Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

The Laziness Dogma

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1The Laziness Dogma Empty The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 11:36 am

knothead

knothead
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/13/opinion/paul-krugman-the-laziness-dogma.html?mabReward=A1&module=WelcomeBackModal&contentCollection=Politics&region=FixedCenter&action=click&src=recg


Americans work longer hours than their counterparts in just about every other wealthy country; we are known, among those who study such things, as the “no-vacation nation.” According to a 2009 study, full-time U.S. workers put in almost 30 percent more hours over the course of a year than their German counterparts, largely because they had only half as many weeks of paid leave. Not surprisingly, work-life balance is a big problem for many people.

But Jeb Bush — who is still attempting to justify his ludicrous claim that he can double our rate of economic growth — says that Americans “need to work longer hours and through their productivity gain more income for their families.”

Mr. Bush’s aides have tried to spin away his remark, claiming that he was only referring to workers trying to find full-time jobs who remain stuck in part-time employment. It’s obvious from the context, however, that this wasn’t what he was talking about. The real source of his remark was the “nation of takers” dogma that has taken over conservative circles in recent years — the insistence that a large number of Americans, white as well as black, are choosing not to work, because they can live lives of leisure thanks to government programs.

You see this laziness dogma everywhere on the right. It was the hidden background to Mitt Romney’s infamous 47 percent remark. It underlay the furious attacks on unemployment benefits at a time of mass unemployment and on food stamps when they provided a vital lifeline for tens of millions of Americans. It drives claims that many, if not most, workers receiving disability payments are malingerers — “Over half of the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts,” says Senator Rand Paul.

It all adds up to a vision of the world in which the biggest problem facing America is that we’re too nice to fellow citizens facing hardship. And the appeal of this vision to conservatives is obvious: it gives them another reason to do what they want to do anyway, namely slash aid to the less fortunate while cutting taxes on the rich.

Given how attractive the right finds the image of laziness run wild, you wouldn’t expect contrary evidence to make much, if any, dent in the dogma. Federal spending on “income security” — food stamps, unemployment benefits, and pretty much everything else you might call “welfare” except Medicaid — has shown no upward trend as a share of G.D.P.; it surged during the Great Recession and aftermath but quickly dropped back to historical levels. Mr. Paul’s numbers are all wrong, and more broadly disability claims have risen no more than you would expect, given the aging of the population. But no matter, an epidemic of laziness is their story and they’re sticking with it.

Where does Jeb Bush fit into this story? Well before his “longer hours” gaffe, he had professed himself a great admirer of the work of Charles Murray, a conservative social analyst most famous for his 1994 book “The Bell Curve,” which claimed that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. What Mr. Bush seems to admire most, however, is a more recent book, “Coming Apart,” which notes that over the past few decades working-class white families have been changing in much the same way that African-American families changed in the 1950s and 1960s, with declining rates of marriage and labor force participation.

Some of us look at these changes and see them as consequences of an economy that no longer offers good jobs to ordinary workers. This happened to African-Americans first, as blue-collar jobs disappeared from inner cities, but has now become a much wider phenomenon thanks to soaring income inequality. Mr. Murray, however, sees the changes as the consequence of a mysterious decline in traditional values, enabled by government programs which mean that men no longer “need to work to survive.” And Mr. Bush presumably shares that view.

2The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 11:38 am

boards of FL

boards of FL
knothead wrote:Americans work longer hours than their counterparts in just about every other wealthy country; we are known, among those who study such things, as the “no-vacation nation.” According to a 2009 study, full-time U.S. workers put in almost 30 percent more hours over the course of a year than their German counterparts, largely because they had only half as many weeks of paid leave. Not surprisingly, work-life balance is a big problem for many people.

But Jeb Bush — who is still attempting to justify his ludicrous claim that he can double our rate of economic growth — says that Americans “need to work longer hours and through their productivity gain more income for their families.”


When a party's voting base has the collective IQ of ranch dressing, these are the types of politicians that are produced.


_________________
I approve this message.

3The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 11:45 am

Guest


Guest
boards of FL wrote:
knothead wrote:Americans work longer hours than their counterparts in just about every other wealthy country; we are known, among those who study such things, as the “no-vacation nation.” According to a 2009 study, full-time U.S. workers put in almost 30 percent more hours over the course of a year than their German counterparts, largely because they had only half as many weeks of paid leave. Not surprisingly, work-life balance is a big problem for many people.

But Jeb Bush — who is still attempting to justify his ludicrous claim that he can double our rate of economic growth — says that Americans “need to work longer hours and through their productivity gain more income for their families.”


When a party's voting base has the collective IQ of ranch dressing, these are the types of politicians that are produced.


BOF's bigotry buzzer is buzzing again...

4The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 11:50 am

boards of FL

boards of FL
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
knothead wrote:Americans work longer hours than their counterparts in just about every other wealthy country; we are known, among those who study such things, as the “no-vacation nation.” According to a 2009 study, full-time U.S. workers put in almost 30 percent more hours over the course of a year than their German counterparts, largely because they had only half as many weeks of paid leave. Not surprisingly, work-life balance is a big problem for many people.

