it's not the super rich or the super poor that drives the economy. It's the middle class families that are willing and able to buy nice things like gaming consoles, tv's, cell phones, cars, etc.

Most of these things that we're buying up these days are made overseas, no? That means someone over there is getting paid, and someone over here...isn't.

Appreciate any and all thoughts at this point. I'm only awake because my daughter woke me up for one of her nightly feedings and the house was too hot for me to go back to sleep.
2012-06-12 06:30:03 AM
4 votes:

Mr. Right: It is government policies that are destroying the middle class.


That is demonstrably false. I bet you're going to continue with a bunch of debunked libertarian talking poin--

Mr. Right: Consider Social Security


The Social Security Act was instituted in 1935. Before then, the vast majority of the working populace lived very decrepit lives. Standard of living improved IMMENSELY in the age of Social Security.

Mr. Right: The government, under the guise of helping the poor own a home, made mortgages far too easy to obtain. That, of course, increased the demand for homes. Increased demand leads to increased prices, which is the precise cause of the big housing bubble.


The Community Reinvestment Act of which you are undoubtedly referring to was enacted in 1977. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with the financial crisis or the housing bubble.

Mr. Right: Employer paid health insurance


Was a stupid idea to begin with, but that's a separate argument. It's probably best to get rid of all health insurance altogether, and levy the costs of medical care the way fire, police and ambulance/rescue are.

Mr. Right: If the voters want the government to take care of them


Well, they kind of have to, because as has been clearly demonstrated, the rich aren't going to do it.

Mr. Right: If the government is going to assume the responsibility of paying for your health care, they will soon be dictating what your health care looks like. At that point, you are not free.


That's not how universal health care works.
2012-06-12 06:08:53 AM
4 votes:

Kali-Yuga: by education and job training of the poor,


Great, so you support at least quadrupling expenditures on teachers and school buildings?

Nothing at all, as long as it's voluntary.

BTW we tried that, and it was an utter disaster. Also in order to get the Earned Income Tax Credit you have to actually have a job, so you know you have income towards which a tax credit can be applied. What's more places like WalMart have tons of employees who receive food assistance and other assistance because they aren't paid enough to live without them. Would be nice if WalMart actually did their part to take care of that. Failing that, they should be billed for it, plus 10% interest, compounded monthly.
2012-06-12 04:08:29 AM
4 votes:

HotWingAgenda: That's an interesting paraphrasing of Marxist philosophy, with one twist. Getting rid of the middle class isn't what causes the collapse. The cause of populist uprisings is mistreatment aimed directly at the bottom rung, while leaving the educated middle class intact to serve as the qualified leaders and organizers of a rebel movement.

The best way to undermine a populist uprising is to do what the US is currently doing: destroy the middle class social leaders, but give extra special handouts to the poorest fraction of society to keep them happy. It's comparable to sapping the corner turrets of a medieval fortress - don't aim for the gate or the walls, just take out the corners that provide the real structure.

Without the middle class, disgruntled poor people never get beyond mild discontent. There's a reason the Middle Ages were so free of revolts, until the rise of the bourgeoisie.


This is true.

Uprisings are always done by the middle class against the ruling group. The usurpers have to be moderately well off and highly educated, and organized enough to enlist the lower classes on their side to win their bid for power. Orwell's essays in the middle of 1984 speak of it.

We even have names for the different types of uprisings. When ruling groups fight each other, its generally called a Civil War. When its a middle class fighting a ruling group, it's called a Revolution. When the lower class fight anyone, its usually just a riot. The lower classes never achieve any of their aims, if they had any. They're too disorganized, uneducated and stupid to truly seize power in the Marxian tradition. All communist revolutions have depended on an educated and driven administrative class.
2012-06-12 03:29:21 AM
4 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com
Society can no longer live under the 1%, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."

Isn't it funny how you can take the communist manifesto, and replace the words bourgeoisie and proletariat with 99% and 1% and it looks exactly like the complaints the occupiers are making?
2012-06-12 03:26:23 AM
4 votes:

James F. Campbell: [home.comcast.net image 454x340]

Both sides are clearly the same, so vote Republican.


These charts are silly are pointless. Here is one on CEO pay:
static1.consumerist.com
So if you look at the President Clinton years it shows that CEOs pay skyrocketed. So does that mean that Clinton is the worst president ever because under him the CEO made massive salary gains and the regular folk didn't? Wouldn't that mean that Clinton caused the massive income inequality that we see today? Or is it just a stupid graph that anyone can use a talking point while in reality it is a lot more complex.
2012-06-12 03:20:57 AM
4 votes:
Also relevant

fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net

/those percentages are all adjusted for inflation
2012-06-12 01:45:22 AM
4 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: The My Little Pony Killer: In before somebody chimes in with airtight advice for how to get high paying jobs, like going into engineering...

a steep decline in the last 3 years? who wants 4 more years of that?


Nope...we should definitely go back to starting wars and pretending they don't cost anything.

...so vote Republican!!
2012-06-11 09:39:15 PM
4 votes:

Wangiss: Double the taxes! Triple the taxes! Squeeze every drop out of those insolent, musical peasants.


Don't forget, more tax cuts on the rich will fix everything! Never mind how, they totally will!
2012-06-11 09:07:48 PM
4 votes:
No, subby, you are wrong.

please re-read and try again. you get 3 chances.
2012-06-12 07:18:31 AM
3 votes:

WhyteRaven74: jeaux65: I think our economy started the downward spiral after we started sending all of our manufacturing jobs overseas

This would be correct for a good part of the issue.


The big downside of a global economy. You're playing by the rules of the lowest common denominator in terms of business laws (labor, environmental, etc.) and there isn't jack shiat you can do about it. The GOP thinks the answer is to roll back laws to more closely resemble the competition, and Democrats want to punish businesses simply abiding by the laws of supply and demand. Neither side is willing to take on the real problem by restricting/taxing imports from third-world shiat-holes.
2012-06-12 06:33:09 AM
3 votes:
Thanks Bush, Congress (Patriot Acts I, II, etc) and voters. Instead of admitting they overlooked intelligence, and maybe quietly spending $10B-20B to nab Al Queda top tier, they trumped it up to make it look appear a domestic surveillance system for US citizens and 2 wars were needed, and all on credit. How's that working out for our economy?
2012-06-12 06:09:33 AM
3 votes:
It is government policies that are destroying the middle class.

Historically, the middle class in America rose up when wage earners could earn enough to acquire and maintain a little wealth, hopefully to pass that on their heirs. It is government policy that takes away that ability, not any 1%ers. Where folks get confused is that the government is a 1%er.

Consider Social Security. The worker has 15% of his wages taken away. The employer match is an illusion because the worker must be productive enough that the employer can charge the customer enough to cover the employer's "contribution." So 15% of a workers productivity is taken by the government, ostensibly to be used for the worker's benefit down the road. For low wage earners, that 15% can make the difference between being able to save a little bit and being forced to live hand-to-mouth. Higher income workers, of course, can still save a bit for the future. Fast forward to retirement. The government decides how much will be doled out to the worker. Should he die young, which poor workers do much more frequently than rich, everything he has put into SS that he hasn't gotten in benefits is forfeit, nothing to pass on to his heirs. The rich, of course, still do have something to pass on. Suppose, instead, that the government took that 15% and actually put it into a private account for this worker and invested it in something like a Dow-Jones index fund. For most workers, after working for 40 years. they could withdraw their average wages for the rest of their lives and never touch the principle. That amount could, of course, be passed on the the heirs and wealth creation could begin for them. That was the American Dream. So, rather than help the middle class or the poor, Social Security penalizes them. The rich are immune to the deleterious effects.

Home ownership is another pillar of the American Dream. If one owns real property, then in one's dotage, that property is a way to live without a rent payment - making your life savings extend even further. The government, under the guise of helping the poor own a home, made mortgages far too easy to obtain. That, of course, increased the demand for homes. Increased demand leads to increased prices, which is the precise cause of the big housing bubble. Then, when there was a precipitous rise in energy prices, the poor, living on the edge already, couldn't afford their mortgage payment and the collapse began. It only takes a small percentage of folks in a neighborhood to default and the home values start to plummet. When those mortgages become toxic the whole banking system was in crisis. Of course, because bankers are a politician's best friend, the banks got bailed out (too big to fail means that they put enough money in a politician's re-election coffers that the political class won't let them fail) while the poor were inordinately affected. Upper middle class struggled but can hang on. Rich are affected only peripherally.

Employer paid health insurance (the government mandate) will have the same effect. A huge chunk of a worker's productivity will be confiscated by the employer and spent, supposedly, on the worker's behalf. The problem is that no matter how healthy the worker may keep himself, he will never see a dividend on that insurance premium unless he used medical services. Which, of course, will lead to increased demand and rising prices for medical services.

Note that I have not attacked or defended either party. Government has gotten intrusive and has taken control with the complicity of both parties. Government has been the big beneficiary. We hear a lot about private gain but public risk, meaning that banks have their risk covered by the government but gains they get to keep themselves. That's true. But consider the position of the government. They dictate a policy that makes them look good but when the policy doesn't work, they blame greed of the wealthy. The Affordable Health Care Act has already done that. Government mandates policies to those with pre-existing conditions, allows children to stay on their parents' policy until they're 26, mandate contraception coverage, etc. Those items all make the government look like a savior to those covered by insurance. But every one of those items will cost the insurance company money, thus rates must rise to cover those costs. And politicians, as predictably as the sun coming up in the East, blame the corporate greed of insurance companies. Once again, the low wage workers will suffer from lack of coverage or inadequate coverage and it will be because of government policy. Companies cannot operate at a loss for too long. The government wont allow it. It's why they wrote bankruptcy laws.

If the voters want the government to take care of them with programs like Social Security, Health Care, every kind of welfare, housing subsidies, agriculture subsidies, etc., that is certainly the right of voters to elect the kind of politicians that will enable those programs. But understand that the transfer of wealth will not be from the wealthy to the poor. It will be from the poor to the government. The rich will have to pay also, but the amount is so small as to have no effect on their acquisition and maintenance of wealth. The amount the poor and lower class workers pay is what will keep them from ever being able to acquire wealth. But at least they'll have free health care and housing and . . .

Every right has an associated responsibility. If you abrogate the responsibility, whoever assumes it will, sooner than you think, also assume the right. If the government is going to assume the responsibility of paying for your health care, they will soon be dictating what your health care looks like. At that point, you are not free. Slaves had the same deal - they never had to pay the doctor. Of course, whether or not they saw the doctor was dependent on the good graces of their master. As you want the government to do more and more for you, think about that. But do not wonder why the poor are getting poorer. Warren Buffet and whether he pays more or less in taxes than his secretary does not affect my pocket book. An increase in SS taxes with no increase in benefits will affect my pocketbook.
2012-06-12 04:12:41 AM
3 votes:

Ishkur:
I think the question you should be asking isn't "Why should I pay taxes on property I own?" but rather "Why should the rest of us permit you to own property if you don't want to pay for the infrastructure necessary to ensure that ownership?"


blessthe40oz.com
2012-06-12 04:04:03 AM
3 votes:
Part of me wants Democrats to get out of the Republican's way and just let them drive the economy over the cliff, so Americans will finally come to their senses, but then I remember how farking stupid the American public is and how they'd listen to the Republicans as they blame the Dems for the disaster.
2012-06-12 03:25:46 AM
3 votes:

untaken_name: fusillade762: untaken_name: You mean Communism doesn't work? Color me shocked.

