Layoffs coming...

beardo said:
That's one thing the Nazis don't get enough credit for
They were really good at eliminating unemployment
Click to expand...

it's not just unemployment numbers, the "6 million jews" nuber has been re-evaluated by historians and scholars. the new consensus is 4.2 million jews.

thats 1.8 Million Jews Saved Or Created by hitler's policies!

with a record like that, he too should have recieved a nobel peace prize.
 
NoDrama said:
LOL, was there an increase in spending over the last 20 years? Yep. Did the poverty rate decrease, nope sure didn't it actually increased.

Point proven, also YOU haven't got any idea how to read a graph do you?

What year did LBJ start the war on poverty again? 1965? Yep and poverty was LESS of an issue then.

HAHAHA I love pointing out stupid people.
Click to expand...

It looks to me like poverty was at double the rate before money started being spent on it. It also look like nearly every year that an increase is made the poverty level drops. There are people falling in and out you know.
Don't forget now that we are in the toughest economic times since the great depression and the poverty level is staying even. The spending is countering an increase.

When you have people working for minimum wage under a multi million dollar company, you are going to have poverty. There are not enough good paying jobs (and there never have been or will be) for every person to live above the poverty line. You fail to put a net under those people and you pay for it in other ways.

I ask again. Where do they train you guys? The LICS? That's my best guess...
 
Padawanbater2 said:
So it comes down to the avatar..

I guess I'm a terrorist, in the eyes of Tea Party candidates. Oh well..

Your opinion means less than dirt, less than that clear slime snails leave behind.

You're an enemy of the state, an enemy to progress, to reason, to logic, to advancement.

Your own opinions prove it.

Tradition is golden to you. You're stuck in 1950's America, where the white man was king, economic prosperity depended on the military industrial complex, and the non religious were persecuted.

Got new for you, bud, a new era of Americans have grown up, we've realized the bullshit you believe in is unsustainable. "Unsustainable", a word you were never taught and never took the time to learn, it means you're not special, you're not first in line to prosperity. You're not the only one that matters. Get used to it. Compassion, empathy, more words you never knew..

All you know is "I number 1!" "God bless America!", you doofus. (ya like that? I used a euphemism from your era, ya feel special yet!?)

I bask in the thought of you getting angrier and angrier as time moves forward and our country progresses into a more liberal, accepting nation. Where freedoms are had by everyone, not just the stuck up elite fucks who think the white, rich man should enjoy all the benefits this great nation has to offer. Your tears of anguish are delicious! I salt my food with em!

You get older as we get stronger! Enjoy these moments while you still can, because, I assure you, they're receding faster than the Republican party!

See you in 2016, when the Dem's enjoy a fuckin' landslide unless your party gets its shit together!

:D!!
Click to expand...

It comes down to you saying "Fuck America". Not a member of the Tea Party. Why do you mislabel those you disagree with? Why do you claim we make statements that never occurred? You have yet to show any examples at all of the sentiments you falsely assigned to me. Your assessment of my opinion is based on things that I never said, only you said them. "your own opinions prove it"? You mean the false claims you made against me? Again, quote me saying any of the shit you claim I said. Liar. You are going to lecture me on sustainability? That's a laugh. " "God bless America!", you doofus. (ya like that? I used a euphemism from your era, ya feel special yet!? So you don't want God to bless America? Oh, yeah. you said "Fuck America". " not just the stuck up elite fucks who think the white, rich man should enjoy all the benefits this great nation has to offer." Really, where did anyone say that? Your only arguments seem to be with statements nobody has made. You can only demonize those you disagree with. Your idea of rational debate is to misrepresent your opponent. Argue with what I say if you wish, but don't put words in my mouth I never uttered and ague with those. Again, show us where I( made the statements you claim I have. Otherwise, wee can all assume you're a liar. Oh, you'll probably get the victory in the polls you wish for. Be careful what you wish for.
 
kelly4 said:
In 2011, America spent $927 billion in welfare and related programs alone. $74 billion towards world wide poverty is only a drop in the pool, IMO.
Click to expand...

Those programs do little to eliminate unemployment, the cause of poverty, they merely maintain the status quo. $74 billion goes a long way in other parts of the world. Even here, that's 8% percent of your figure. I think that's a decent sized "dent".
 
Red1966 said:
Those programs do little to eliminate unemployment, the cause of poverty, they merely maintain the status quo. $74 billion goes a long way in other parts of the world. Even here, that's 8% percent of your figure. I think that's a decent sized "dent".
Click to expand...