But Jeb Bush — who is still attempting to justify his ludicrous claim that he can double our rate of economic growth — says that Americans “need to work longer hours and through their productivity gain more income for their families.”


When a party's voting base has the collective IQ of ranch dressing, these are the types of politicians that are produced.


BOF's bigotry buzzer is buzzing again...



Do you agree with the republican school of thought which states that the solution for the American middle class is to work more hours?


_________________
I approve this message.

5The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 11:57 am

Guest


Guest
boards of FL wrote:


When a party's voting base has the collective IQ of ranch dressing, these are the types of politicians that are produced.


Could you provide a chart to back this up? And please compare to the other party's voting bases?



Last edited by SheWrites on 7/14/2015, 12:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

6The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 11:59 am

boards of FL

boards of FL
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
knothead wrote:Americans work longer hours than their counterparts in just about every other wealthy country; we are known, among those who study such things, as the “no-vacation nation.” According to a 2009 study, full-time U.S. workers put in almost 30 percent more hours over the course of a year than their German counterparts, largely because they had only half as many weeks of paid leave. Not surprisingly, work-life balance is a big problem for many people.

But Jeb Bush — who is still attempting to justify his ludicrous claim that he can double our rate of economic growth — says that Americans “need to work longer hours and through their productivity gain more income for their families.”


When a party's voting base has the collective IQ of ranch dressing, these are the types of politicians that are produced.


BOF's bigotry buzzer is buzzing again...



Do you agree with the republican school of thought which states that the solution for the American middle class is to work more hours?

I posted earlier today what I feel is a step toward the solution.  



Is what you posted earlier today in agreement with the idea that the solution for the American middle class is to work more hours?

Better yet, what do you think about such an idea?  We know that Americans already work considerably more hours than any other industrialized nation.  What do you think about the suggestion that we need to work even more hours in order to have a middle class?


_________________
I approve this message.

7The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 12:03 pm

Guest


Guest
Americans working more hours?

As compared to what?

Would that be my husband working more than 80 hours in a pay period? God, I hope not.

Would it be for the part time employee to have the choice to go full time? Sure, that would be great. But don't forget there are those who only need part time hours.

Can we leave it to the business owners and employees to work that out?

Would be great if we could.

Will government soon be telling all employees and workers the way it will be?

Oh sure.

Does it matter what I think?

Nope.

8The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 12:06 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL
SheWrites wrote:Americans working more hours?

As compared to what?

Would that be my husband working more than 80 hours in a pay period?  God, I hope not.

Would it be for the part time employee to have the choice to go full time?  Sure, that would be great.  But don't forget there are those who only need part time hours.

Can we leave it to the business owners and employees to work that out?

Would be great if we could.

Will government soon be telling all employees and workers the way it will be?

Oh sure.

Does it matter what I think?

Nope.


So you have have no opinion on Bush's comments?  When presented with the fact that american's work more than any other industrialized nation and also with the fact that the leading republican candidate for president is suggesting that we need to work even more hours in order to have a middle class...you have no opinion on that at all?

Just out of curiosity, when you vote, what drives you to vote for a candidate?  If it isn't a contemplation of the candidate's policy, what is it?  How they look?  How old they are?  Whether or not you want to have a beer with them?  What?


_________________
I approve this message.

9The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 12:07 pm

Guest


Guest
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:


When a party's voting base has the collective IQ of ranch dressing, these are the types of politicians that are produced.


Could you provide a chart to back this up?  And please compare to the other party's voting bases?


Technical issue with my posting.

Could you answer, Boards with charts, please?

And also show the testing on the IQ of ranch dressing.

10The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 12:13 pm

Guest


Guest
My previous answer in the thread on "Hillary Clinton pitches plan..."




SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:

Our economy is currently structured such that wealth is redistributed upwards. This has proven to be a drag on our economy over the last thirty years.  A majority of economists agree on that.  This is why you see democrats offering policies aimed at addressing that gross redistribution of wealth.

Clinton offered a policy idea yesterday.  

Pardon me for pulling some of the meat from your post to Markle and deleting the rest.  I'd like to offer some input to these points you make, Boards.

First, beyond political sides, I am for our economy continuing to grow and am not for slamming every idea because some say it is socialist or communist.  

As I look back to more prosperous times - not attributing this to Dem or Repub -
the wealth was distributed upward and downward.  How so, you might ask?

Joe and Judy Workerbee made a wage where, even if $25 dollars a pay period, they could place money in a savings account or save up for a small CD and receive a decent return.  Or, depending on their vocation and their employer, they could but shares in the company (Walmart did this in the early years.)

We've seen the wages stay the same, taxes increase, and the power of the dollar fall.  Many factors weigh in to this and if Hillary can see a way out of it - redistributing profits back to the worker - that would be great.  So long as she still has a plan where corporations do what they are intended to do - increase shareholder's investment.  