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Quite sure. Today, Americans practice all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto in one form or another. Oh, we call them by different names, which totally means they're different, of course. In case you're actually interested, I will start you with the first plank: Abolition of all right to property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose. This is how land works in the US. If you think you own some land, stop paying rent (property tax), and watch the true owner claim his property and sell it on the courthouse steps. If you truly OWNED the land, that could not happen (and, in fact, did not happen in this country as little as 1 century ago.)


Well well. Aren't you quite the liar.
2012-06-12 03:18:53 AM
3 votes:
Subtard has no analytical skills and can't do basic math. Subtard.

Why do people still talk about trickle down? That's been out of style since the 80's. Everyone knows trickle down doesn't really work after globalism and the advent of hot money. Do Republicans even stilll talk about trickle down? Or is that just a Bogeyman for the Dems?
2012-06-12 03:16:13 AM
3 votes:
home.comcast.net

Both sides are clearly the same, so vote Republican.
2012-06-12 03:12:12 AM
3 votes:

dericwater: I'm quite surprised that these 1%'ers really think they can outwit history.


There's always a causal disconnect. The people it happened to are already dead. The new breed rise to the top by being statistical outliers, who are always crazy and ruthless by nature. The simple landscape of humanity guarantees we will always have sociopathic, reckless garbage at the top economically. Until we have durable incorruptible education systems that makes society deal with these Stalins as they crop up.
2012-06-12 03:00:16 AM
3 votes:
Yet people still seem to think electing someone who makes as much in 8 hours as they do in three months is a good idea, that they will govern in the public's best interest.
2012-06-12 02:35:16 AM
3 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: a steep decline in the last 3 years? who wants 4 more years of that?


Well, you're half right (for you, that's progress). The 3-year period was 2007-2010. Perhaps you recall a major economic event that began in 2007 and who was president then. So far, you're batting .000 on all that.
2012-06-12 02:32:13 AM
3 votes:
It amazes me how many of you idiots didn't even read the article.

It was not a gauge of income, it was a gauge of family wealth.

Freaking leftist wanting to swing before they even knew the topic... I need bacon
2012-06-12 02:26:15 AM
3 votes:

kmmontandon: I swear, I don't know what it'll take to convince the supply-siders that trickle down doesn't work.


Umm...I think you are missing the real goal.

roguemedia.org
2012-06-12 01:28:11 AM
3 votes:
newsimg.bbc.co.uk


They have us paying for that boot on the face. Forever.
2012-06-12 01:21:43 AM
3 votes:

FloydA: It will trickle down, by and by, we just have to do it harder. The reason that the wealth hasn't tricked down at all, even one cent, for the past 32 years is that we just haven't been kind enough to the top 1%. Obviously, supply side economics will work, if we just manage to eliminate all of the demand. It's a simple question of supply and demand- as long as the wealth is in the hands of the "demand" sector, it can't be in the hands of the "supply" sector. The middle class still have too much wealth. If we can completely eliminate them, so that nobody other than the extremely wealthy have anything at all. *then* they will allow some of the wealth to trickle down and build a middle class. But we're going to have to eliminate the middle class first, if we want that to work.


Don't forget, regulations! We must get rid of those pesky regulations that have hampered the Job Creators from Creating so many jobs like they did in the past. If you relax the business rules and simplify the tax code, they will be able to hire more. Then the trickling down will really start! Hell, it'll trickle down so much, it'll be like mana from Heaven, made of gold. We'll even call it a golden shower.

Then everyone will be rich, not just the 1%.
2012-06-11 09:45:01 PM
3 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: In before somebody chimes in with airtight advice for how to get high paying jobs, like going into engineering...


I was going to say stripping but then I realized....no one really wants to see most of us naked.
2012-06-11 09:32:57 PM
3 votes:
In before somebody chimes in with airtight advice for how to get high paying jobs, like going into engineering...
2012-06-12 01:00:59 PM
2 votes:
Yeah, well, Americans are still richer than 99.999999999999999999% of the world. So, they just need to suck it up and learn to live with corruption and injustice until it is too late to do anything about it.
ecl
2012-06-12 09:15:53 AM
2 votes:
Wow the right wing shills are out in full derp today.
2012-06-12 09:12:36 AM
2 votes:

Mr. Right: Those went away not because banks wanted to write bad loans but because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy them regardless.


Horseshiat. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac do not solicit loans, they only process them. You are accusing them of doing things they are not even structured to do, much less would do if they had the resources or lax oversight.

According to the The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: [Fannie & Freddie] contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause. GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending.

Fannie Mae processes nearly half of the entire mortgage market of the United States ($5.1 trillion). Of that amount, only 3.5% are sub-prime.

In short, the sub prime mortgage fiasco and Fanny/Freddy did not cause the crash. The towering derivatives market that bet against the mortgages caused it.

You are a god damn dumbass to keep propping up this thoroughly debunked libertarian talking point.
2012-06-12 08:07:40 AM
2 votes:

Mr. Right: WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: . The government, under the guise of helping the poor own a home, made mortgages far too easy to obtain.

Oh and I really really want to see what you have to support this claim.

The Community Reinvestment Act. The goal was to make home loans available to lower income families. Fannie Mae would underwrite the loans that banks made. The goal was noble but there were a lot of unintended consequences, one of them being that home prices rose more rapidly than inflation, making the housing market much more attractive to speculators. When there are television shows called "Flip This House," that will be a sign to you that not everyone who is buying a house is trying to save up to buy a little bungalow in which they may comfortably spend their golden years. Also, given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would underwrite anything and then the financial institutions created all the residuals and other Mortgage Backed Securities (all with the full approval and regulation of Congress, we must add). and what started out as a means of improving the rate of home ownership helped lead to near total economic collapse.


www.ccc.unc.edu

blog.car.org

In other news, youre a dumbass.
2012-06-12 07:34:44 AM
2 votes:

Mr. Right: History has already proven me correct


You have yet to be correct about a single damn thing in this entire thread.
2012-06-12 07:25:04 AM
2 votes:
Kali-Yuga:The government has spent $5.4 trillion over the past 30 years on welfare and yet the poverty rate hasn't declined at all. Government does not exist for charity. In fact, government never really gives charity, because it does not give what it has created; it gives what it has confiscated from the "productive members" of society.

First of all Alan Greenspan had to go in front of Congress and eat shiat because his Randoid belief in the Galtian overlords turned out to be a bunch of hooey. This horseshiat about how Our Betters need more tax breaks, less regulations, etc. is all a strange...almost submissive worldview that is like a fetish with Objectivists. Let them pay their fair share to support our nation, and if they find the tax rate oppressive, let them move to Liberia, Guyana or Somalia or some other low tax paradise and see how that works our for them.

Our infrastructure is part of the reason why the "job creators" will always be here...you can't drive your Bently to dressage on dirt roads! The quicker retards like you get exposed for your stupidity, the quicker we can adopt a solution, instead of having goofs like you pulling in the wrong direction.
2012-06-12 07:18:44 AM
2 votes:

WhyteRaven74: relcec: the american business owner and the guy from Guatemala aren't really to blame. they are just acting according to the dictates of supply and demand in a supersaturated labor force create by you.

The labor force is hardly supersaturated.



of course it is. that's why wages are dropping and have been for 40 years you farking dipshiat.
www.socialsecurity.gov


btw I hate talking to you. you are literally uninformed about every subject under the sun yet continually respond to me with nonsense, never once backing any of your bullshiat ideas with a citation. you fancy yourself as some kind of renaissance man with received knowledge of a whole range of subjects you never studied even for a few minutes. dealing with your idiocy is such a god damn time suck.



NOW, there are millions upon millions of people who want to work who can't find work and we are still adding 1.75 million foreign workers who are willing to work for less wages than Americans. Link

that's the reason why the unemployment rate is always lower for immigrants than it is for Americans! business can and does choose immigrants because they are cheaper, and because the labor market is so overflowing that the choice of workers is even an option. of course the labor market is supersaturated. the only time it wasn;t during the last 40 years was during the .com boom.

Immigrants' unemployment rate lower than U.S.-born workers'
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
April 6, 2006: 5:30 PM EDT


Immigrants' unemployment rate lower than that of native born
May 1, 2008 - NEW YORK


Immigrant Unemployment Lower Than Natives'
By Lauren Raheja
Tuesday, Aug 3, 2010
2012-06-12 06:56:41 AM
2 votes:

Father_Jack: Mr. Right: Employer paid health insurance (the government mandate) will have the same effect. A huge chunk of a worker's productivity will be confiscated by the employer and spent, supposedly, on the worker's behalf. The problem is that no matter how healthy the worker may keep himself, he will never see a dividend on that insurance premium unless he used medical services. Which, of course, will lead to increased demand and rising prices for medical services.

mr right,

Thanks for your thoughtful and polite post. Your Randian libertarian roots are showing but that's ok. :)

I would like to point out this is incorrect, however. If more people had insurance, ie, it was mandated by the govt for everyone to buy a policy, this would put more money into the insurance pots, and lower the risks to the insurance company of any single individual taking out too much for illness and costing the insurer too much money. Having more people in the insurance pool lowers premiums. This means that the premiums go down since the risk is spread across more people. So I don't think you have your supply and demand causality worked out correctly here.


History has already proven me correct. For several years, insurance would not cover office visits but it would cover emergency room visits. Immediately, everything became an emergency room visit. About 40 years ago, I was working on a construction job, jumped off a ladder and on to a nail, right through my foot. My insurance only covered major medical - pretty common in the day. I called my doctor's office, told him what had happened, I wasn't bleeding to death or anything so his office made room for me pretty quickly, I went in, was treated, had a quick X-ray to make sure no bones were broken, got a tetanus shot, wrote a check for $25.00, which paid for everything, and went back to work, just a little bit more careful about going down ladders instead of jumping off to save a few seconds. Fast forward to about 2 years ago when one of my neighbors was working on a construction job, got a nail through the fleshy part of his thumb shortly after noon and spent the rest of the day at the emergency room getting no more or better care than I had 40 years earlier but costing his insurance company nearly $2000. None of which, of course, he paid so he didn't care what it cost. One substantive reason for the very high medical expenditures in this country relative to other countries is that every doctor's office or hospital has to have (and pay for) an army of clerical staff that spends their days tracking every minute procedure and expense and figuring out which insurance company to bill. Every insurance company has their mirror image of folks reviewing every bill. All of those middle men add enormous cost to our system with no real health care benefit.