$74 billion wouldn't do a thing towards eliminating it.
 
HeartlandHank said:
It looks to me like poverty was at double the rate before money started being spent on it. It also look like nearly every year that an increase is made the poverty level drops.
Click to expand...
What way was poverty trending before the influx of money started? Was it going up or down?

OMG it was going down at a rate 10 times faster than when the spending started, soon as money got into the system people stopped being productive and started living off the system. No net improvement at all. and for the next 50 years there was no Improvement whatsoever, no matter how much money we throw at it.

Conclusion: spending money to give to the poor never changes the amount of people who are poor. Perhaps if we stopped spending that money and let the people who created it keep it, perhaps then there won't be so many poor? It is illogical to argue when the facts contradict you at every turn, Taking from one to give to another helps no one and nothing.
 
Red1966 said:
I have to give you credit for recognizing that. I don't feel the people you're voting for feel the way they would have you believe. The primary duty, and perhaps only duty, of a politician is to get elected. The recent scandal, largely unpublished, of all but two Congressmen caught making millions on insider trading tells more about them than any of their speeches. "Tax dollars spent to help people in need" is just away to create a permanent underclass of captive voters. Welfare hasn't reduced the poverty rates at all. Voting to pass the buck onto the tax payer is just avoiding our personal duty.
Click to expand...

Somewhat dissenting opinion. Politicians have as their singular goal "becoming an elected official". Should they succeed, their singular duty is to serve and represent the constituents. cn
 
NoDrama said:
What way was poverty trending before the influx of money started? Was it going up or down?

OMG it was going down at a rate 10 times faster than when the spending started, soon as money got into the system people stopped being productive and started living off the system. No net improvement at all. and for the next 50 years there was no Improvement whatsoever, no matter how much money we throw at it.

Conclusion: spending money to give to the poor never changes the amount of people who are poor. Perhaps if we stopped spending that money and let the people who created it keep it, perhaps then there won't be so many poor? It is illogical to argue when the facts contradict you at every turn, Taking from one to give to another helps no one and nothing.
Click to expand...

Like any good conservative writing... you blow through your quick facts not even thinking about if they are true or not.

Once again... people come in and out of poverty... there are not enough good jobs (never have, never will) for everyone to live above the poverty line.
When you have people working at minimum wage for a multi million/billion dollar company you have a small group of people making a TON of money, you have a middle level of people making a good living, and you have a TON of people making enough only to live below the poverty line.

Divide all of the income to be made in the US by every citizen, see what it equals... Then take a look at CEO pay, it doesn't add up. You will ALWAYS have people in poverty. If you don't help them you have a worse problem on your hands.


The average annual earnings of the top 1 percent of wage earners grew 156 percent from 1979 to 2007; for the top 0.1 percent they grew 362 percent (Mishel, Bivens, Gould, and Shierholz 2012). In contrast, earners in the 90th to 95th percentiles had wage growth of 34 percent, less than a tenth as much as those in the top 0.1 percent tier. Workers in the bottom 90 percent had the weakest wage growth, at 17 percent from 1979 to 2007.

So does that explain to you why we are spending more and more on poverty with no change?

::: pulls string with unenthusiastic look :::

 
timbo123 said:
There may be some initial layoffs as a result of greedy business owners trying to desparately cling to their wealth disparity. Their thought being if I have more of a tax expense and continue to employ a workforce at the same level and wages there will be less of the pie left over for me to gorge my bloated ass on. However, those companies will ultimately be replaced by others who are willing to step into the competitive space and conduct business without the preconceived idea that the top guy needs to be taking home 10X the salary of the next layer of management. The most qualified and attractive workers will provide their services to companies that fall into the latter category with full benefits and a boss who lives well, but perhaps not like a Rockefeller of days gone by.

Do not forget, taxes are levied on what is left over as net income (or profit) after the expenses of a company are paid. Not off the top. A business who is willing to put more of what would have been 'profit' into paying for things like employee benefits and wages will not be impacted to the extent of one who's owner insists on squeezing out every drop for himself.
Click to expand...

While you have a good point, you have forgotten that a business owners sole motivation is how much he himself gets out over the business. If one can extract $1 million a year in personal income and probably still maintain the business, why would one settle for $50,000 and still have little more guarantee of sustaining the business? Just surviving one year at that level equals 20 years at the reduced level. If hired managers are running the show as in a publicly traded company, the manager is even less inclined to worry about sustainability. They can always just take the money and run.
"The most qualified and attractive workers will provide their services to companies that fall into the latter category with full benefits and a boss who lives well, but perhaps not like a Rockefeller of days gone by" Sadly, in this economy, these workers will settle for any job they can get. Even well trained workers have a difficult time finding employment.
 