We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow.   If offered a minimum way job with the ability to buy shares/stock each pay period vs being paid more wages...I'd take the shares/stock.

Banks give spit on investment.  

These issues, along with government being better stewards of the nation's contributions, I will listen to and decide on a candidate based on sound financial proposals.

It can't be a campaign of stick it to the rich - I won't listen.  It has to be a plan that is laid out and makes good sense for the economy regardless of Democratic and Republican "social" issues.  

I'll listen to all candidates in regard to these issues I've mentioned.

11The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 12:24 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL
SheWrites wrote:My previous answer in the thread on "Hillary Clinton pitches plan..."




SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:

Our economy is currently structured such that wealth is redistributed upwards. This has proven to be a drag on our economy over the last thirty years.  A majority of economists agree on that.  This is why you see democrats offering policies aimed at addressing that gross redistribution of wealth.

Clinton offered a policy idea yesterday.  

Pardon me for pulling some of the meat from your post to Markle and deleting the rest.  I'd like to offer some input to these points you make, Boards.

First, beyond political sides, I am for our economy continuing to grow and am not for slamming every idea because some say it is socialist or communist.  

As I look back to more prosperous times - not attributing this to Dem or Repub -
the wealth was distributed upward and downward.  How so, you might ask?

Joe and Judy Workerbee made a wage where, even if $25 dollars a pay period, they could place money in a savings account or save up for a small CD and receive a decent return.  Or, depending on their vocation and their employer, they could but shares in the company (Walmart did this in the early years.)

We've seen the wages stay the same, taxes increase, and the power of the dollar fall.  Many factors weigh in to this and if Hillary can see a way out of it - redistributing profits back to the worker - that would be great.  So long as she still has a plan where corporations do what they are intended to do - increase shareholder's investment.  

We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow.   If offered a minimum way job with the ability to buy shares/stock each pay period vs being paid more wages...I'd take the shares/stock.

Banks give spit on investment.  

These issues, along with government being better stewards of the nation's contributions, I will listen to and decide on a candidate based on sound financial proposals.

It can't be a campaign of stick it to the rich - I won't listen.  It has to be a plan that is laid out and makes good sense for the economy regardless of Democratic and Republican "social" issues.  

I'll listen to all candidates in regard to these issues I've mentioned.



So to clarify here, Clinton's plan is to increase corporate profit sharing through tax incentives, Bush's plan is to work more hours, yours is...?

No need ramble on about anything unrelated here.  I'm just looking for your concise idea.  

And I did respond to this post in the other thread.  Taxes aren't increasing. They have been decreasing - regressively - for the last 30 years to historical lows.  The dollar has actually strengthened and inflation is below historical averages.  I covered the other stuff with charts as well.  But all of this is besides the point.  Was is your suggestion here exactly?  I ask because it isn't clear based upon what you quoted above.   The closest I can come to what it is you're trying to say here is "We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow", but what does that mean specifically?  That is the question.


_________________
I approve this message.

12The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 1:54 pm

Guest


Guest
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:My previous answer in the thread on "Hillary Clinton pitches plan..."




SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:

Our economy is currently structured such that wealth is redistributed upwards. This has proven to be a drag on our economy over the last thirty years.  A majority of economists agree on that.  This is why you see democrats offering policies aimed at addressing that gross redistribution of wealth.

Clinton offered a policy idea yesterday.  

Pardon me for pulling some of the meat from your post to Markle and deleting the rest.  I'd like to offer some input to these points you make, Boards.

First, beyond political sides, I am for our economy continuing to grow and am not for slamming every idea because some say it is socialist or communist.  

As I look back to more prosperous times - not attributing this to Dem or Repub -
the wealth was distributed upward and downward.  How so, you might ask?

Joe and Judy Workerbee made a wage where, even if $25 dollars a pay period, they could place money in a savings account or save up for a small CD and receive a decent return.  Or, depending on their vocation and their employer, they could but shares in the company (Walmart did this in the early years.)

We've seen the wages stay the same, taxes increase, and the power of the dollar fall.  Many factors weigh in to this and if Hillary can see a way out of it - redistributing profits back to the worker - that would be great.  So long as she still has a plan where corporations do what they are intended to do - increase shareholder's investment.  

We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow.   If offered a minimum way job with the ability to buy shares/stock each pay period vs being paid more wages...I'd take the shares/stock.

Banks give spit on investment.  

These issues, along with government being better stewards of the nation's contributions, I will listen to and decide on a candidate based on sound financial proposals.

It can't be a campaign of stick it to the rich - I won't listen.  It has to be a plan that is laid out and makes good sense for the economy regardless of Democratic and Republican "social" issues.  

I'll listen to all candidates in regard to these issues I've mentioned.



So to clarify here, Clinton's plan is to increase corporate profit sharing through tax incentives, Bush's plan is to work more hours, yours is...?

No need ramble on about anything unrelated here.  I'm just looking for your concise idea.  