Just a quick aside - I've never read Rand. Heard plenty about her but have never taken the time to read her. Hayek, Milton, Smith, the Federalist Papers, and even the Constitution, yes. Rand, no.
2012-06-12 06:55:18 AM
2 votes:

WhyteRaven74: relcec: it is your chosen policy of stuffing this country with as many third world workers as possible because they tend to vote Democrat that has gutted the middle and working classes.

That would be oh so nice if it weren't so entirely wrong. It would work if the numbers of jobs created were far outstripped by the number of people in the US, which would be indicated by a steadily rising unemployment. But that never happened. The blame goes not to the workers, they can be nothing more than scapegoats. It goes instead to those who actually write the paychecks.



I'm not blaming the foreign workers for coming to where they can undercut American workers and still earn 5 times what they can in their native country. they are just getting what they can.

I'm blaming assholes like you who vote for neo liberal assholes whose support immigration policies that have gutted the working and middle classes and then complain that the rich guy getting the tax break is actually the guy controlling wages somehow.

the rich guy can't unilaterally decide to pay his workers less. he needs stupid assholes like you to keep supporting massive immigration after 40 disastrous years so the labor pool is saturated enough (oversupply) that workers are willing to work for less pay.

the american business owner and the guy from Guatemala aren't really to blame. they are just acting according to the dictates of supply and demand in a supersaturated labor force create by you.

you're to blame for cheering on these suicidal policies.


cafehayek.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/weekinreview/02broder.html?_r=2&or ef =slogin
2012-06-12 06:39:17 AM
2 votes:

Mr. Right: Employer paid health insurance (the government mandate) will have the same effect. A huge chunk of a worker's productivity will be confiscated by the employer and spent, supposedly, on the worker's behalf. The problem is that no matter how healthy the worker may keep himself, he will never see a dividend on that insurance premium unless he used medical services. Which, of course, will lead to increased demand and rising prices for medical services.


mr right,

Thanks for your thoughtful and polite post. Your Randian libertarian roots are showing but that's ok. :)

I would like to point out this is incorrect, however. If more people had insurance, ie, it was mandated by the govt for everyone to buy a policy, this would put more money into the insurance pots, and lower the risks to the insurance company of any single individual taking out too much for illness and costing the insurer too much money. Having more people in the insurance pool lowers premiums. This means that the premiums go down since the risk is spread across more people. So I don't think you have your supply and demand causality worked out correctly here.
2012-06-12 06:04:35 AM
2 votes:

Kali-Yuga: he'll just give them amnesty instead


you mean like Reagan did? And why would Obama whose administration has quite markedly increased the number of deportations of illegals go and give them amnesty?
2012-06-12 05:21:41 AM
2 votes:
Haiti is the model for the new ameriduh......

The US is moving very rapidly to third world status.

Stay in the US, they will take the rest of your wealth.

Of course it will be legal......the judges are bought and paid for, the politicians are sociopaths and the po po are fast becoming
the enforcing arm of corporations.

You guys r Facked!
2012-06-12 05:17:07 AM
2 votes:

ialdabaoth: Kali-Yuga: Ishkur: I think the question you should be asking isn't "Why should I pay taxes on property I own?" but rather "Why should the rest of us permit you to own property if you don't want to pay for the infrastructure necessary to ensure that ownership?"

Not if "pay for the infrastructure" is just code for giving hand-outs to the poor.

If it helps you sleep at night, don't call it "hand-outs to the poor". Call it "guillotine insurance".


Or "extortion".

Sad it always comes to this. Neo-communists lose all the substantive arguments regarding wealth transfer (because they are idiots who confuse a 40% housing bust related drop in net worth with a 40% drop in income) and inevitably resort to the "pay us or we'll take it" line of reasoning.
2012-06-12 04:52:10 AM
2 votes:

Kali-Yuga: The government has spent $5.4 trillion over the past 30 years on welfare and yet the poverty rate hasn't declined at all. Government does not exist for charity. In fact, government never really gives charity, because it does not give what it has created; it gives what it has confiscated from the "productive members" of society.


Has the lack of upward mobility been factored in? Or the S&L crisis? Or the rise in energy prices? Or the cost of being uninsured or paying for the uninsured?
2012-06-12 04:51:05 AM
2 votes:
Our 1st world economies are driven by the consumption of a healthy middle class, not the 1%.

The 1%ers are digging their own graves in making war on the middle class. When we go, so goes their own prosperity.

PS - the Dark Ages were not just caused by religion, it was caused by the death of the Roman era middle class and the birth of the massive feudal era serf class. Religion just made it easier to control the serfs.
2012-06-12 04:50:21 AM
2 votes:
I have a feeling the poor will be reclining in the homes of the rich very soon.

I wonder, what get blood stains out of silk?
2012-06-12 04:39:25 AM
2 votes:

WhyteRaven74: What's wrong with providing for the poor?


Nothing at all, as long as it's voluntary. I give money to several charities and non-profits in fact, but ones of my own choosing. But there is definitely something wrong with the forced redistribution of wealth by the government.

There's a big difference between helping to pay for roads, schools, fire and police and giving out welfare checks to people who aren't capable of supporting themselves, and giving them incentives to have more babies they can't afford. People who make a living off of welfare checks even get Earned Income Credit checks at tax time.

The government has spent $5.4 trillion over the past 30 years on welfare and yet the poverty rate hasn't declined at all. Government does not exist for charity. In fact, government never really gives charity, because it does not give what it has created; it gives what it has confiscated from the "productive members" of society.

"The welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes." -Alan Greenspan-
2012-06-12 04:28:03 AM
2 votes:

Kali-Yuga: Ishkur: I think the question you should be asking isn't "Why should I pay taxes on property I own?" but rather "Why should the rest of us permit you to own property if you don't want to pay for the infrastructure necessary to ensure that ownership?"

Not if "pay for the infrastructure" is just code for giving hand-outs to the poor.


The less fortunate get all the breaks!
2012-06-12 04:25:35 AM
2 votes:

Kali-Yuga: Ishkur: I think the question you should be asking isn't "Why should I pay taxes on property I own?" but rather "Why should the rest of us permit you to own property if you don't want to pay for the infrastructure necessary to ensure that ownership?"

Not if "pay for the infrastructure" is just code for giving hand-outs to the poor.


If it helps you sleep at night, don't call it "hand-outs to the poor". Call it "guillotine insurance".
2012-06-12 03:54:14 AM
2 votes:

Ebbelwoi: You know, there are those of us for whom "small details" like the difference between net worth and annual income really are "big whoop",


It's a headline on Fark, not the title of a paper in an economics journal. Hell odds are subby didn't even realize the gaffe. So how about dealing with the actual meat and potatoes of TFA? Or shall we have more fun with ad hominem at subby's expense?
2012-06-12 03:30:48 AM
2 votes:

Tellingthem: Or is it just a stupid graph that anyone can use a talking point while in reality it is a lot more complex.


Reality isn't complex, it just has to do with the private sector and not the government. However the GOP loves to act like the private sector is never wrong. Sooo.....
2012-06-12 03:26:20 AM
2 votes:

Ebbelwoi: Do Republicans even stilll talk about trickle down? Or is that just a Bogeyman for the Dems?



No, Republicans don't talk at all about job creators and lowering taxes on the rich to help the economy. What dumbasses those Democrats are for creating this boogieman. Unless you are talking about some sort of airplane lingo, "bogeyman." If so then I apologize, retard.
2012-06-12 03:22:57 AM
2 votes:

fusillade762: untaken_name: You mean Communism doesn't work? Color me shocked.

Are you sure you're in the right thread?


Quite sure. Today, Americans practice all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto in one form or another. Oh, we call them by different names, which totally means they're different, of course. In case you're actually interested, I will start you with the first plank: Abolition of all right to property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose. This is how land works in the US. If you think you own some land, stop paying rent (property tax), and watch the true owner claim his property and sell it on the courthouse steps. If you truly OWNED the land, that could not happen (and, in fact, did not happen in this country as little as 1 century ago.)
2012-06-12 02:57:53 AM
2 votes:

Spaz-master: Spaz-master: ModernLuddite: If we keep telling our children that their home is not, in fact, a home, but an INVESTMENT whose value must be protected for the day it can be cashed in, then surely they will grow up well adjusted and have loving families of their own.

THIS

Granted, both extremes are pretty farking stupid


Why cant you just explain to your kids the economics of owning a home? Does that violate some sort of freaky liberal taboo about private property and why we should abolish it?

For instance if you dont intend to have children, or have a low income, you would be foolish to buy a house. You can still choose to buy one, but you will be doing it for the bragging rights.

Renting is almost always going to be cheaper in the long run for many reasons, not the least of which is that you can invest the difference between renting and buying, so that after 30 years instead of having paid 3 times what the house is worth to the bank you can have three times what you paid for it in retirement savings.

Plus if your neighborhood goes downhill because a bunch of dirty communist hippies move in next door and start leaving their stained underwear on the front steps, you can just move to a new apartment, you dont suffer the loss of value that accompanies a soft housing market.

You can rent for 12 years in a good school district then move out when your kids go off to college so you dont bear the lifelong expense of the high property taxes.

You never have to write a check for $6500 for a roof.

The benefits of renting are huge compared to the bragging rights of buying.

Now there are advantages to buying if you are a certain kind of person. For instance, a home is a tax shelter of sorts....not a great one, but you can borrow against it and have more liquidity while using the interest deduction to offset your income. If you are handy like me you can turn almost any fixer-upper home into something worth twice what you paid for it.

What you teach your kids while you live where you do doesnt have as much to do with whether you own your home or not. It should have a lot to do with not sitting on their asses waiting for the government to send them a check. And not voting to encourage people to sit around waiting for a check. And not voting for political parties that want everyone sitting on their butts waiting for a small monthly check.

But we both know you are probably voting for that because you dont want to be called a racist. Isnt that brilliant? There is barely any correlation but the Left knows that race bombing someone is so effective they try to link it to everything.

Except attending hardvard, yale, and berkely. There is no way that going to a rich predominately white liberal university with billions in endowments is racist. They are very multi-cultural, by encouraging minority students to celebrate their differences and join political groups which promote single race politics todays modern liberal universities ensure that educated minorities get the education and life opportunities they need to belong to fringe political movements and isolated social demographics. Hoo-ray multi-culturalism! If you send your rich white liberal kids to Berkely they will learn how to have friends who are minorities, how to have sex with those friends, and how to go on to a career in liberal circles without letting anyone know the people they hung out with in college graduated to hate speech and throwing molotovs at police.
2012-06-12 02:56:11 AM
2 votes:
P.S. The noted commie libs at the Economist:

www.presseurop.eu
2012-06-12 02:52:36 AM
2 votes:
What do you expect when one side only worries about the poor and the other the rich. And they all want the middle to foot the bill.

/game over
2012-06-12 02:32:20 AM
2 votes:

Harry_Seldon: kmmontandon: I swear, I don't know what it'll take to convince the supply-siders that trickle down doesn't work.

Umm...I think you are missing the real goal.