HeartlandHank said:
It looks to me like poverty was at double the rate before money started being spent on it.
Click to expand...

23% is NOT double 15%. you sdisplay a remarkable reluctance to read that graph.
HeartlandHank said:
It also look like nearly every year that an increase is made the poverty level drops. There are people falling in and out you know.
Click to expand...

the "poverty line" is not a solid barrier. it moves about quite a bit based on inflation, cost of living and... DUM dum DUUUUM!!! political expedience. heres the same data in a different format.
nyt-graphic.png


HeartlandHank said:
Don't forget now that we are in the toughest economic times since the great depression and the poverty level is staying even. The spending is countering an increase.
Click to expand...

the "poverty line" is based on the HHS's $11,170/year income line. you can make more than that working part time at burger king. the number hasnt changed to keep up with inflation and the rising cost of living. the poverty line is currently too low to accurately reflect the number of people who have to choose between paying the rent or buying food every month. and dont bother claiming inflation isnt happening, everybody knows thats a damned lie.

HeartlandHank said:
When you have people working for minimum wage under a multi million dollar company, you are going to have poverty.
Click to expand...

at what point does the net worth of a company become germane to the issue of people being poor? if the company that hires you goes broke you will not have a job at all, and thus fall well below the poverty line.comments like that smack of jealousy and bitterness, not intellectual honesty. there will always be some who have more than others, blaming the haves, for the have not's problems doesnt solve shit.

HeartlandHank said:
There are not enough good paying jobs (and there never have been or will be) for every person to live above the poverty line. You fail to put a net under those people and you pay for it in other ways.
Click to expand...

if the minimum wage was $1 million a month, people making $1million a month would STILL be in poverty. you really dont know how this works do you?

HeartlandHank said:
I ask again. Where do they train you guys? The LICS? That's my best guess...
Click to expand...

wow. that was super clever. im sure both of the people who know what youre talking about are laughing their butts off at your witty bon motte.
 
HeartlandHank said:


So does that explain to you why we are spending more and more on poverty with no change?
Click to expand...

This was the only thing that interested me, the fact you concede the point that you cannot change the poverty level no matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be people in poverty. Just as there will always be 2% of the population addicted to some kind of drug, no matter how much you spend to combat it or how much you try to eradicate it.

Since the problem cannot be helped, why keep throwing the money away?

Hint: It has something to do with the people who administer the stealing errr I mean tax collection and transfer.
 
Red1966 said:
I have to give you credit for recognizing that. I don't feel the people you're voting for feel the way they would have you believe. The primary duty, and perhaps only duty, of a politician is to get elected. The recent scandal, largely unpublished, of all but two Congressmen caught making millions on insider trading tells more about them than any of their speeches. "Tax dollars spent to help people in need" is just away to create a permanent underclass of captive voters. Welfare hasn't reduced the poverty rates at all. Voting to pass the buck onto the tax payer is just avoiding our personal duty.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I could have lied to you and said that I volunteer at a kitchen every Saturday, but I don't. The truth is, I left a rural area, not making shit for money looking to better.
I spent a good part of 2007 living out of my car, having just arrived to a new city. I climbed up out of it with much help from family, financially and just you know, encouragement. Luckily both of my parents were long time Union, and survived cuts that people just a few years less tenured did not. Had they not been there I might have failed and not been able to succeed out here. Not everyone has help like that. Don't get me wrong, i worked very hard to get to my modest situation right now. But without some help. There would have been hunger to go along with living out of a car.
As I become more able to help, I will. Right now, I'm pretty proud of performing quality work for folks and supporting myself, as well as being able to employ a friend part time as a contract laborer. I could easily pick up someone else and pay them a little more than half what I am paying him. But we are doing quality work and we can both make some good money doing it.
 
kelly4 said:
I was just telling my wife the solution yesterday. Every single police force in the nation should hire unemployed people to hand out fines and ticket others. You know, start cracking down on all the uninforced laws in this country. If they do it right, the proceeds will outwiegh the salaries and costs. The more cops..the more revenue..the more cops..no unemployment.

Everybody has a job...everybody's happy!
Click to expand...
You won't be too happy when you get 10 tickets just driving to the corner store. Or were you joking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top