And I did respond to this post in the other thread.  Taxes aren't increasing. They have been decreasing - regressively - for the last 30 years to historical lows.  The dollar has actually strengthened and inflation is below historical averages.  I covered the other stuff with charts as well.  But all of this is besides the point.  Was is your suggestion here exactly?  I ask because it isn't clear based upon what you quoted above.   The closest I can come to what it is you're trying to say here is "We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow", but what does that mean specifically?  That is the question.

Working longer hours. How ridiculous is that?

Basically, interest rates need to increase to a point that is workable for purchasing and saving. As I stated, savings at a bank is worth spit.

Companies need to offer purchase of stock options or shares to their employees, as Walmart did years ago.

The incentive of seeing your money grow does give more incentive to work.

Could that be what Jeb is saying? I have no idea. I don't listen to him.

13The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 2:25 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:My previous answer in the thread on "Hillary Clinton pitches plan..."




SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:

Our economy is currently structured such that wealth is redistributed upwards. This has proven to be a drag on our economy over the last thirty years.  A majority of economists agree on that.  This is why you see democrats offering policies aimed at addressing that gross redistribution of wealth.

Clinton offered a policy idea yesterday.  

Pardon me for pulling some of the meat from your post to Markle and deleting the rest.  I'd like to offer some input to these points you make, Boards.

First, beyond political sides, I am for our economy continuing to grow and am not for slamming every idea because some say it is socialist or communist.  

As I look back to more prosperous times - not attributing this to Dem or Repub -
the wealth was distributed upward and downward.  How so, you might ask?

Joe and Judy Workerbee made a wage where, even if $25 dollars a pay period, they could place money in a savings account or save up for a small CD and receive a decent return.  Or, depending on their vocation and their employer, they could but shares in the company (Walmart did this in the early years.)

We've seen the wages stay the same, taxes increase, and the power of the dollar fall.  Many factors weigh in to this and if Hillary can see a way out of it - redistributing profits back to the worker - that would be great.  So long as she still has a plan where corporations do what they are intended to do - increase shareholder's investment.  

We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow.   If offered a minimum way job with the ability to buy shares/stock each pay period vs being paid more wages...I'd take the shares/stock.

Banks give spit on investment.  

These issues, along with government being better stewards of the nation's contributions, I will listen to and decide on a candidate based on sound financial proposals.

It can't be a campaign of stick it to the rich - I won't listen.  It has to be a plan that is laid out and makes good sense for the economy regardless of Democratic and Republican "social" issues.  

I'll listen to all candidates in regard to these issues I've mentioned.



So to clarify here, Clinton's plan is to increase corporate profit sharing through tax incentives, Bush's plan is to work more hours, yours is...?

No need ramble on about anything unrelated here.  I'm just looking for your concise idea.  

And I did respond to this post in the other thread.  Taxes aren't increasing. They have been decreasing - regressively - for the last 30 years to historical lows.  The dollar has actually strengthened and inflation is below historical averages.  I covered the other stuff with charts as well.  But all of this is besides the point.  Was is your suggestion here exactly?  I ask because it isn't clear based upon what you quoted above.   The closest I can come to what it is you're trying to say here is "We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow", but what does that mean specifically?  That is the question.

Working longer hours.  How ridiculous is that?

Basically, interest rates need to increase to a point that is workable for purchasing and saving.  As I stated, savings at a bank is worth spit.

Companies need to offer purchase of stock options or shares to their employees, as Walmart did years ago.

The incentive of seeing your money grow does give more incentive to work.

Could that be what Jeb is saying?  I have no idea.  I don't listen to him.



Eh...trust me when I say that interest earned in a savings account isn't the solution to revitalizing the middle class.  The marginal benefit gained from savings account interest would be eclipsed by the negative consequences of making borrowing more expensive for businesses.  Stock options aren't necessarily good either because you won't be diversified, and that is more of a retirement issue than a "boost middle class incomes" issue.

And none of that is what Jeb is saying.  Jeb is saying you simply need to suck it up and work more hours.  You're already working more than any other industrialized nation, but that still is not enough if we're going to have a middle class.  And he's saying that as corporate profits are exploding each quarter, the S&P is nearing record highs, and we're seeing a gross upward redistribution of wealth.


_________________
I approve this message.

14The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 2:57 pm

Guest


Guest
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:My previous answer in the thread on "Hillary Clinton pitches plan..."




SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:

Our economy is currently structured such that wealth is redistributed upwards. This has proven to be a drag on our economy over the last thirty years.  A majority of economists agree on that.  This is why you see democrats offering policies aimed at addressing that gross redistribution of wealth.

Clinton offered a policy idea yesterday.  

Pardon me for pulling some of the meat from your post to Markle and deleting the rest.  I'd like to offer some input to these points you make, Boards.

First, beyond political sides, I am for our economy continuing to grow and am not for slamming every idea because some say it is socialist or communist.  

As I look back to more prosperous times - not attributing this to Dem or Repub -
the wealth was distributed upward and downward.  How so, you might ask?