[roguemedia.org image 526x424]


thisishistorictimes.com
2012-06-12 02:29:36 AM
2 votes:
You mean Communism doesn't work? Color me shocked.
2012-06-12 12:40:40 AM
2 votes:
FTFA: The average American family's net worth dropped almost 40 percent between 2007 and 2010, according to a triennial study released Monday by the Federal Reserve...The stunning drop in median net worth -- from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010 -- indicates that the recession wiped away 18 years of savings and investment by families....The report also indicated that families with more assets at the start of the recession were able to retain more of their net worth than less fortunate families....Families in the top 10% of income actually saw their net worth increase over the period, rising from a median of $1.17 million in 2007 to $1.19 million in 2010.

So it was only a recession for the proles. Not for the elites. I see. Not sure where Submitter is getting the "twenty years" from. TFA is really about the recent huge-ass recession starting in 2007.
2012-06-12 12:38:18 AM
2 votes:

kmmontandon: At this point, we need Paul Krugman to forge a guillotine from his beard and cock, name it "The Paradox of Thrift," set it up on Wall Street, and use it execute Grover Norquist, followed by anyone who uses the phrase "You can't spend your way out of a recession!"


dude..... I think I love you.
2012-06-11 09:36:34 PM
2 votes:
Hey Kids! Have you considered a career in the fast-paced, high-paying, always-in-demand world of engineering? You can have a degree in as little as 6 months!

/operators are standing by
2012-06-13 05:22:13 AM
1 votes:
Mr. Right: If those policies cause risky behavior, it's not the fault of the bank, anymore than it is the fault of the dog if I put a steak on the floor and he eats it.

Let me get this... you are excusing the banks' bullsh*t by reasoning that if the laws hadn't been changed, they wouldn't have done the stupid, wrong and greedy sh*t they did? By equating their behavior with that of a hungry dog, in essence you are admitting that the people who run these places are amoral, greedy, piggish, scum sucking assholes by nature, and cannot be anything but.

"But your honor, once the laws against murder were repealed I just HAD to go out and kill as may people as possible! It's the fault of the people who changed the law, not me and my stash of guns and other weapons large enough to outfit the California National Guard! The law MADE ME DO IT!!!"

This where you're going?
/damn.
//just... damn.
2012-06-13 02:23:31 AM
1 votes:

Kali-Yuga:

The way to decrease poverty and welfare dependence is by education and job training of the poor, not paying them to sit at home and pop out babies so their monthly check gets bigger.


All the education and training will not solve the problem if there are no jobs to use them. Out of the people who are unemployed now (the real numbers, not the gov't numbers), how many of them have associates' degrees, bachelors degrees, doctorates and masters, how many have years or decades of experience and training... and are still unemployed? If they can't find work, what chance does your stereotypical welfare recipient have?

Who is going to pay for this "education and training"? Will it be restricted to just a few fields (which not everyone can or should be doing), or will the students be allowed to choose whatever subject or occupation they are good at? What will they and their families live on while this is all going on? Where will they get this "education and training"? State colleges are already bursting at the seams at both the two and four year level, and many if not most of these aid recipients would never make it through the programs nor are they even qualified to start. To bring them up to freshman level may take years.

Maybe if you stop listening to f*cking Rush Limpdick you might realize that life cannot be explained on a bumper sticker. Jobs are what get people out of poverty. Jobs that pay a decent wage. Jobs with benefits. Jobs that let people support their families. Jobs that they can do right now.

JOBS... isn't that what the republicans are supposed to be concentrating on anyway? WTF happened to all that sh*ttalk? Too busy writing f*cking anti abortion and vagina wand bills that's what...
2012-06-12 11:33:29 PM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: Under a system of free market capitalism and limited government interference, we went from a ragtag bunch of colonies that couldn't win their own independence to the world's economic superpower.



Seriously? Go research the huge import tariffs the government put on all competing goods to build up a production base.

Every big industry was given handouts, protection, and cheap labor imported from Eastern Europe with government supported strike breaking. Coal, steel, farm, etc. Even railroads were hugely subsidized

You obviously have no actual college degree or any knowledge of history. What a surprise you then make this remark

Mr. Right: But your illustrations demonstrate that you have a political bias inculcated by intellectual morons that pass for historians.


Projection to 100% captain!
2012-06-12 11:16:15 PM
1 votes:

Ishkur: There's something you don't seem to understand about the middle class: It didn't come about through generosity or honesty, but through tragedy, misery, confusion and death


No, you don't remember those days. You don't know a damned thing about those days. But your illustrations demonstrate that you have a political bias inculcated by intellectual morons that pass for historians.

Under a system of free market capitalism and limited government interference, we went from a ragtag bunch of colonies that couldn't win their own independence to the world's economic superpower. Mankind has had the brain power to do great things. The profit motive moved knowledge from theoretical to practical faster and more effectively in the U.S. than in anyplace in the world. We never had the corner on brainpower but we had the corner on innovation and practical invention. Edison didn't create all those inventions because he was just some kindly old wizard in Menlo Park. He didn't create the light bulb because of a government grant. He created all those ideas because he wanted to make money. Henry Ford didn't invent the assembly line because he wanted everybody in the country to drive a Model T. He invented it so that he could make cars cheaply enough for the masses to buy them and when they bought them, he got rich. He didn't double the prevailing wage because he felt guilty about abusing workers, he didn't double the prevailing wage because he feared unionism or government mandates, he doubled the prevailing wage because he figured that if he had folks working 8 hour days with a day off each week they would have leisure time. And if they could afford one of his cars (on which he made a profit) and have time to drive them around visiting friends and relatives and maybe going to the beach, they would create envy amongst those who didn't have one of his cars and he could sell more. With no government program and no threat of unions, he did more to raise the standard of living and move poor folks into the middle class than had ever before been done. Yes, there are whole volumes published about why we should hate Henry Ford but the inescapable fact remains that he helped create the middle class in Detroit with absolutely no help or mandate from government or unions. Other industrialists from the 19th and 20th century have done the same.

Look at the Koch brothers. I know that the left hates them for their ideology but compare them to George Soros. Koch brothers provide 10s of thousands of jobs. The good kind of jobs that pay a lot of taxes. Their companies provide goods and services that customers voluntarily pay good money for. Those goods and services are taxed. They buy billions in raw materials and supplies from thousands of vendors, each of whom makes a profit and provides jobs of their own. Because they take a small portion of the profits of those enterprises to support causes that they believe will enhance their ability to provide those goods and services and jobs in our economy, the left demonizes them ad nauseam.

Compare that to Soros, who provides very few jobs - mostly to folks like his secretary who pays the same rate as Warren Buffet's secretary. He provides no goods, few services. He hires no army of vendors to provide him with the materials for production. Instead, he plays financial markets, preys on weak currencies and his claim to fame is that he brought down the Bank of England, thus losing the investments and savings of thousands of middle class Brits. He has speculated in oil and other commodities, driving up prices for (drum roll here) the middle class which can ill afford what amounts to a tax increase every time gasoline prices go up. And yet he is lionized by the left and the very people his financial shenanigans have screwed.

But you keep drinking that government kool aid. While they confiscate ever more of your earnings and your autonomy under the guise of helping you.
2012-06-12 10:36:13 PM
1 votes:
We're in the middle of what might be the biggest demographic shift in history, but nobody seems to realize it.

The birth rate in industrialized countries is dropping like a stone. Places like South Korea went from 5 kids per woman to maybe 1.3 in a generation. Russia is imploding as well as Germany. America was barely breaking even for a while--mostly due to immigrants (legal and otherwise) with high birth rates--but now even America is seeing the birth rates drop below the replacement level of 2.1 kids per woman.

And it's a pretty unequal drop, too. I saw a study in the UK, which is probably applicable to America, that guys with lengthy rap sheets (i.e. stupid chavs) were fathering kids at a rate twice that of guys without rap sheets. I know a lot of very intelligent people in my social circle and I assure you that the non-parents outnumber the parents by 10:1. Hell the ONLY people I know who have more than 2-3 kids are on welfare or are religious nuts. I knew one guy who was paying child support to SIX women out of his part-time Wal-Mart check. Worse yet was the study I read a while ago that indicated that smart, educated African-Americans are dropping out of the gene pool at an even higher rate than smart, educated Americans of other ethnicities.

I'm one of the dropouts. As an artist, I can barely support myself and I find myself glad that I got a vasectomy when I was 24. I'd feel sorry bringing a kid into a society that seems hell-bent on destroying itself. On the plus side, I have a pretty carefree lifestyle and there's no end of women who are childfree or empty-nesters to date. Oh well, it was the best of times, it was the worst--well, you get the idea...
2012-06-12 10:22:56 PM
1 votes:

Ishkur: There's something you don't seem to understand about the middle class: It didn't come about through generosity or honesty, but through tragedy, misery, confusion and death. A lot of very tragic things had to happen to a lot of people to get to where we are today. Every right, privilege, and comfort you enjoy is the result of someone dying or being exploited. General tolerance, dignity and respect for all peoples (but especially minority classes) did not become a functional component of modern Democracies until the empowerment of women and state-mandated standards on living, health, work and welfare (ie: 20th century).


Almost every regulation we have came about because because somebody died, or could die, something that is lost on 'captains of industry' like the Koch brothers.
2012-06-12 09:55:42 PM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: You can go right on believing that and the middle class will keep on disappearing. The U.S. created the concept of a middle class long before the 20th century. We were the first country in the world to have one because commoners could acquire and maintain wealth. No other country had ever done that.


Yeah, I remember those days fondly.

www.academicamerican.com

working class sure had it made back then.

www.academicamerican.com

All those men in top hats treated them really nice.

www2.maxwell.syr.edu

And if something were to happen to them, there was a nice social safety net to rescue them.

www1.assumption.edu

There's something you don't seem to understand about the middle class: It didn't come about through generosity or honesty, but through tragedy, misery, confusion and death. A lot of very tragic things had to happen to a lot of people to get to where we are today. Every right, privilege, and comfort you enjoy is the result of someone dying or being exploited. General tolerance, dignity and respect for all peoples (but especially minority classes) did not become a functional component of modern Democracies until the empowerment of women and state-mandated standards on living, health, work and welfare (ie: 20th century).

Before then, the vast majority of the working populace lived in appalling conditions.
2012-06-12 05:10:22 PM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: Which doesn't change my point.


No, it makes your point irrelevant. You can tout your health plan all you want, you still pay less into it than I do, and I still get better care. But this isn't about you and me, this is about the 40+ million Americans who do not have health care and cannot afford it. This statistic doesn't exist in the rest of the free world.
2012-06-12 05:07:58 PM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: My original point in this thread is that the middle class is disappearing because of well-intended government programs


And this is wrong.

Government programs created and sustain the middle class. They enrich everyone's standard of living and make life a little more pleasant for the average person. There was no large, robust, healthy middle class before the rise of government programs in the 20th century.

The one thing that will kill the middle class faster than anything is to cut these programs.
2012-06-12 04:25:14 PM
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: Most Americans do not pay income taxes anymore either. In European countries, the tax structure is actually less progressive because most people help pay.