Joe and Judy Workerbee made a wage where, even if $25 dollars a pay period, they could place money in a savings account or save up for a small CD and receive a decent return.  Or, depending on their vocation and their employer, they could but shares in the company (Walmart did this in the early years.)

We've seen the wages stay the same, taxes increase, and the power of the dollar fall.  Many factors weigh in to this and if Hillary can see a way out of it - redistributing profits back to the worker - that would be great.  So long as she still has a plan where corporations do what they are intended to do - increase shareholder's investment.  

We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow.   If offered a minimum way job with the ability to buy shares/stock each pay period vs being paid more wages...I'd take the shares/stock.

Banks give spit on investment.  

These issues, along with government being better stewards of the nation's contributions, I will listen to and decide on a candidate based on sound financial proposals.

It can't be a campaign of stick it to the rich - I won't listen.  It has to be a plan that is laid out and makes good sense for the economy regardless of Democratic and Republican "social" issues.  

I'll listen to all candidates in regard to these issues I've mentioned.



So to clarify here, Clinton's plan is to increase corporate profit sharing through tax incentives, Bush's plan is to work more hours, yours is...?

No need ramble on about anything unrelated here.  I'm just looking for your concise idea.  

And I did respond to this post in the other thread.  Taxes aren't increasing. They have been decreasing - regressively - for the last 30 years to historical lows.  The dollar has actually strengthened and inflation is below historical averages.  I covered the other stuff with charts as well.  But all of this is besides the point.  Was is your suggestion here exactly?  I ask because it isn't clear based upon what you quoted above.   The closest I can come to what it is you're trying to say here is "We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow", but what does that mean specifically?  That is the question.

Working longer hours.  How ridiculous is that?

Basically, interest rates need to increase to a point that is workable for purchasing and saving.  As I stated, savings at a bank is worth spit.

Companies need to offer purchase of stock options or shares to their employees, as Walmart did years ago.

The incentive of seeing your money grow does give more incentive to work.

Could that be what Jeb is saying?  I have no idea.  I don't listen to him.



Eh...trust me when I say that interest earned in a savings account isn't the solution to revitalizing the middle class.  The marginal benefit gained from savings account interest would be eclipsed by the negative consequences of making borrowing more expensive for businesses.  Stock options aren't necessarily good either because you won't be diversified, and that is more of a retirement issue than a "boost middle class incomes" issue.

And none of that is what Jeb is saying.  Jeb is saying you simply need to suck it up and work more hours.  You're already working more than any other industrialized nation, but that still is not enough if we're going to have a middle class.  And he's saying that as corporate profits are exploding each quarter, the S&P is nearing record highs, and we're seeing a gross upward redistribution of wealth.

Like I said, don't care what Jeb is saying.

And I'm not saying having a savings account is going to revitalize the middle class. If you boil down my post to that, you've got reading comprehension issues and the inability to see a bigger picture.

Dumbed down individuals who accept university dogma is the issue at hand.

Basically you want the people to work and the money to be managed and doled back out by the government.

And that will be one sad state to live in.



15The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 3:10 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:My previous answer in the thread on "Hillary Clinton pitches plan..."




SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:

Our economy is currently structured such that wealth is redistributed upwards. This has proven to be a drag on our economy over the last thirty years.  A majority of economists agree on that.  This is why you see democrats offering policies aimed at addressing that gross redistribution of wealth.

Clinton offered a policy idea yesterday.  

Pardon me for pulling some of the meat from your post to Markle and deleting the rest.  I'd like to offer some input to these points you make, Boards.

First, beyond political sides, I am for our economy continuing to grow and am not for slamming every idea because some say it is socialist or communist.  

As I look back to more prosperous times - not attributing this to Dem or Repub -
the wealth was distributed upward and downward.  How so, you might ask?

Joe and Judy Workerbee made a wage where, even if $25 dollars a pay period, they could place money in a savings account or save up for a small CD and receive a decent return.  Or, depending on their vocation and their employer, they could but shares in the company (Walmart did this in the early years.)

We've seen the wages stay the same, taxes increase, and the power of the dollar fall.  Many factors weigh in to this and if Hillary can see a way out of it - redistributing profits back to the worker - that would be great.  So long as she still has a plan where corporations do what they are intended to do - increase shareholder's investment.  

We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow.   If offered a minimum way job with the ability to buy shares/stock each pay period vs being paid more wages...I'd take the shares/stock.

Banks give spit on investment.  

These issues, along with government being better stewards of the nation's contributions, I will listen to and decide on a candidate based on sound financial proposals.

It can't be a campaign of stick it to the rich - I won't listen.  It has to be a plan that is laid out and makes good sense for the economy regardless of Democratic and Republican "social" issues.  

I'll listen to all candidates in regard to these issues I've mentioned.



So to clarify here, Clinton's plan is to increase corporate profit sharing through tax incentives, Bush's plan is to work more hours, yours is...?

No need ramble on about anything unrelated here.  I'm just looking for your concise idea.  

And I did respond to this post in the other thread.  Taxes aren't increasing. They have been decreasing - regressively - for the last 30 years to historical lows.  The dollar has actually strengthened and inflation is below historical averages.  I covered the other stuff with charts as well.  But all of this is besides the point.  Was is your suggestion here exactly?  I ask because it isn't clear based upon what you quoted above.   The closest I can come to what it is you're trying to say here is "We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow", but what does that mean specifically?  That is the question.

Working longer hours.  How ridiculous is that?

Basically, interest rates need to increase to a point that is workable for purchasing and saving.  As I stated, savings at a bank is worth spit.

Companies need to offer purchase of stock options or shares to their employees, as Walmart did years ago.

The incentive of seeing your money grow does give more incentive to work.

Could that be what Jeb is saying?  I have no idea.  I don't listen to him.



Eh...trust me when I say that interest earned in a savings account isn't the solution to revitalizing the middle class.  The marginal benefit gained from savings account interest would be eclipsed by the negative consequences of making borrowing more expensive for businesses.  Stock options aren't necessarily good either because you won't be diversified, and that is more of a retirement issue than a "boost middle class incomes" issue.

And none of that is what Jeb is saying.  Jeb is saying you simply need to suck it up and work more hours.  You're already working more than any other industrialized nation, but that still is not enough if we're going to have a middle class.  And he's saying that as corporate profits are exploding each quarter, the S&P is nearing record highs, and we're seeing a gross upward redistribution of wealth.

Like I said, don't care what Jeb is saying.

And I'm not saying having a savings account is going to revitalize the middle class.   If you boil down my post to that, you've got reading comprehension issues and the inability to see a bigger picture.

Dumbed down individuals who accept university dogma is the issue at hand.

Basically you want the people to work and the money to be managed and doled back out by the government.  

And that will be one sad state to live in.





Well, you gave me two ideas. Increase interest rates and have companies offer stock options. It doesn't really matter what your reasoning was for increased interest rates idea because that would be disastrous; and I addressed the stock options idea. It's not as if I didn't directly address your ideas or anything. Meanwhile, I still have no clue as to your opinion on Bush's suggestion for the middle class, and now it appears that you don't have one.

Do you vote? I ask because I'm trying to reconcile how one cannot care about the policies being offered by presidential contenders in the midst of an election cycle unless they simply do not vote.


_________________
I approve this message.

16The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 3:38 pm

Guest


Guest
Pass the ranch dressing.  I'm done here.

I'd love to attend the class or seminar that teaches one to become an incessant questioning debater.  Wait...no I don't.

17The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 3:49 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL
SheWrites wrote:Pass the ranch dressing.  I'm done here.

I'd love to attend the class or seminar that teaches one to become an incessant questioning debater.  Wait...no I don't.


You were simply asked for your opinion on Jeb's comments on work hours. For whatever reason you weren't able to come up with one, and now you appear to be done here.

Thank you for your contribution, whatever it was.


_________________
I approve this message.

18The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 3:58 pm

Guest


Guest
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:Pass the ranch dressing.  I'm done here.

I'd love to attend the class or seminar that teaches one to become an incessant questioning debater.  Wait...no I don't.


You were simply asked for your opinion on Jeb's comments on work hours.  For whatever reason you weren't able to come up with one, and now you appear to be done here.

Thank you for your contribution, whatever it was.

You are one piece of work, Boards. Razz Razz Razz Razz

19The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 4:05 pm

Guest


Guest
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:My previous answer in the thread on "Hillary Clinton pitches plan..."




SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:

Our economy is currently structured such that wealth is redistributed upwards. This has proven to be a drag on our economy over the last thirty years.  A majority of economists agree on that.  This is why you see democrats offering policies aimed at addressing that gross redistribution of wealth.

Clinton offered a policy idea yesterday.  

Pardon me for pulling some of the meat from your post to Markle and deleting the rest.  I'd like to offer some input to these points you make, Boards.

First, beyond political sides, I am for our economy continuing to grow and am not for slamming every idea because some say it is socialist or communist.  

As I look back to more prosperous times - not attributing this to Dem or Repub -
the wealth was distributed upward and downward.  How so, you might ask?

Joe and Judy Workerbee made a wage where, even if $25 dollars a pay period, they could place money in a savings account or save up for a small CD and receive a decent return.  Or, depending on their vocation and their employer, they could but shares in the company (Walmart did this in the early years.)

We've seen the wages stay the same, taxes increase, and the power of the dollar fall.  Many factors weigh in to this and if Hillary can see a way out of it - redistributing profits back to the worker - that would be great.  So long as she still has a plan where corporations do what they are intended to do - increase shareholder's investment.  

We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow.   If offered a minimum way job with the ability to buy shares/stock each pay period vs being paid more wages...I'd take the shares/stock.

Banks give spit on investment.  

These issues, along with government being better stewards of the nation's contributions, I will listen to and decide on a candidate based on sound financial proposals.