You're just a flat out liar.

In England, for example, you can make up to 34k pounds a year and only get taxed 10%.

That's basically the same as America where you pay FICA taxes to the federal government.

And yet you get even more services in England, such as health care, schooling, day care, etc. all FREE or heavily subsidized.

Your ignorant libertarian rants are boring, there are enough uneducated people in this topic, you're not needed, MEINRS6
2012-06-12 04:16:11 PM
1 votes:

busy chillin': um, this is a capitalistic society, there is absolutely no reason for them to change anything to make it better for us. It goes against capitalism to help the employees make more money. You pay them the least amount they will accept. Not one penny more.



Where does it say free market capitalism is required for anything and everything in the Constitution? I must have missed that section.
2012-06-12 04:12:10 PM
1 votes:

LiberalEastCoastElitist: Ok, the thing about a bubble is that your house was really never worth that much. Maybe you should build wealth the old fashion way: spending less than you earn.


Amen, and dont buy into consumerism. You dont need all that crap anyways.
2012-06-12 03:36:28 PM
1 votes:
'Serfs' in our romantacized history books... are slaves.

don't ever forget that when you find yourself longing for the return of princes and princesses.

i think it would be good for african americans to be reminded of that too.
the 1% will enslave everyone. it's not a black thing. white europeans were slaves during the long middle ages.

they call them 'serfs' in our history books because they want to bring back 'royalty'... so they don't want the two words to be associated.

slavery is the bedrock of the elite's philosophy.
2012-06-12 03:23:14 PM
1 votes:
Ok, the thing about a bubble is that your house was really never worth that much. Maybe you should build wealth the old fashion way: spending less than you earn.
2012-06-12 01:29:58 PM
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: superdude72: Thunderpipes:
Most Americans do not pay income taxes anymore either. In European countries, the tax structure is actually less progressive because most people help pay. In the US, more than 50% of tax filers now pay no net federal income taxes. They all get to vote. They all vote for Obama, to get more free stuff paid for by a shrinking class of people.

Cry me a river for the shrinking class of people whose incomes have soared as they vacuumed all the wealth away from the poor and middle class. Are we supposed to feel sorry for them because they can still afford to pay income tax?

You will when they continue to not hire people, and the country gets worse off financially because of it.


Yeah, let's see how that works. I can picture the Walmart heirs: "If I have to keep paying Unemployment Insurance I'll, I'll... stop allowing you to generate wealth for me! I'll destroy the roots of my $80 billion fortune if that's what it takes to keep you shiftless lowlifes from mooching off me with your demands for "Medicaid" and "food stamps"!
2012-06-12 01:04:12 PM
1 votes:

superdude72: Thunderpipes:
Most Americans do not pay income taxes anymore either. In European countries, the tax structure is actually less progressive because most people help pay. In the US, more than 50% of tax filers now pay no net federal income taxes. They all get to vote. They all vote for Obama, to get more free stuff paid for by a shrinking class of people.

Cry me a river for the shrinking class of people whose incomes have soared as they vacuumed all the wealth away from the poor and middle class. Are we supposed to feel sorry for them because they can still afford to pay income tax?


You will when they continue to not hire people, and the country gets worse off financially because of it. And, dumbass, do you really want to sit here and tell me a person can only make money if they harm others? You are saying there is a finite amount of wealth in this country?

Stupid ass liberals, always good for a laugh. You people would not be so pathetic if you stopped the retarded crap about anyone who succeeds does so by murdering babies and crap. Get real.

I assume you hate Obama with a passion, right? He is very wealthy. He used 500 million dollars to get his last job. You hate Apple, right? Sitting on 100 billion in cash, heavily outsources, etc... Oh wait, they make your iTampon.

Half a BILLION dollars. He uses millions more each month to fly around the country trying to keep his job.
2012-06-12 12:32:42 PM
1 votes:
Fark it. We have been divided and conquered to the point where everyone in the national discourse is either shiat-your-pants stupid or some kind of commie hippie traitor. Anybody with half a conscience and one quarter of a brain ought to just turn out the lights and head for the great white north.
2012-06-12 12:00:27 PM
1 votes:

relcec: WhyteRaven74: relcec: the american business owner and the guy from Guatemala aren't really to blame. they are just acting according to the dictates of supply and demand in a supersaturated labor force create by you.

The labor force is hardly supersaturated.


of course it is. that's why wages are dropping and have been for 40 years you farking dipshiat.
[www.socialsecurity.gov image 640x304]


btw I hate talking to you. you are literally uninformed about every subject under the sun yet continually respond to me with nonsense, never once backing any of your bullshiat ideas with a citation. you fancy yourself as some kind of renaissance man with received knowledge of a whole range of subjects you never studied even for a few minutes. dealing with your idiocy is such a god damn time suck.



NOW, there are millions upon millions of people who want to work who can't find work and we are still adding 1.75 million foreign workers who are willing to work for less wages than Americans. Link

that's the reason why the unemployment rate is always lower for immigrants than it is for Americans! business can and does choose immigrants because they are cheaper, and because the labor market is so overflowing that the choice of workers is even an option. of course the labor market is supersaturated. the only time it wasn;t during the last 40 years was during the .com boom.

Immigrants' unemployment rate lower than U.S.-born workers'
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer
April 6, 2006: 5:30 PM EDT

Immigrants' unemployment rate lower than that of native born
May 1, 2008 - NEW YORK

Immigrant Unemployment Lower Than Natives'
By Lauren Raheja
Tuesday, Aug 3, 2010


The giant flaw in your argument is you think ALL immigrants = uneducated Mexican laborer. Simple answer is immigrants (GC, H1s etc) are generally more educated and qualified than native born. This is a GOOD thing.
You want to import high quality workers. We need to balance out the immigrant population with PhD's and MIT graduates to counter the millions of the illegal cherry pickers/ lanscapers!
2012-06-12 10:41:46 AM
1 votes:

Ebbelwoi: FWIW I support universal healthcare in the US if and only if we can get a level of performance similar to Northen European countries.


That will never happen. Americans don't exist in a Northern European society.
2012-06-12 09:50:54 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: If everyone has a full coverage policy, no one ever gets to keep the difference; thus there is no incentive to manage one's health care expenditures and there is no opportunity for anyone to build wealth, other than the insurance company.


And for those who don't make enough to set money aside, screw them. Brilliant! How about we actually require the insurance companies to do their jobs? Like no more telling people where to go, refusing to pay legit claims, burying people in paperwork etc. In the day and age a health insurance company should be a few offices, a few server racks and that's it. The overhead should be almost nothing.
2012-06-12 09:40:29 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo:
In other words, DERP. The reason Roosevelt was able to get things done more quickly was because a) things were much much much worse in the 1930s than they are now and b) the social safety net is much much much more robust and generous than it was heading into the great depression.


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

That's correct, there wasn't much of a social safety net then. And what are your 1% masters agitating for now? Elimination of social security, elimination of medicare, elimination of public education, elimination of food stamps, etc....complete elimination of the social safety net. No social safety net, but they have yet to create a single job. Eventually even the dimmest of the Tea-Tards will get it, and finally put their guns to a good use for a change.
2012-06-12 09:14:46 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: liverleef: Mr. Right: WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: . The government, under the guise of helping the poor own a home, made mortgages far too easy to obtain.

Oh and I really really want to see what you have to support this claim.

The Community Reinvestment Act. The goal was to make home loans available to lower income families. Fannie Mae would underwrite the loans that banks made. The goal was noble but there were a lot of unintended consequences, one of them being that home prices rose more rapidly than inflation, making the housing market much more attractive to speculators. When there are television shows called "Flip This House," that will be a sign to you that not everyone who is buying a house is trying to save up to buy a little bungalow in which they may comfortably spend their golden years. Also, given that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would underwrite anything and then the financial institutions created all the residuals and other Mortgage Backed Securities (all with the full approval and regulation of Congress, we must add). and what started out as a means of improving the rate of home ownership helped lead to near total economic collapse.

[www.ccc.unc.edu image 335x270]

[blog.car.org image 530x399]

In other news, youre a dumbass.

With all the bundling and selling of mortgages and all the residual investment instruments that was going on, the notion that someone believes that those mortgages could be kept straight is laughable. The fact is that the CRA and its re-authorization in the 90s were the impetus that led to the massive number of loans granted by banks that probably should not have been. Banks used to have standards of 20% down. Those went away not because banks wanted to write bad loans but because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy them regardless. The risk to the bank was assumed by the public, not the bank investors. The bank stood to reap obscene profits if everything went well and lose nothing if a loan went belly up. You may cr ...


From the FCIC report "We conclude that these two entities contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause. Importantly, GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value
throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the signiicant inancial irm losses
that were central to the inancial crisis
"

The below statistic demonstrates that most sub prime mortgages were not CRA related.

img682.imageshack.us

This data shows that most subprime mortgages came from independent mortgage companies, NOT BANKS. Please tell me who forced independent mortgage companies like Countrywide to issue so many sub prime mortgages. I'd love to hear it.

home.insightbb.com
2012-06-12 09:14:45 AM
1 votes:
i174.photobucket.com

Still relevant
2012-06-12 09:13:44 AM
1 votes:

Father_Jack: And anyone who thinks they should have the right as Americans to have access to health care like they do public schools to raise the next generation


I often say that you can't satirize the American right wing anymore because they're so far out there that any attempt will just immediately by outcrazied by an actual right-wing statement, action or opinion. This is a perfect example.

Not only do conservatives in this country not believe in a right to a basic, preparatory education, they're actively assaulting it in a cynical attempt to further divert public dollars to often under-performing and restrictive private entities. School vouchers and charter schools are nothing but an attempt to force people to pay private, wealthy enterprise for something that can be better managed and dispensed by a responsibly elected and overseen representative government.

And I wouldn't rely on your comment about firemen or police either. They're already poking at public fire companies in the name of "balancing budgets" and it's really only a matter of time until they start going after the cops too. They're already attacking police unions in some areas.

Eventually I figure conservatives will work their way up to the courts and attempt to replace even judges and counsels with entirely private entities. It's a pretty safe assumption since the only two real (as opposed to red herring and dog-whistle) goals of American conservatives anymore are kleptocracy and theocracy.

You can't satirize the right. You'll never stay ahead of the curve with them.
2012-06-12 09:06:28 AM
1 votes:

Ebbelwoi: WhyteRaven74: It's funny that in England top shelf private health insurance, that blows the pants off any insurance plan in the US, goes for about $2,200 a year, and that's with everyone paying into and getting NHS coverage already.

Private insurance in the UK couldn't exist at those prices without the NHS as a basis. Otherwise it would be 20 times as expensive. Also, private health insurance doesn't blow the doors off anything. It just allows policy holders to skip to the front of the line to be treated by the same NHS trained doctors. Also, anyone with money in the UK pays cash at the medi-centres even if they have private insurance. Oh yeah, don't forget to add back price of deductibles to that price tag you're hawking.

Frankly, anyone who holds the NHS as an "ideal" in terms of universal healthcare is just downright silly. It's generally considered one of the worst among Western European countries. Germany, Holland, Denmark all pretty good. France... depends on where you are (Don't get sick in Marseilles). Southern Europe? That's farking third world healthcare. Don't ever get sick or injured in Greece, trust me on that one. Farking third world Hell.


Maybe, but overall you're likely to be more satisfied with universal healthcare

sas-origin.onstreammedia.com
2012-06-12 09:00:42 AM
1 votes:
A friend of mine is now destitute having to pay for her life saving cancer surgery out of pocket because she had a pre-existing condition from 20 years ago: cancer.

God bless America.

Fark you "family value conservatives".
2012-06-12 08:57:35 AM
1 votes:

Ebbelwoi: WhyteRaven74: Wrong, with private insurance you can go to a private doctor and a private hospital. If you want to go to an NHS doctor or hospital you just use your NHS coverage.

Read it again. I said NHS trained doctors. They are private but no better than NHS docs. Try reading comprehension 101.

NHS is shiate. I've lived in the UK. If people are paying CASH to go to a Medi-centre for services that their private insurance theoretically already pays for... well you can bet that something is wrong. FWIW I support universal healthcare in the US if and only if we can get a level of performance similar to Northen European countries. If we get a Yankee version of the NHS or the crap healthcare they have in Portugal or Greece.... then no way Jose.


We need a citation for the contention that a lot of English people pay to go to medi-centres rather than use the NHS, because I think it's utter horseshiat. The NHS is not shiate, by any metric (apart from the Daily Fail's metric). What's more likely is that you're a prick and are upset because the NHS couldn't cure you.
2012-06-12 08:53:13 AM
1 votes:

Molavian: Nothing. It's providing for the lazy I have an issue with.


Great so lets get rid of oil, corn and other subsidies.
2012-06-12 08:51:13 AM
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: Rich pay more taxes now than they ever had.


And yet the top marginal tax rate is the lowest it's ever been ditto cap gains..you may want to rethink that.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-12 08:48:03 AM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: The My Little Pony Killer: In before somebody chimes in with airtight advice for how to get high paying jobs, like going into engineering...

a steep decline in the last 3 years? who wants 4 more years of that?


I wonder who was president in 2007? We don't need anyone like that.
2012-06-12 08:42:09 AM
1 votes:

Splinshints: Ebbelwoi: But if you've got a good job and good insurance in the US, you have access to excellent healthcare.

No. No, no. Did I mention "nooooooooooo"?

You might have access to excellent healthcare if you have a good job and if you have "good" insurance. For example, even with "excellent" healthcare coverage, if what you need is some sort of psychiatric care, you're pretty universally boned in this country if you can't pay out of pocket. It's very, very difficult to find a plan that covers more than a few office visits per benefit period and many don't cover the types of tests that are often required to diagnose serious mental illnesses or the drugs required to treat them.

What people in the U.S. view as "excellent" healthcare is really more like "quick" care for basic things. For example, it's not unusual to see a story about a service like NHS scheduling what we consider a simple surgery months out, but that's because the NHS has reasons beyond monetary gain to prioritize treatment. If you have a non-serious condition that can wait, you'll wait in a country like England or Canada whereas in the U.S. you could run in and get a simple bit of surgery done in days that could have waited years while some poor schmuck with a life-threatening tumor might not get treated for weeks even though it could kill him at any minute just because they won't operate until it's a true emergency because he doesn't have adequate coverage.

That, to me, is neither equitable nor quality care. There are definitely many things our system is good at - research, quick basic care, good care for those of means - but it has many, many serious and shameful flaws as well.


you BOLSHEVIK.

There is no more definitive proof of the triumph and freedom of American Capitalism than the right to die in poverty because noone will insure your illness.

We have some ideals in this country, goddammitsomuch. The marines hoisting the flag on suribachi, Washington crossing the Delaware, Martin Lutherking's speeches, and being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. These things are the bedrock of American society. And anyone who thinks they should have the right as Americans to have access to health care like they do public schools to raise the next generation, police to patrol our streets, firemen to fight fires or an army to defend our shores, because they too are citizens who have contributed to forging the country, is nothing short of a freedom hating commie.

There's nothing more patriotic than dying for your country, alone, in a bad 1 bed room aptartment, in front of the tv, morbidly obese at 55 while crunching pills you cant afford.
2012-06-12 08:41:32 AM
1 votes:
WAIT a minute....
You mean, giving our manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico DIDN'T work out to our benefit???

Why, that's crazy! I thought this great new "GLOBAL ECONOMY" we were told about would be super neat, and everybody would get awesome new service sector jobs.

What? That didn't happen???
2012-06-12 08:17:49 AM
1 votes:

neaorin: As long as you keep buying your veggies from the next guy because he's selling them for less money, yes.


What part of the price you pay for vegetables is farm labor? How much would it increase if farm workers were paid living wages?
2012-06-12 08:15:23 AM
1 votes:

hbk72777: What do you expect when one side only worries about the poor and the other the rich. And they all want the middle to foot the bill.


Wanna know how I know you're not paying attention?
2012-06-12 08:08:47 AM
1 votes:

jeaux65: I think our economy started the downward spiral after we started sending all of our manufacturing jobs overseas ... That means someone over there is getting paid, and someone over here...isn't.


Well, if you're going to try and be all reasonable about it instead of just going full retard like the first couple posters, yes, that is to some extent true, but there's a reason those jobs went overseas: they're unskilled labor that only make sense in an unskilled workforce.

If you think about it, why shouldn't a manufacturer send their jobs to China, Singapore, or India if they can get generally the same quality and quantity of work for a fraction of the price? As America has improved its economy and standard of living people with more advanced skills have demanded higher wages to match their abilities and people without advanced skills either have to be left behind, lose their jobs, or be paid above market wages to keep up.

That's capitalism. To an extent unions attempted to prevent the unskilled workforce from falling too far behind, but you can only artificially inflate somebody's wages so far when their only "skill" is standing beside an assembly line bolting doors to cars for eight hours a day.

Eventually this country is going to have to accept the fact that it's advanced beyond much of its workforce's abilities and make a decision to either invest in retraining programs to get those people up to speed on newer tech (in my opinion what we should have done in the first place instead of letting them languish) or tell them if they want their jobs back they'll have to chase them to some third world armpit where their skills are in demand.

But we won't retrain people and for whatever reason we insist on resisting every new technology we can. Look at CFLs. Instead of investing in operations to manufacture them, we threw a hissy fit and yelled that "enviromentalists" were trying tah take are lite baulbs. Now China and southeast Asia has it all. Instead of working to develop more advanced battery packs and alternative fuel vehicles we threw a hissy fit about drilling more at home in our meager oil reserves so we could stick with 19th century technology. Now we have to lease everything in hybrids from the Japanese and rely on partnerships with them.

The real problem I see isn't that we lose manufacturing jobs in old tech, it's that we spend so much goddamn time screaming and yelling and trying to resit inevitable change that we lose every opportunity to develop any dominance in future technologies. We need to stop pretending it's still 1930 and accept that what made us dominant in the prior century is dead and gone and that we need to invest in what can make us dominant in the coming century, but that just doesn't look like it's going to happen.
2012-06-12 08:07:41 AM
1 votes:
Socialism and wealth redistribution... NOW.
2012-06-12 08:04:22 AM
1 votes:

Ebbelwoi: you have access to excellent healthcare.


Well yeah, but the insurance company may decide to stiff you on the bill. Also you may not have access to it if the insurance company doesn't cover that doctor or hospital.
2012-06-12 08:00:10 AM
1 votes:

Jon iz teh kewl: I'm actually on unemployment


Close enough. I knew with that little in food stamps you weren't actually without any source of income.
2012-06-12 07:53:42 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: relcec: business can and does choose immigrants because they are cheaper,

So if you ran a factory you'd pay an immigrant less than an American to do the same job just because they're an immigrant? Or you'd go hire up a bunch of immigrants to pick your farm because hell fark 'em, they'll suck up crap wages?


As long as you keep buying your veggies from the next guy because he's selling them for less money, yes.
The race to the bottom is pretty much unstoppable because everyone is doing it.
2012-06-12 07:42:18 AM
1 votes:
Not that I'm a stickler for accuracy in headlines, but isn't it 40% drop in net worth between 2007 and 2010, subby?

You know, come to think of it, that is almost exactly like income and 20 years...if you squint.
2012-06-12 07:41:44 AM
1 votes:

MemeSlave: You could always try getting a job.


If he's getting that little in food stamps he already has a job. How about making sure that anyone has a full time job, or even better, works 35 hours a week earns enough to not need food assistance? A certain Richard Nixon thought that paying people enough that if they work they don't need assistance programs would be a swell idea.
2012-06-12 07:40:05 AM
1 votes:

Ebbelwoi: Frankly, anyone who holds the NHS as an "ideal" in terms of universal healthcare is just downright silly. I


Well yeah, but in the US every time someone brings up providing coverage for everyone people go screaming about the UK. And compared to the US it is a better system. They have to be doing something right when they have better teeth than Americans do. And let's not even get into American dental insurance.
2012-06-12 07:39:22 AM
1 votes:

MemeSlave: You could always try getting a job.


affordablehousinginstitute.org
2012-06-12 07:24:02 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: Actually they were caused by the collapse of the western Roman Empire. When it fell apart it was no longer possible to quickly and safely get goods from, say, Lyon to Turin. To say nothing of getting goods from Rome to London or vice versa. Over in the eastern part of the empire, it held together and such things weren't a problem and there were no dark ages. As for what caused the collapse of the western part of the empire, part of it had to do with it splitting itself into two and the resulting imbalances in trade that happened. Which left the western part in a poor place to properly defend itself once it had a hard time keeping things going. That part of the empire fell was not something inevitable from the time it was founded, it was the result of a few decisions made over the years, some made with the best possible intentions given the understanding of things like commerce and government of the time, and some made with less than the best possible motives.


This is true, but there's a little bit more to it than that.

In fact, you can trace the origins of Feudalism to the Marian reforms of 107 BC.

The Roman Republic needed to revamp the army to protect its growing influence, and Gaius Marius introduced a series of sweeping new reforms that defined Western Europe for the next 1500 years, in a Law-of-Unintended-Consequences sort of way. The most important change he made was that any free person or citizen could join the army (before then, only landowners could serve). And also, 25 years of service earns you a free farm as pension, should you survive.

These changes had two immediate affects: 1) It bolstered the army tenfold. Also, soldiers were compelled to be more loyal to their generals than to the Senate, which plunged the Republic into five messy Civil Wars over the next 80 years and ultimately collapsed the Republic itself. And 2) The "free land" stipend necessitated constant campaigning (current army was always conquering new land to pay the retiring army, like a pyramid scheme). Because of this, the army stopped becoming volunteer and part-time based and transmogrified into a full-on, professional fighting force that was marching, building, and/or fighting all the time. Not an issue for a system that was prepared for almost continuous warfare anyway (Rome was essentially a fascist military junta).

By the 1st century AD the Roman economy was essentially reduced to a plunder economy -- so long as new territory was being acquired and the spoils generously distributed, things were alright.

But when Hadrian declared that the Empire should have limits and the frontiers were fortified instead of expanded, that's when the cracks in the system began to show. A class of insulating elites in Rome sucked up the excesses of conquest (much like how the rich are today), and trade and commerce began drying up. Couple that with barbarian invasions and plagues and a few ineffective Emperors, and it all led to the Crisis of the Third Century. With no new spoils coming from conquered lands, the economy sputtered. In response, they devalued the currency, which caused inflation and led to a 50-year economic depression.

In a bad economy, trade slows down and desperation goes up. The bankrupt Senate could no longer afford to keep merchants safe with the patrolling Praetorian Guard. When they stopped policing the roads, brigandry rose. This reduced wayfaring and trade even more. Suddenly, all the lands in the Western Empire were cut off from each other. The regional governors (aka the retired landowners from the army and their descendents) realized they were on their own, with no help coming from the Senate (and no taxes or tribute either) and no communication with the outside world. It was up to them to police the roads themselves and get trade going again.

In time, these governors and landowners assumed full control over their own lands: All legal, political, economic and social control of everything and everyone who lived/worked on it. They continued under this system unabated, even as the Western Empire was quietly whisked away from them. This system evolved into Manorialism, and would persist well into the late Middle Ages.

There's more to it, but this is the abridged version. Marian reforms + Crisis of the Third Century led to land redistribution, ownership and control in Western Europe that ultimately paved way for Feudalism.

/the more you know
//this is more fun to read if you read it in James Burke's voice
2012-06-12 07:20:55 AM
1 votes:

jeaux65: Most of these things that we're buying up these days are made overseas, no? That means someone over there is getting paid, and someone over here...isn't.


Actually just remembered a nice little detail that gets overlooked in all that. Samsung, which is a South Korean company, makes its phones in South Korea. Now the labor in South Korea is quite a bit more expensive than the labor in China, where most other cell phones are made, yet funny enough Samsung phones don't cost more than other companies for similar models and Samsung makes a ton on their cell phones. Oh and for a bit of irony, Samsung makes the processor chip used in iPhones, and the plant that makes those chips is in Austin, Texas. I can't help but think somewhere at Samsung is someone laughing behind Apple's back and how utterly screwed up their manufacturing processes are. Or rather how utterly screwed up the manufacturing processes they contract out are.
2012-06-12 07:03:08 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: All of those middle men add enormous cost to our system with no real health care benefit.


So streamline the process. Also your assertion about history is wrong. As shown by, well every country offering some sort of national insurance plan, which is the vast majority of countries where everyone has coverage. It's funny that in England top shelf private health insurance, that blows the pants off any insurance plan in the US, goes for about $2,200 a year, and that's with everyone paying into and getting NHS coverage already.
2012-06-12 06:55:38 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: Consider Social Security. The worker has 15% of his wages taken away. The employer match is an illusion...


If Social Security were abolished tomorrow, all of a sudden employers would increase your paycheck by the 6.2% they're currently paying to Social Security.

/You can't see me, so what you don't know is that I couldn't type that with a straight face.
2012-06-12 06:54:57 AM
1 votes:

archichris:

Why cant you just explain to your kids the economics of owning a home?


It just goes in one ear and out the other... what with their student loan debts being as much as a first mortgage, and them unable to find work that pays more than $15 / hour. They're becoming versed in the economics of "Buy a house? What are you freaking kidding me?!"
2012-06-12 06:53:34 AM
1 votes:

ialdabaoth: Of course they're scapegoats. So what?


Scapegoating people is wrong.
2012-06-12 06:52:29 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Right: The Community Reinvestment Act.


Home prices didn't take off until the late 90s, by which point the CRA was 20 years old. Also the CRA does nothing to lower standards for getting a mortgage. A person with a low income can be just as credit worthy as a person with a high income. What the CRA did was to attempt to get rid of redlining, wherein if you lived in a certain area no matter how good of a credit risk you were you just weren't getting a mortgage. Also in some places banks would turn away simply because of income not because of actual credit worthiness. Also Fannie Mae wouldn't back just anything nor would Freddie Mac. Indeed the fact the wouldn't back anything, but only a certain specific subset of mortgages is why private mortgage backed securities emerged. Rather interestingly the man who helped created them, Larry Fink, got way the hell away from them well before they became a big problem. That's one reason why his company Blackrock didn't get, uh, rocked when the financial markets went topsy turvy. Also there's no real regulation for private mortgage backed securities, anyone would assemble mortgages into a bundle and use them as the backing for a bond issue. Which was part of the problem, various institutions proved completely uninterested in examining just what was in the bonds and the ratings agencies seemed more than willing to slap on whatever rating would best sell them. It was a fundamental failure of due diligence by both the ratings agencies and various financial institutions. Of course buying up mortgage backed securities meant more cash for those mortgages that couldn't otherwise be dealt with, particularly all the various forms of subprime mortgages. Standard mortgages, provided they met a handful of conditions, could be dealt with by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. At least they could until Freddie Mac basically got forced into mortgages it should've never had a part of. And had it not been a publicly traded enterprise, there's a good shot it never would've been pushed into them. But at any rate, the CRA had nothing to do with subprime mortgages. And indeed mortgages obtained under the auspices of the CRA have over the last few years had a rate of default no worse than the default rate for standard mortgages obtained otherwise. In some places they've even had a lower rate of default.
2012-06-12 06:42:09 AM
1 votes:

relcec: it is your chosen policy of stuffing this country with as many third world workers as possible because they tend to vote Democrat that has gutted the middle and working classes.


That would be oh so nice if it weren't so entirely wrong. It would work if the numbers of jobs created were far outstripped by the number of people in the US, which would be indicated by a steadily rising unemployment. But that never happened. The blame goes not to the workers, they can be nothing more than scapegoats. It goes instead to those who actually write the paychecks.
2012-06-12 06:37:12 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Wangiss: Double the taxes! Triple the taxes! Squeeze every drop out of those insolent, musical peasants.

Don't forget, more tax cuts on the rich will fix everything! Never mind how, they totally will!


don't forget, if you let the Democrats continue to add a couple million more foreign workers per year who are willing to work for less than you everything will be alright!



I want capital gains for the wealthy to be raised significantly, but don't even attempt to pretend that low taxes on wealthy is a reason why the middle and working classes are earning less than ever.


it is your chosen policy of stuffing this country with as many third world workers as possible because they tend to vote Democrat that has gutted the middle and working classes.

Paul Krugman:
"open immigration can't exist with a strong social safety net; if you're going to assure healthcare and a decent income to everyone, you can't make that offer global."

"The idea that there are jobs that Americans won't do is economic gibberish," Mr. Camarota said. "All the big occupations that immigrants are in - construction, janitorial, even agriculture - are overwhelmingly done by native Americans."

But where they compete for jobs, he said, the immigrants have driven up the jobless rate for some Americans. According to his study, published in March, unemployment among the native born with less than a high school education was 14.3 percent in 2005; the figure for the immigrant population was 7.4 percent.


cafehayek.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/weekinreview/02broder.html?_r=2&or ef =slogin

www.socialsecurity.gov

www.migrationinformation.org
2012-06-12 06:22:48 AM
1 votes:

ialdabaoth: We just want our side to win in a way that causes as much grief and misery and horror to the other side as possible. Get with the program.


I wish no grief or misery on anyone. I don't care about winning or losing, because those are terms for sports, not government and society. I only wish to see those people who have received little if any benefit over the last many years get the benefit of things as they did in the past.
2012-06-12 06:03:51 AM
1 votes:

Kali-Yuga: Lupine Chemist: I did take my taxpayer funded engineering degree abroad. Have fun tightening immigration law to help at the very least slow down brain gain if not cause brain drain.

If Obama is re-elected he'll just give them amnesty instead and the next day we'll have 16 million mexicans to add to the welfare rolls.


Yeah yeah Obama is the negro devil. The harbinger of death and economic ruin, the dark leader that is the sign of the end times, the consummate source of all evil blah blah blah
2012-06-12 05:55:00 AM
1 votes:
wages have been flat over the past 20 years. taxes has nothing to do with it
2012-06-12 05:35:58 AM
1 votes:

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Or "extortion".

Yes, that perfectly describes what the financial industry did in 2008 when they gambled away everybody's money.


Maybe instead of wasting bullets, we should just start bombing the housing projects of people like you. Handle the whole thing remotely with predator drones, not get anyone's hands dirty. That way we don't have to worry about as many low-income "grunt" soldiers, and can just leave them at home to get bombed with the rest of the plebs.
2012-06-12 05:32:56 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Or "extortion".


Yes, that perfectly describes what the financial industry did in 2008 when they gambled away everybody's money.
2012-06-12 05:31:16 AM
1 votes:

untaken_name: fusillade762: untaken_name: You mean Communism doesn't work? Color me shocked.

Are you sure you're in the right thread?

Quite sure. Today, Americans practice all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto in one form or another. Oh, we call them by different names, which totally means they're different, of course. In case you're actually interested, I will start you with the first plank: Abolition of all right to property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose. This is how land works in the US. If you think you own some land, stop paying rent (property tax), and watch the true owner claim his property and sell it on the courthouse steps. If you truly OWNED the land, that could not happen (and, in fact, did not happen in this country as little as 1 century ago.)


You voted for RON PAUL, didn't you?
2012-06-12 05:15:58 AM
1 votes:

Kali-Yuga: I give money to several charities and non-profits in fact, but ones of my own choosing.


Hear hear!

I don't want my charity dollars going to people I don't like! Government redistribution is inefficient and wastes money!

Private charities are much better!

And churches are even better still!

static1.travelandleisure.com
2012-06-12 05:10:02 AM
1 votes:

Deathfrogg: I sound fat:

Dont let the door hit you on the way out.... sounds like a job just opened up in America for someone who wants to be here.

Why would anyone want to live in a Country where a tonsillectomy or an appendectomy can cost a years gross wages, and a Police officer can shoot your dog or you on a whim? Why would anyone want to live in a Country where the wealthiest citizens are allowed to gather so much wealth that they could never spend it in a million lifetimes, while the people that work for them are being told to starve and like it?

You can't throw people out of work and then accuse them of being lazy when they can't find a job. You can't price education so high where only the wealthy can afford it, and then sneer at people who aren't educated. Thats the exact reason why we kicked the British out. Twice.


I get what you are saying. Just dont let the door hit you on your way out.

See, everyone in the thread knows you are blowing smoke. We all know you arent leaving. We all know you are full of crap
2012-06-12 05:08:35 AM
1 votes:

Kali-Yuga: ialdabaoth: If it helps you sleep at night, don't call it "hand-outs to the poor". Call it "guillotine insurance".

I'd be in Galt's Gulch before it got to that point.


I doubt you'd be in so deep that a mob of angry peasants couldn't pull you out of him.
2012-06-12 04:58:54 AM
1 votes:

Corporate Self: I wonder, what get blood stains out of silk?


The tears of the rich.
2012-06-12 04:55:27 AM
1 votes:
I wonder how much traction mass euthanasia of poor people could get? We don't actually NEED them any more, now that everything can be automated.
2012-06-12 04:44:59 AM
1 votes:
How much was caused by the fact that the people realized overpriced shacks are not worth 20 years' salary?

Not saying that the middle class isn't hurting, but real estate prices returning to sane levels shouldn't be counted as a bad thing.
2012-06-12 04:43:39 AM
1 votes:

Kali-Yuga: "The welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes." -Alan Greenspan-


This is the same guy who recommended that people, at the height of the housing bubble, get adjustable rate mortgages instead of fixed rate.

Alan Greenspan is just some guy that had political connections, not some great sage.
2012-06-12 04:24:42 AM
1 votes:
> What's wrong with providing for the poor?

We hates them. They wants our precious.
2012-06-12 04:23:48 AM
1 votes:

Kali-Yuga: Not if "pay for the infrastructure" is just code for giving hand-outs to the poor.


What's wrong with providing for the poor?
2012-06-12 04:20:02 AM
1 votes:

Ishkur: I think the question you should be asking isn't "Why should I pay taxes on property I own?" but rather "Why should the rest of us permit you to own property if you don't want to pay for the infrastructure necessary to ensure that ownership?"


Not if "pay for the infrastructure" is just code for giving hand-outs to the poor.
2012-06-12 04:15:28 AM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: In before somebody chimes in with airtight advice for how to get high paying jobs, like going into engineering...


Tried it, didn't work out so well. Graduated and just meant I still have no money/job and didn't get to at least enjoy those years like the people with a lesser workload.
2012-06-12 04:06:44 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: "big whoop". Look how farking stupid you are.

So, you don't want to take about the issue in TFA either do you?


Sure. The articles main point was that the median net worth (not income)of American families dropped by 40% from 2007 to 2010 (4 years, not 20).

Since the most significant asset for most families is the family home, and the period of 2007 to 2010 witnessed the popping of te real estate bubble, it is not remotely surprising or outrageous that median net worth has plummeted. TFA even provided you with that clue.

It would be interesting to contrast the decline in median net worth fr '07 until noe to the increase in net worth from '00 to '06, while the bubble was inflating.
2012-06-12 04:01:52 AM
1 votes:

untaken_name: Why don't you go ahead and substantively criticize the plank I already did? If you can handle that, we'll move on to plank #2


I already destroyed Plank #1.

So let's move on to Plank #2.
2012-06-12 03:55:47 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: "big whoop". Look how farking stupid you are.


So, you don't want to take about the issue in TFA either do you?
2012-06-12 03:54:54 AM
1 votes:

dericwater: It's interesting to note that those who are vociferously anti-communist are doing everything they can to destroy the middle-class, which will put the US into a feudal system, which will lead to a very bloody communistic uprising when the peasant class has enough of the oppression. Russia went through that where the aristocracy were taken over by the Bolsheviks. China went through that where the local feudal lords were taken out by the communist groups led by Mao. French aristocracy also went through that, but the outcome wasn't exactly communism (since it occurred roughly soon after the creation of the US of A, the revolution in France mirrored the origins of the US, and that pre-dated communism by about 150 years).

I'm quite surprised that these 1%'ers really think they can outwit history.


That's an interesting paraphrasing of Marxist philosophy, with one twist. Getting rid of the middle class isn't what causes the collapse. The cause of populist uprisings is mistreatment aimed directly at the bottom rung, while leaving the educated middle class intact to serve as the qualified leaders and organizers of a rebel movement.

The best way to undermine a populist uprising is to do what the US is currently doing: destroy the middle class social leaders, but give extra special handouts to the poorest fraction of society to keep them happy. It's comparable to sapping the corner turrets of a medieval fortress - don't aim for the gate or the walls, just take out the corners that provide the real structure.

Without the middle class, disgruntled poor people never get beyond mild discontent. There's a reason the Middle Ages were so free of revolts, until the rise of the bourgeoisie.
2012-06-12 03:52:30 AM
1 votes:

untaken_name: Truest Fark post I've ever seen.


So care to explain how those 10 plans of communism are in use in the US? Also as for your rant on property, look up things like adverse possession, there have been all sorts of ways someone could lose their property for centuries. Under the English system, it's not just about ownership but utility as well.
2012-06-12 03:50:43 AM
1 votes:

untaken_name:

How is having an asset that YOU VOLUNTARILY PUT UP AS SECURITY FOR A LOAN (because that's what a mortgage is) repossessed for nonpayment of that loan the same as paying property tax, idiot?



Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
Either that, or you're just lying some more.
I'm betting on the latter.
2012-06-12 03:47:47 AM
1 votes:

WhyteRaven74: I must admit I am completely ignorant


Truest Fark post I've ever seen.
2012-06-12 03:45:17 AM
1 votes:

quickdraw: kmmontandon: At this point, we need Paul Krugman to forge a guillotine from his beard and cock, name it "The Paradox of Thrift," set it up on Wall Street, and use it execute Grover Norquist, followed by anyone who uses the phrase "You can't spend your way out of a recession!"

dude..... I think I love you.


If the only thing a Nobel Prizewinning economist can do to save the country is kill people with his dick, I'd say we've passed the point of no return.
2012-06-12 03:44:17 AM
1 votes:

Ebbelwoi: I don't see anything in the article that supports what he wrote in the headline.


Subby used income instead of worth, big whoop. The the 40 percent figure is accurate.
2012-06-12 03:41:49 AM
1 votes:

untaken_name: How would you know? You've never seen it


Well besides reading the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, I must admit I am completely ignorant of the communist writings of over a century and more ago.
2012-06-12 03:37:25 AM
1 votes:

Tellingthem: Certain things like the tech boom of the 90's can skew stats so much that you can use them for whatever narrative you choose


It wasn't the tech boom that skewed it. It was the people. Or rather some of them.
2012-06-12 03:37:02 AM
1 votes:

Kali-Yuga: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 448x314]
Society can no longer live under the 1%, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."

Isn't it funny how you can take the communist manifesto, and replace the words bourgeoisie and proletariat with 99% and 1% and it looks exactly like the complaints the occupiers are making?


Yes, dearie, very cute. Now go back under your blanket where the mean ol' commies can't get you.
2012-06-12 03:36:43 AM
1 votes:

untaken_name: Oh, really? Well, that sure clears things up. Nice rebuttal. You have some information which differs from what I said or do you prefer to just cast aspersions without actually backing them up in any way, shape, or form?


BTW care to explain all those other planks of communism that are in play in the US? It's fun watching you be wrong.
2012-06-12 03:29:41 AM
1 votes:

Tellingthem: Wouldn't that mean that Clinton caused the massive income inequality that we see today?


I don't get it. Is your point that "Income disparity between the average worker and CEOs is bad, so vote Republican"? If it is, you're an idiot in addition to being an asshole.
2012-06-12 03:28:13 AM
1 votes:

Tellingthem: So if you look at the President Clinton years it shows that CEOs pay skyrocketed. So does that mean that Clinton is the worst president ever because under him the CEO made massive salary gains and the regular folk didn't? Wouldn't that mean that Clinton caused the massive income inequality that we see today? Or is it just a stupid graph that anyone can use a talking point while in reality it is a lot more complex.



Clinton was King during the 1990's?
2012-06-12 03:27:23 AM
1 votes:

untaken_name: If you truly OWNED the land, that could not happen (and, in fact, did not happen in this country as little as 1 century ago.)



Unless you were a native then you didn't own shiat.
2012-06-12 03:19:43 AM
1 votes:

Ebbelwoi: Subtard has no analytical skills and can't do basic math. Subtard.


So what did subby get wrong?
2012-06-12 03:18:52 AM
1 votes:
Someone bring J.P. Morgan back from the dead. I just watch watch him start throwing everyone on Wall Street out of their offices, starting with JPMorgan.
2012-06-12 03:16:45 AM
1 votes:

kmmontandon: At this point, we need Paul Krugman to forge a guillotine from his beard and cock, name it "The Paradox of Thrift," set it up on Wall Street, and use it execute Grover Norquist, followed by anyone who uses the phrase "You can't spend your way out of a recession!"


It's such a brilliantly simple plan now that you say it, I'm surprised no one has thought of it before.
2012-06-12 03:14:06 AM
1 votes:

kmmontandon: At this point, we need Paul Krugman to forge a guillotine from his beard and cock, name it "The Paradox of Thrift," set it up on Wall Street, and use it execute Grover Norquist, followed by anyone who uses the phrase "You can't spend your way out of a recession!"


farking BRILLIANT, that is.
2012-06-12 03:06:19 AM
1 votes:

untaken_name: You mean Communism doesn't work? Color me shocked.


Are you sure you're in the right thread?
2012-06-12 02:55:03 AM
1 votes:

Wangiss: Double the taxes! Triple the taxes! Squeeze every drop out of those insolent, musical peasants.


Whoops.

Forgot to add that I will now refer to the process of taxing the poor (while more or less ignoring the rich) as "Prince John Economics".

/yes, this includes having to get permits for things that were previously covered by taxes (like going to a national forest).
//after all, we have refrigerators
2012-06-12 02:32:13 AM
1 votes:
You'd think they'd have to let us all smoke pot or or, hell...I don't know...believe in the righteousness of an invisible sky wizard as a distraction from how shi-HEY WAIT A MINUTE!!!
2012-06-12 02:29:13 AM
1 votes:
Step one: Protest and riot!
Step two: Something, something... ???
Step three: Problems are all fixed. Good job!
2012-06-12 12:45:27 AM
1 votes:
I'm hoping they'll raise my fica contribution to offset this somehow.
2012-06-12 12:41:44 AM
1 votes:

quickdraw: dude..... I think I love you.


...so what are you so afraid of?
2012-06-11 10:51:57 PM
1 votes:
I got mine suckeeeeers
2012-06-11 09:50:04 PM
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Ambivalence: The My Little Pony Killer: In before somebody chimes in with airtight advice for how to get high paying jobs, like going into engineering...

I was going to say stripping but then I realized....no one really wants to see most of us naked.

Hell... I don't want to see myself naked

/I can't help but cry


Pints of Häagen-Dazs for everyone. We can cry together.

/I'll even let you eat real ice cream if you want
2012-06-11 09:48:22 PM
1 votes:

Ambivalence: The My Little Pony Killer: In before somebody chimes in with airtight advice for how to get high paying jobs, like going into engineering...

I was going to say stripping but then I realized....no one really wants to see most of us naked.


Hell... I don't want to see myself naked

/I can't help but cry
2012-06-11 09:40:23 PM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: In before somebody chimes in with airtight advice for how to get high paying jobs, like going into engineering...


a steep decline in the last 3 years? who wants 4 more years of that?
 
Displayed 170 of 170 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report