It can't be a campaign of stick it to the rich - I won't listen.  It has to be a plan that is laid out and makes good sense for the economy regardless of Democratic and Republican "social" issues.  

I'll listen to all candidates in regard to these issues I've mentioned.



So to clarify here, Clinton's plan is to increase corporate profit sharing through tax incentives, Bush's plan is to work more hours, yours is...?

No need ramble on about anything unrelated here.  I'm just looking for your concise idea.  

And I did respond to this post in the other thread.  Taxes aren't increasing. They have been decreasing - regressively - for the last 30 years to historical lows.  The dollar has actually strengthened and inflation is below historical averages.  I covered the other stuff with charts as well.  But all of this is besides the point.  Was is your suggestion here exactly?  I ask because it isn't clear based upon what you quoted above.   The closest I can come to what it is you're trying to say here is "We have to invest in both directions to see the economy grow", but what does that mean specifically?  That is the question.

Working longer hours.  How ridiculous is that?

Basically, interest rates need to increase to a point that is workable for purchasing and saving.  As I stated, savings at a bank is worth spit.

Companies need to offer purchase of stock options or shares to their employees, as Walmart did years ago.

The incentive of seeing your money grow does give more incentive to work.

Could that be what Jeb is saying?  I have no idea.  I don't listen to him.

See the answer, Boards? I put it in bold and made it large.

But please hit me with another question as to whether I support Jeb Bush. BTW, I don't.

20The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 4:20 pm

gatorfan


SheWrites wrote:Pass the ranch dressing.  I'm done here.

I'd love to attend the class or seminar that teaches one to become an incessant questioning debater.  Wait...no I don't.

BoF is a famous thread cherry picker with a unique ability to pass over salient points and grab a lesser point he can use to start a seemingly unending string of questions to hide the fact he doesn't understand anything longer than 1/2 a sentence.

If he doesn't know something he just makes up some BoFshit to fill in the blanks.

An unqualified narcissist like BoF can be entertaining because it's always amazing to read tidbits by people who have no solutions of their own leap at every bone offered by their fellow progressive loons.

21The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 4:40 pm

Markle

Markle
boards of FL wrote:
SheWrites wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
knothead wrote:Americans work longer hours than their counterparts in just about every other wealthy country; we are known, among those who study such things, as the “no-vacation nation.” According to a 2009 study, full-time U.S. workers put in almost 30 percent more hours over the course of a year than their German counterparts, largely because they had only half as many weeks of paid leave. Not surprisingly, work-life balance is a big problem for many people.

But Jeb Bush — who is still attempting to justify his ludicrous claim that he can double our rate of economic growth — says that Americans “need to work longer hours and through their productivity gain more income for their families.”

When a party's voting base has the collective IQ of ranch dressing, these are the types of politicians that are produced.

BOF's bigotry buzzer is buzzing again...

Do you agree with the republican school of thought which states that the solution for the American middle class is to work more hours?

Right! As you well know, millions of workers have been forced into part time jobs because of the policies of semi-retired President Obama. They WANT full time jobs.

Personally, I have not worked a 40 hour week in the past fifty years. Fifty, sixty and seventy was the norm. I did not consider it work, I love what I do and did. The results were more than I could have ever imagined.

Watching the clock, hoping the government will help you work less, does NOT lead to success.

22The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 4:48 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Do you agree with the republican school of thought which states that the solution for the American middle class is to work more hours?

Right!  As you well know, millions of workers have been forced into part time jobs because of the policies of semi-retired President Obama.  They WANT full time jobs.



For the numerate among us.

People working part-time jobs due to economic reasons

January 2009: 8,046,000
June 2015: 6,505,000

1,541,000 less people are working part-time jobs due to economic reasons today than was the case in January 2009 when Obama took office.   Somehow, Markle arrives at the exact opposite conclusion and magnifies that number to "millions".


For the republicans among us.

The Laziness Dogma ApF5KYE



_________________
I approve this message.

23The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/14/2015, 4:49 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL
gatorfan wrote:
SheWrites wrote:Pass the ranch dressing.  I'm done here.

I'd love to attend the class or seminar that teaches one to become an incessant questioning debater.  Wait...no I don't.

BoF is a famous thread cherry picker with a unique ability to pass over salient points and grab a lesser point he can use to start a seemingly unending string of questions to hide the fact he doesn't understand anything longer than 1/2 a sentence.

If he doesn't know something he just makes up some BoFshit to fill in the blanks.

An unqualified narcissist like BoF can be entertaining because it's always amazing to read tidbits by people who have no solutions of their own leap at every bone offered by their fellow progressive loons.




By "BoF is a famous thread cherry picker", you mean "According to gatorfan, BoF is a famous thread cherry picker".

I'd ask you provide an example of me basically just making shit up, but we both know how that would go.  It would go just as it has every other time you have been asked to qualify anything you have said.

Your response would probably sound something like this one from the last time you were asked to qualify your bullshit:

gatorfan wrote:Why bother? You will just ignore the salient points as usual since you don't agree or more likely understand.


Ah!  Yes!  Why bother!  I would gloss over the salient points that you can't bother to make, wouldn't I?

Talk about delusional.  You make unfounded claims.  Then you get asked to qualify those claims.  You can't, so you conclude that the reason that you can't is because I would probably just gloss over all of the amazing points that you - for whatever reason - simply cannot find the words to make.  

And here you are later pretending as if you do in fact make those points and as if I do in fact gloss over them.

Ouch.


_________________
I approve this message.

24The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/15/2015, 8:32 am

gatorfan


boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
SheWrites wrote:Pass the ranch dressing.  I'm done here.

I'd love to attend the class or seminar that teaches one to become an incessant questioning debater.  Wait...no I don't.

BoF is a famous thread cherry picker with a unique ability to pass over salient points and grab a lesser point he can use to start a seemingly unending string of questions to hide the fact he doesn't understand anything longer than 1/2 a sentence.

If he doesn't know something he just makes up some BoFshit to fill in the blanks.

An unqualified narcissist like BoF can be entertaining because it's always amazing to read tidbits by people who have no solutions of their own leap at every bone offered by their fellow progressive loons.




By "BoF is a famous thread cherry picker", you mean "According to gatorfan, BoF is a famous thread cherry picker".

I'd ask you provide an example of me basically just making shit up, but we both know how that would go.  It would go just as it has every other time you have been asked to qualify anything you have said.

Your response would probably sound something like this one from the last time you were asked to qualify your bullshit:

gatorfan wrote:Why bother? You will just ignore the salient points as usual since you don't agree or more likely understand.


Ah!  Yes!  Why bother!  I would gloss over the salient points that you can't bother to make, wouldn't I?

Talk about delusional.  You make unfounded claims.  Then you get asked to qualify those claims.  You can't, so you conclude that the reason that you can't is because I would probably just gloss over all of the amazing points that you - for whatever reason - simply cannot find the words to make.  

And here you are later pretending as if you do in fact make those points and as if I do in fact gloss over them.

Ouch.

Ouch is right - you want an example of some made up BoFshit well here you go (from a different thread):

"The solutions are there. They're right in front of you. You vote against them in favor of....what? Here again, can you name any policy that is specifically driving you to vote for any republican candidate within the context of addressing gross wealth redistribution and the evaporating middle class?"

Tell me exactly where I "vote against them" and also where I am "driving toward voting for any Republican candidate".

I haven't seen a single R candidate worth a vote.

You can't back out of your fantasy post, you are full of shit and know it.

Let the endless questions begin. Have fun.

25The Laziness Dogma Empty Re: The Laziness Dogma on 7/15/2015, 8:52 am

boards of FL

boards of FL
gatorfan wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
SheWrites wrote:Pass the ranch dressing.  I'm done here.

I'd love to attend the class or seminar that teaches one to become an incessant questioning debater.  Wait...no I don't.

BoF is a famous thread cherry picker with a unique ability to pass over salient points and grab a lesser point he can use to start a seemingly unending string of questions to hide the fact he doesn't understand anything longer than 1/2 a sentence.

If he doesn't know something he just makes up some BoFshit to fill in the blanks.

An unqualified narcissist like BoF can be entertaining because it's always amazing to read tidbits by people who have no solutions of their own leap at every bone offered by their fellow progressive loons.




By "BoF is a famous thread cherry picker", you mean "According to gatorfan, BoF is a famous thread cherry picker".

I'd ask you provide an example of me basically just making shit up, but we both know how that would go.  It would go just as it has every other time you have been asked to qualify anything you have said.

Your response would probably sound something like this one from the last time you were asked to qualify your bullshit:

gatorfan wrote:Why bother? You will just ignore the salient points as usual since you don't agree or more likely understand.


Ah!  Yes!  Why bother!  I would gloss over the salient points that you can't bother to make, wouldn't I?

Talk about delusional.  You make unfounded claims.  Then you get asked to qualify those claims.  You can't, so you conclude that the reason that you can't is because I would probably just gloss over all of the amazing points that you - for whatever reason - simply cannot find the words to make.  

And here you are later pretending as if you do in fact make those points and as if I do in fact gloss over them.

Ouch.

Ouch is right - you want an example of some made up BoFshit well here you go (from a different thread):

"The solutions are there.  They're right in front of you.  You vote against them in favor of....what?  Here again, can you name any policy that is specifically driving you to vote for any republican candidate within the context of addressing gross wealth redistribution and the evaporating middle class?"

Tell me exactly where I "vote against them" and also where I am "driving toward voting for any Republican candidate".

I haven't seen a single R candidate worth a vote.

You can't back out of your fantasy post, you are full of shit and know it.

Let the endless questions begin. Have fun.


I think it is fairly safe to assume what your voting record is based upon the ideas that you post here. If I were to make the claim that Markle did not vote for Obama, would that be me an example of making shit up out of thin air? Of course not.

Feel free to correct me on that. Did you vote for Obama?


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum