Democrats & Liberals Archives

Where is the Change?

Everybody is complaining. Obama promised change. Where is the change? Republicans and Tea Partiers are obstreperously fighting change. Democratic liberals don’t see any change either. But change has come. I think so. And today I was surprised to hear that a conservative firmly on the right thinks so too.

Before all the talk was about taxes and deregulation and culture wars. We still have those discussions, but much more of our attention has shifted to healthcare, better financial regulation, building a new energy infrastructure and making the economy work for individuals as well as it does for corporations. Yes, indeed, we talk about what Republicans call the Obama agenda but what is really a middle class agenda.

Sure, Republicans daily knock everything Obama does. But they are discussing OBAMA'S ideas and OBAMA'S actions. What's the major plank in the Republican Pledge? Repealing healthcare. Republicans know they will not be able to do it. In the best (from the Republican viewpoint) situation if they win big in November the most they will be able to do is make slight changes to the healthcare reform bill.

Allow me to quote David Hume, who writes this on his Secular Right blog, under the heading "Will November be a Pyrrhic victory?:

...... But the fact is that he’s already changed the nation, by shifting health care policy in a direction broadly consonant with liberal Democratic values. That’s really what matters, and what will echo down through the generations. The Democratic victories of 2006 will be forgotten very soon, and to some extent those of 2008 will be too. But the policies enacted by the Congress of 2008 [2009] will impact us in our day to day lives for generations. They already are.

Change has come. We are each so concerned with our own affairs we don't realize it. Republicans, who do not want any change, especially change that may hurt their rich corporate donors, are angry. I can see why? Because President Barack Obama has been successful in starting the big change in Washington. He is on the way to lifting the middle class back to where it is supposed to be: the backbone of our society.

If you are a hedge fund manager running a "small business," fight Obama. But if you are a real live person in the middle class, support President Obama and vote for Democrats this November. But whether Democrats do well or bad this November, Obama stands tall as the instigator of change that helps the middle class.

Posted by Paul Siegel at September 28, 2010 7:42 PM
Comments
Comment #309403

Excellent.

Posted by: DrTom at September 28, 2010 9:13 PM
Comment #309404

What if you are a real live person in the middle class working for a a hedge fund manager?

Posted by: Edge at September 28, 2010 9:21 PM
Comment #309405

Edge,

No such animal exists.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 28, 2010 10:14 PM
Comment #309408

Paul,
It is a matter of framing the argument. That is part of the tremendous power of the presidency, and Obama is very capable of weilding that power effectively.

The Democrats will hold the House and Senate. When I first made this prediction, polls showed a significant GOP advantage. Now, the Democrats have caught up and have all the momentum, and my prediction is looking better and better.

Posted by: phx8 at September 28, 2010 10:35 PM
Comment #309414

phx8, I remember times when you were before! Hope the trend lasts…. ;)

Posted by: jane doe at September 28, 2010 11:02 PM
Comment #309415

The problem is that all the change that has occurred has been so compromised. We got health care reform without addressing health care inflation burying our nation under Medicare debt. We got financial banking reform without breaking up the “too big to fail” banks. We got an end to Combat in Iraq, while leaving 50,000 combat and support troops in Iraq. We got out of the Great Recession but, without any significant economic growth on the horizon or reduction on peak levels of unemployment. We got a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president, but we also have 400 bills passed by the House which sit idly, accomplishing nothing, and moving nowhere, in the U.S. Senate.

Is it any wonder Democrats are somewhat lethargic in their support of the Change they did receive? But, the fact, remains, if Republicans gain control, what compromised changes we did get, will be reversed, and the rapid descent of the middle class and into economic and regulatory chaos will once again be realized.

Their are 3 choices this November, the lesser or greater of two evils, or to vote out incumbents of both parties forcing the parties and politicians to acknowledge that in the opinion of the voting public, they have failed in their responsibilities, duties, and caretaker roles of our nation’s future. Me? I am for the last of these 3 choices.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 28, 2010 11:07 PM
Comment #309417

I always like when people compare reality to imaginary scenarios. Life sucks. It’s never as good as the movie version.

Paul,

I’m impressed. I’ve never even heard of the word obstreperously.

Posted by: gergle at September 29, 2010 12:24 AM
Comment #309418

I think they do exist, and my Dad is bigger than your Dad.

Marysdude, your sly with your statements dude. Yawn. I don’t post often, certainly not as much as you do. But thankfully love to read WB posts. A blessing. Yours to me are 90% zingers. Your one line statements remind me of Monty Python’s “I’m here for an arguement” sketch.

I’ll try and explain my thinking. I think I know how you’ll respond. So to you Hedgefunds are either grunts making below poverty or overpaid rich kids? No inbetween?

Seriously, can you point me to the government data source that explains that there are no middleclass employees working for successful hedgefunds, venture capitalists, etc.

Your zinger is opinion not fact.

I found this, and my base point is this … that defined as middle class, under $250,000 per year, there are tens of thousands of Americans making a decent living with benefits for these evil doers. If you support Obama, I would imagine (but could be wrong) that $250,000 and below is middle class. That’s how the tax cuts are being worked.

Becoming a Hedge Fund Manager
•Unless a manager is hired from an outside fund management company, he will begin his career as an analyst with the hedge fund. Analysts do a lot of the research, calculation and paperwork for the senior fund managers, who can then focus on market movements and overall fund strategies. In 2008, the average junior analyst with between 1 and 4 years of experience earned a base salary of $103,852.

Read more: Average Salaries for a Hedge Fund Manager | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6331853_average-salaries-hedge-fund-manager.html#ixzz10tCR3ZdR

Defition of a Hedge fund

I am unsure if the Wall Street Regulation just signed into law by President Obama has changed this. I suspect not.

A fund, usually used by wealthy individuals and institutions, which is allowed to use aggressive strategies that are unavailable to mutual funds, including selling short, leverage, program trading, swaps, arbitrage, and derivatives. Hedge funds are exempt from many of the rules and regulations governing other mutual funds, which allows them to accomplish aggressive investing goals. They are restricted by law to no more than 100 investors per fund, and as a result most hedge funds set extremely high minimum investment amounts, ranging anywhere from $250,000 to over $1 million. As with traditional mutual funds, investors in hedge funds pay a management fee; however, hedge funds also collect a percentage of the profits (usually 20%).

Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/2296/hedge_fund.html#ixzz10tDCKqeo

In my words, a fund designed to encourage wealthy individuals to takes calculated risk/return with their surplus cash. Cash that will never go away by regulation, just move countries. If the US creates more regulations to take from the rich, the rich leave and find somewhere where they can start a new hedge fund and use their surplus cash. But they will forever have surplus cash. I’d rather keep it and see it create jobs, and use regulation to protect consumers and investors.

A small business is a small business. We should not lump them into ones we like and dislike. If they create wealth and our country affords the opportunity to invest that wealth, then so be it. I can’t support an agenda that would limit welathy Americans ability to invest surplus cash, in an attemp to create unrealistic equity. Neverh has, never will exist.

How about the opposite, what if someone at a tax exempt not for profit, that builds not-for-profit food cooperative buildings and is paid over $250,000 are they overcharging for their role and position? Or if it is market based, paid based on what a like individual would cost on average. Or are they stupid for allowing themselves to be paid so much in a not-for-profit role.

My question is dude, you say no animal exists. What shows you it exhists? I say there are tens of thousands of middle class people making money honestly in the financial services arena, and in hedge funds.. I argued above that the first four years of a junior grade employee at a hedge fund are just over $100,000 and therefore middle class by the standard of the ruling party making law and policy.

Where is your proof to the opposite?

Posted by: Edge at September 29, 2010 12:46 AM
Comment #309420

Edge wrote: “I can’t support an agenda that would limit welathy Americans ability to invest surplus cash, in an attemp to create unrealistic equity.”

Could you support an agenda that raises taxes on the top 2% who are sitting on 2 trillion dollars in cash, unwilling to invest it, until they have some economic scenario guarantee of turning that 2 trillion into 4 trillion. Because that is precisely what is now happening. Those making over $250,000 per year are NOT investing in small businesses and our unemployment figures are the proof. So, if now is not the time to raise their taxes to lower the deficit and debt, when would be? You don’t have to answer that, because, I already know your answer is NEVER!

Just couldn’t resist pointing out the 800 lb. gorilla sitting on the chest of the GOP position on taxing the wealthiest. The GOP has become the aristocracy party - the party of the wealthy and everyone else? “Let them eat cake”. The Democratic Party sucks, but, the GOP is out to murder America’s future, rape the poor, and rob the middle class, all at the same time, while they think they still can.

Got to admit, after all the murder, raping, and robbing the GOP did from 2001 to 2009, it takes some real audacity to try to finish off the remaining victims after having been arrested by the last elections and released on bond.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2010 3:52 AM
Comment #309421

david said

“Could you support an agenda that raises taxes on the top 2% who are sitting on 2 trillion dollars in cash, unwilling to invest it, until they have some economic scenario guarantee of turning that 2 trillion into 4 trillion.”

you don’t like the fact they being individuals, and small businesses are unwilling to risk THIER capital because of the uncertainty caused by those currently making policy, so let’s take it from them. is that it in a nutshell? force them to take risks with THIER own money, or have it confiscated by the gov’t? the current 800lb gorilla in the room as you put it, is the comming midterm elections which at best will see dems lose thier large majority, and at worst one or more houses of congress. this is change you can believe in.

Posted by: dbs at September 29, 2010 5:49 AM
Comment #309422

dbs, you are creating comparisons and equalities which don’t exist. The wealthiest 2% making $250,000 per year in income are NOT small business owners. They are individuals. The uncertainty is CAUSED BY REPUBLICAN RULE and THEIR GREAT RECESSION.

Who should the government take taxes from to pay for government? The poorest in the nation, the small business owners, or the faltering middle class? Or, are you an anarchist who wishes to do away with taxes all together which also means doing away with government, altogether?

Your comment lacks thought, education, and even an attempt at a rational response. But, thank you for your sheepish ideological knee jerk response. Your comment is a credit to Pavlovian ideological training.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2010 6:01 AM
Comment #309423

Edge,

Yep, you were right. I threw the zinger without proper thought on the subject. There are a few hedge funders who are middle class. But your response to that little poke was way over the top. It was a little zinger not a wasp stinger. Hedge funds were not necessarily the culprit in the meltdown, merely the bundling without value, and insuring the bundles without reserve funds to pay for a failure, but why you would rate hedge funds, which are not very controllable in the market place so highly that you’d jump to their defense is…well…strange. Do you happen to work for a hedge fund? Has all the slicing and dicing hurt your job prospects? Think now of all the others the world over who have been hurt because of that uncontrollability. Think of all the pension funds, all the states and municipalities…oh, well, never mind…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 29, 2010 6:19 AM
Comment #309427

The problem in the markets is not hedge funds, nor Obama policies.

Two sources of current issues is a lack of regulation by the SEC, especially high speed trading which is gaming the market, and a lack of criminal charges against those that did cause the economic meltdown.

I don’t think taxing the wealthy an additional 3% will have much effect at all on the market.

Small business is currently defined as revenues under $35 million, which could certainly generate more than $250,000 in income.

One should not and cannot, ultimately, force anyone to invest in a risky venture. It is very hard to generate opportunity in a debt laden, gamed market.

Posted by: gergle at September 29, 2010 9:28 AM
Comment #309428

was a bit on NPR about this just yesterday and the statement was made that less than 2% of small businesses fall into the more than 250k category.

Posted by: john in napa at September 29, 2010 10:17 AM
Comment #309433


john in napa, you beat me to it.

Both parties don’t want the light of reality shined on their statements and achievements of the last two or three decades. Democrats like to argue that the Republican policy agenda got this country into the economic mess it is in, but that isn’t really true. The reality is that it was the Republican/Democratic agenda because the Democratic Party put it’s stamp of approval on that agenda, with a large majority of the Democratic politicians voting for that agenda.

Now, after running miles with that agenda, the Democratic partisans want to crow about Obama and the Democrats because they have taken a step back. IMO, Obama and the Democrats have tapped the brakes but, they are still traveling the same road even after the people have demanded they take a different route.

Posted by: jlw at September 29, 2010 1:57 PM
Comment #309435

jlw, you are ignoring the FACT that Republicans were in control of government in 2006 and 2007 when the early warnings about the mortgage market and highly leveraged and potentially bad paper was piling up mountain high. I first wrote about it in response to respected experts in the field writings here at WatchBlog in 2006.

Republican’s response: More of the Same! More low interest rates, more “ownership society”, more deregulation, and two blind eyes to the banking sector and Wall St., not to mention years of anemic job growth and increasing pressures on the quicksand job market. Then there was there 5 trillion dollar national debt run up and denial of the economy being in trouble right up to the Obama election.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2010 2:28 PM
Comment #309438

david said

“you are creating comparisons and equalities which don’t exist. The wealthiest 2% making $250,000 per year in income are NOT small business owners. They are individuals. The uncertainty is CAUSED BY REPUBLICAN RULE and THEIR GREAT RECESSION.”

no actually i’m adressing the comment you made that the wealthiest 2% were sitiing on thier hands waiting for an opportunity to make a large return on thier investment before doing anything. as if they had an obligation to invest money in a market they obviously have no confidence in, because you and other liberals say they should, and because it would be politicaly expedient those making current policy.

do you make sucker bets with your own money? i bet you’re very careful with your own money only taking risks that have much better than average chance for return. why should they be any different? BTW david the current atmosphere for investors is a result of those now in charge. sorry pal you can no longer blame the republicans. that dog won’t hunt.


you then said

“Who should the government take taxes from to pay for government? The poorest in the nation, the small business owners, or the faltering middle class? Or, are you an anarchist who wishes to do away with taxes all together which also means doing away with government, altogether?”

first off the poorest pay virtually no income tax at all. in fact the top 1% currently pay @ 40% of all income tax collected. the middle class currently pays less in tax then they did under the tax rates during the clinton years. remember bush adding the 10% rate, or did that slip your mind. you then go on with some nonsensical rant suggesting i believe there should be no taxes at all. get ahold of yourself. that comment wreaks of hysteria.

you then say

“Your comment lacks thought, education, and even an attempt at a rational response. But, thank you for your sheepish ideological knee jerk response.”

you’re right david how foolish of me to think i was any match for your superior intellect. LOL!!!!!!

Posted by: dbs at September 29, 2010 5:15 PM
Comment #309439

dbs, then, by your own admission in the quote below, raising taxes on the those 2% at this time would not impede job growth, since, you admit, they are not investing in capital job producing ventures because there is no return on investment to be had. Thank you for conceding the very point I made.

dbs’ quote: “no actually i’m adressing the comment you made that the wealthiest 2% were sitiing on thier hands waiting for an opportunity to make a large return on thier investment before doing anything. as if they had an obligation to invest money in a market they obviously have no confidence in, because you and other liberals say they should, and because it would be politicaly expedient those making current policy.”

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2010 5:20 PM
Comment #309440

jlw

actually comment 309433 IMO is right on the money. the only place i disagree is that the brakes have been tapped.

Posted by: dbs at September 29, 2010 5:22 PM
Comment #309442

david said

“then, by your own admission in the quote below, raising taxes on the those 2% at this time would not impede job growth, since, you admit, they are not investing in capital job producing ventures because there is no return on investment to be had. Thank you for conceding the very point I made.”

i’m conceding nothing. simply pointing out the obvious. that your comment is an admission that you believe you have more right to decide what happens to thier property than they do, because you don’t like what they are doing. nice try though.

BTW david where do you think thier money is? in a matress? if it’s in the bank it is working. if it is in thier pocket and being spent, it is working, stocks, mutual funds, same difference. you on the left like to act as if these people are hoarding large ammounts of cash in some cupboard in thier basements. class warfare is really unattractive. i’de suggest another tact. this one’s not working.

Posted by: dbs at September 29, 2010 5:34 PM
Comment #309443

dbs-
Only in an abstract world where property owners existed in their own right would that argument wash. We have a stable government, and that’s why the definition of property, of contracts, of incorporation, and all that other stuff allows those people to make money.

Government is not free.

Others, though, do not want to sit by and watch these already wealthy, already powerful people simply take all the benefits, and reinforce their already fortunate and influential positions. People don’t want to be run over by these folks. So, they demand that the government place the greatest burdens on those who can handle them,and that this government works on their behalf as well.

If you want a balance, if you don’t want people beating at the gates in anger, you let people get some power. Property rights exist because a government exists. If you don’t want to push people so far you break them of wanting to maintain that, you make those laws moderate enough and fair enough that folks feel they can get a fair shake in the system.

You can’t build an system that helps the already rich and powerful, and not expect that people will someday destroy it out of their own interests.

As for money in a bank? There is only so much that money in a bank can do. Too much savings, too much laying around in an account, and not enough lending, means a shortage of money in the economy, and that is exactly what people are seeing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2010 6:09 PM
Comment #309444

Edge,
Excellent point and one both sides need to look at very deeply IMHO. For why I can understand why certain hedgefunds should be designed so they in theory never lose money or value since I do believe such things as Community Hospitals, Medical Facilities, and Rest Homes as well as First Responders Sources will always remain a high priority; however, at the root of the problem IMHO is Wall Street has made the bet that the 21st Century will mirror the 20th Century and so nothing should lose money.

Now faced with change, Who will win and Who will lose once Americas’ Small Business and Consumers are allowed to go Green?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 29, 2010 6:11 PM
Comment #309448

dbs continues with fallacious statements like: “that your comment is an admission that you believe you have more right to decide what happens to thier property than they do”

Quote me then, because NO WHERE did say anything remotely so egotistical and insane. I was talking about taxes, levied by a representative government. How you go from there to my believing I have more right to the very wealthy’s property, only displays your incompetence with the English language, debate, and incapacity to conduct a rational intelligent discussion on the topic.

When you have to make fallacious or unsubstantiated statements, you do INDEED concede the debate. Guess you don’t know anything about the rules of logic and debate either. Doesn’t surprise me a bit. Still, I appreciate the opportunity to point out the errors of ideologues such as yourself who borrow one liners and give no intelligent and disciplined thought to adopting them and pedaling them as if they were somehow original or even meritorious in anyway at all.

Your comments above lead to the inexorable conclusion that you don’t believe in democracy or representative constitutional government which is responsible for these taxes upon the very wealthy. Good thing to know for future reference. Thank you for the candor.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2010 6:40 PM
Comment #309449

dbs displays his ignorance of all things financial yet again with the statement: “BTW david where do you think thier money is? in a matress? if it’s in the bank it is working.”

Checked depository account interest rates in the last 18 months, dbs? Obviously, NOT! No, That money IS NOT working in depository accounts, save for the pittance of 1/4 to 1 percent now afforded such accounts. Fact is, some are investing their money in overseas markets, taking that money entirely out of U.S. circulation, or they have been buying treasuries these last 12 months which have been on a tear. But that rally is all but over.

You really shouldn’t speak of things you know nothing about, as what you say demonstrates the fact. 6 month national average Jumbo CD rates are 0.37% APY.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2010 6:47 PM
Comment #309458

Heaven help us. Do you Dems have anything to sell besides class envy? The Republicans are for the “Rich” and the Democrats are the great champions of the “Little Guy”. What BS

Read this frm 2002:

Democrats Get More Money From “Rich”
December 18, 2002

Another myth about “the rich” has been shattered – namely the conventional wisdom that they are all Republicans – thanks to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. A December 18, 2002 Washington Times editorial reports that donors giving “small and medium amounts” in 2002 overwhelmingly supported the GOP, while “rich or deep-pocketed givers” hugely backed the Democrats!


Those giving $200 to $999: GOP $68 million; Democrats $44 million. Those giving $1,000 to $9,999: GOP $317 million; Democrats $307 million. The “fabulously wealthy” donors of $10,000+ gave $111 million to the GOP – a whopping $29 million less than the $140 million they lavished on the Democrats! Among those who gave $100,000+, the Democrats raised $72 million – more than double the $34 million the GOP took.

“Yeah, but all those millionaires are Republicans.” No, that’s not a fact, my friends. The fact is that in the 2002 election cycle, those who gave a million dollars or more poured $36 million into the Democrat coffers, and a paltry $3 million into the pockets of the GOP. Again: millionaire donations went Democrat by a 12:1 margin! The two parties took in about the same amount overall – GOP: $384 million; Democrats: $350 million. Just look at the Hollywood left, and you see where the big money goes.

In addition, the GOP attracted 40% more individual donors! (George W. Bush set an all-time fund-raising record by collecting the most money from one-thousand-dollar donors in the history of presidential politics.) Far more people giving small amounts exist as contributors to the Republican Party - while Democrats skunked the GOP among the super-rich. That’s no surprise, since nine of the twelve richest members of the United States Senate are Democrats.


If 2002 is too irrelevant for you. how about this tidbit from this years midterm elections?

The Wall Street Journal reports that lobbyists have donated twice as much to Democrats as Republicans this year — a direct result of Democratic control over both Congress and the White House.

Corporate political action committees spent 60 percent of their contribution money on Democrats, who have in turn raised $153.5 million in the first six months of the 2009-2010 election cycle. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that in that time Democrats have raised a staggering 62 percent more than Republican candidates.

Meanwhile, lobbyists have made 70 percent of their donations to Democrats, up from 37 percent in 2006.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Spokesmen for the companies say they donate to politicians who support their priorities. Ron Rogers, a spokesman for Merck, said that the company donates more to Democrats now because “there are more Democrats than there used to be.”

Stop lying about this. The facts show that Democrats receive more big dollar contributions while Republicans receive more small dollar contributions.

Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at September 29, 2010 11:32 PM
Comment #309460

Sorry for my late response, day job.

Could you support an agenda that raises taxes on the top 2% who are sitting on 2 trillion dollars in cash, unwilling to invest it, until they have some economic scenario guarantee of turning that 2 trillion into 4 trillion.

Mr Remer, in my case no I won’t support this. I am convinced that wealth always reinvests in society because the returns are greated and the value higher than giving it to the government. My source, Marshall Fields, John Shedd, etc. As a resident of Illinois and former Chicagoan, these are wealthy individuals that created the lake front many enjoy. What was the return to them?

I think your arguement is more along the lines of “these historic Chicago figures should have done MORE for Chicago given their wealth”, my position to answer your question is that they did quite a lot and I am thankful for what they did.

I DO NOT have the same affinity with Millinium Park as I do with the Fields Museum, or the Shedd Aquarium. Because Millenium in my local government saying “look what I can create with your tax dollars”. I’d prefer that they focus government dollars on policing and maintaining public areas. As I type I think my comments fall short on the value of national parks, I enjoy those as well and no particular business man created them. However, my point remains the same, eventually wealth reinvests in the nation where it was created.

Posted by: Edge at September 30, 2010 1:05 AM
Comment #309461

Hey Paul, It looks like more than just those nasty hedge fund managers are unhappy with Obama’s brand of change.


62 Percent of Women and 63 of Men Give Obama Negative Marks, Harris Poll Finds
More than 6 of every 10 college grads disappointed with Obama
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
By Pete Winn


(CNSNews.com) – There is no gender gap when it comes to President Obama, according to a Harris Interactive Poll released Monday. Both sexes now give the president the same negative ratings on job performance.

According to Harris Interactive, 62 percent of women and 63 percent of men say the give the president negative ratings. That parallels the overall negative rating of 62 percent disapproval of the job he’s doing,

Harris asked 2,620 adults “How would you rate the overall job President Barack Obama is doing?” in an online survey between September 14 and 20.

Though 47 percent of Easterners and 42 percent of Westerners gave him positive marks, nearly seven in 10 Southerners (68 percent) and two-thirds of Midwesterners (67 percent) gave Obama negative ratings halfway into his presidency.

63 percent of college grads and 65 percent of those with a high school diploma had negative views.

Republicans were the most likely to give him negative ratings (93 percent) followed by self-described conservatives (86 percent), while liberals and Democrats were most likely to give him positive marks (69 percent and 67 percent, respectively).

Independents, however, gave him more negative than positive marks, as seven in ten of them (69 percent) give the President negative ratings on his job compared to 31 percent positive.

The American people are not stupid as most liberals believe. The are very much aware of Obama’s brand of change and they do not want it.


Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at September 30, 2010 1:10 AM
Comment #309462

dude

but why you would rate hedge funds, which are not very controllable in the market place

Because I believe that black markets for risk and high returns exist no matter what government does. Russia has a huge problem with white collar crime. So big, that it spills over into the United States. As a credit union exec I deal with a debit or credit card fraud issue from Easter Europe individually … daily. On a broad basis about every 24 months. Last was Heartland, where tens of thousands of credit cards and debit cards were compromised.

So in my answer to you, I am trying to say that control is a “wish” in an international economy. And that those that internationally GAME the system, they don’t care where the double digit return is, they flow to the environment where they get a better than average return. Note I am not saying BEST. Cash heavy, or as you might say wealthy, individuals don’t look for the highest return. IMO they look for the BEST return in the most reliable system. For me, I want my country to be the most reliable system, not the most protect the consume system.

I don’t think, believe, that you would argue that what got us here was regulation that restricted morons from investing to get the best return … within a risk management system?

Posted by: Edge at September 30, 2010 1:12 AM
Comment #309463

Henry you said

I can understand why certain hedgefunds should be designed so they in theory never lose money or value since I do believe such things as Community Hospitals, Medical Facilities, and Rest Homes as well as First Responders Sources will always remain a high priority; however, at the root of the problem IMHO is Wall Street has made the bet that the 21st Century will mirror the 20th Century and so nothing should lose money.

Henry, I am not sure I follow. I don’t think I would agree that Hedge Funds should lose value. If a cock sure business in Illinois believes it can connect the consumer with life insurance for pets, AND a hedge fund will invest in that endeavor … then go ahead. A hedge fund should vet, research, and review the business plan, idea, owner of the idea, etc.

I think we all understand that rich people don’t throw money at opportunity, they normally have their minions prioritize their investment opportunity.

Which is the essence of my arguement with Marysdude. Rich people will always exhist, our country should be a heaven for rich people investing surplus funds, and they should be allowed to analyze (using middle class folk) their opportunities.

I do NOT know if this is true, but I think it applies … George Steinbrenner recently passed. God rest his soul. And outside Yankee’s stadium the gangs continually spray painted. He instructed his crew to use white paint, and paint over the graffiti. After a year or so of graffiti … then white paint … then graffiti … then white paint, someone asked George why he did it. He stated “I can afford more paint than they can”.

If you buy my thought that rich people in a global economy will transfer wealth to another country more favorable to taxation. Then you can make the final step to the fact the USA should encourage internal investment. Not attempt to skim it by a higher percentage.

Again, sorry for my late response.

Posted by: Edge at September 30, 2010 1:22 AM
Comment #309464

Edge said: “However, my point remains the same, eventually wealth reinvests in the nation where it was created.”

That is very naive and out of touch with the present. As our debt grows, our economy will worsen, and money will chase ever more money overseas. Ever heard of BRIC? That’s where money will go to earn money. And when our society fails, as all arrogant overly wealthy in too few hands societies have, the wealth will simply move not just their money as they do now to the Cayman Islands and other destinations, but, they will move their entire stake holdings in America, for no other reason than it will make sense to do so, rather than become objects for the starving and suffering to avenge themselves upon.

Of course, you must believe that in order to preserve your fidelity to your ideology. But, the entire belief is both not supported by current behavior by the very wealthy, nor by future behavior as the shrinking middle class can no longer sustain the economy. I see Buffet and Gates are traveling and talking deals in Asia this week. And these are the good guys, who love America and don’t mind their tax rate being higher than that of the struggling middle class. Buffet has even said the government should raise the taxes on the very wealthy.

In fact, a poll done under the Bush administration demonstrated that most of the very wealthy have no problem with their taxes going up if their taxes would reduce our debt and deficits. About a half dozen of the very wealthiest families were funding the opposition, insisting on cutting taxes for themselves. Being supporters of the GOP, they got their wish, in spades. And the Republicans ruled over 3 recessions, the one inherited from the tech bubble begun under the Clinton administration, and another in 2003, and another begun in 2007. And with each of those recessions, consumers were less able to rescue the economy from recession with sustained consumption quantity.

There is no question that government spending has to be curtailed significantly in order to restore our nation’s economic future. There is also no question that revenues will have to come from those whose lifestyles will not be compromised by having their taxes increased. With Dems refusing to cut spending, and GOP refusing to raise taxes, our nation is doomed to bankrupt - thanks to ideologues like yourself supporting their intransigent and completely illogical party mentors and sophists.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2010 2:22 AM
Comment #309465

Skeptical boomer, sizable percentages of those polling against Obama do so believing Obama has NOT acted far enough to the Left, i.e. failure to break up the big banks and failure to pass universal single payer health care.

Remove those from the polling results, and you get a number reflective of the GOP numbers and a bit more than half of the Independents. In other words, about equally split. Obama’s numbers are higher than ANY Republican in the country today. The number of Americans believing Republicans will do a better job than Democrats is in the 20 to 29% range.

Statistics have to be taken in their full breadth, not cherry picked to say what they do not reflect.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2010 2:27 AM
Comment #309467

david said

“Quote me then, because NO WHERE did say anything remotely so egotistical and insane. I was talking about taxes, levied by a representative government. How you go from there to my believing I have more right to the very wealthy’s property, only displays your incompetence with the English language, debate, and incapacity to conduct a rational intelligent discussion on the topic.”

i can read between the lines. you didn’t need to say it. the rest of your hysterical personal attacks i won’t waste my time with.

Posted by: dbs at September 30, 2010 5:34 AM
Comment #309468

Edge,

>Because I believe that black markets for risk and high returns exist no matter what government does.

So in my answer to you, I am trying to say that control is a “wish” in an international economy.


And you tell me these things to explain why you jump to defend?

Had the mismanagement of these things been illegal, our neither government nor other world governments would have allowed trading to reach the heights it did, and the meltdown would have been unlikely. It should have never been legal for something impossible to place a value on to be traded, and there should have been restrictions on how much of it could be insured without a supporting reserve.

Hedge Funds may be the crap game you insist it is, but the promises of pie in the sky return makes the dice in the game loaded. Even in legal gambling, loaded dice are not allowed.

We ARE in an international marketplace, we cannot back out to become isolated at this late day, but our influences are many. What we do and how we do it is important.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 30, 2010 7:21 AM
Comment #309495

dbs, yes, mental institutions used to be full of people who could divine the truth from between the lines of reality. Thanks for the concession.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 30, 2010 4:12 PM
Comment #309501

dude

We ARE in an international marketplace, we cannot back out to become isolated at this late day, but our influences are many. What we do and how we do it is important.

I think I understand your point. But if everyone in the marketplace has some form of crap game and lower level regulation it is not truly an international marketplace. My major was in international business and spanish, my first job was shipping to Chicago from South America. It was an exercise in bribing and begging not any form of commerce as we enjoy. I think the same is true of wealth, investment, in an international marketplace. To someone with $100 billion, $10 million is an acceptable level of risk. Rule of 72, if the term times rate equals more than 72 you double your money. So if I can get 20% at 4 years I’m in for $10 million … even if you are in Cambodia. As I read you point I think we agree on concept, but it is not yet practical. So I think we must have and regulate hedge funds so that the wealth is at least reinvested in a potential emerging business that has the chance to provide short term value, provide jobs, and grow to provide even more employment.

Posted by: Edge at September 30, 2010 5:44 PM
Comment #309502

David said: Of course, you must believe that in order to preserve your fidelity to your ideology.

I guess I can’t argue that and your response that money goes where it can grow. I think you are right to point out that it is naive to think it will all stay in the USA. So if we agree that it will leave for better returns … why raise taxes on the rich? Is that really a Laffer Curve arguement in your mind? Find the optimal point? It would seem compared to tax rates of our capitalistic cousins we are already hitting the wealthy hard.

http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf

From the PDF: Small firms accounted for 65 percent (or 9.8 million) of the 15 million net new jobs created between 1993 and 2009. Much of the job growth is from fast-growing high-impact firms, which represent about 5–6 percent of all firms and are on average 25 years old. Our high tax rate already hits them. I wonder what % it would be if we adjusted to the next highest tax rate of our capitalistic counsins?

I’m in Illinois, I already accept I will pay more taxes, but want spending cuts big time. I think there are a lot of Americans that accept that fact/need. It is routinely argued here that 90% of WB agrees (IMO). We are all frustrated with a lack of execution by our representatives.

I often joke as an independent I will vote for the candidate that will do the least damage. Perhaps with 2006-2008-2010 election we are seeing the foundation of where I can vote for what they stand for, because I know it is in alignment with me … for the most part … right? Please tell me I am right folks!

Posted by: Edge at September 30, 2010 5:56 PM
Comment #309508

Edge,
Investing in upgrading our infrastructure to include our imstitutions should be seen by all Americans IMHO a Necessary Savings. For just as it has taken us over 100 years to build a Community First Responder System which can bring assistance within minutes, I do believe Our Elected officials and Corporate Leaders whould find their job on the line if they wanted to do away with Americas’ 911 Services in the 21st Century. So, why Pre-Paid Health and Medical Care Srvices for every American may take another 100 years I do believe Hedge Funds invested in such a journey should be protected by the Taxpayer.

However, the Hedge Fund invested in the Private Business of underwriting a company selling life insurance for pets should not be entitled to the same protection because the enterprise offers other remedies to recover the Hedge Fund lost finds. For example; I offer you the Hedge Fund Manager a 7% return for underwriting the policies so I may sell enough policies to cover my expenses and start producing a profit within the next 5 years.

Yet, due to: instead of: or just out right misrepresentation I decide to pocket the premiums and at the end of five years shut down the business and walk away. Now, you the Hedge Fund Manager and My Customers are left holdimg a piece of paper (contract) that one could say was a bad investment. So unless the Hedge Fund wants to take over managing the life insurance policies for pets, who is more harmed by my actions? Thus, both parties could sue or take other legal remedies; nevertheless, being a private investment why should the Taxpayer have to pay on the life insurance premiums and policies when they never entered into the contract or recieved any reward?

So just as Inherited Wealth cannot and does not come with a guaranteed do we allow the Rich to have a guaranteed on all their investments even though the emterprise does not serve the greater good of the Nation or Society. For though Hedge Funds and other financial tools were designed to help Americas’ Demcratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious leaders build a Better World. Can you explain how life insurance on a pet betters the world for our childrem when many of them can’t afford life insurance on themselves?

Bad management or misguided business principles should not be a risk which a Hedge Fund Manager would allow; nonetheless, it has and will happen again and again. So why some Hedge Fund Investments are done in the Inherent Best Interest of Our Government and Society as a Whole, the ones who invest in questionable businesses or are set up for only short term gain and profits shouldn’t have the same protection. Otherwise, why shouldn’t I use a Hedge Fund to invest on who will be elected in November and ask for my money back when they come in second?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 30, 2010 8:10 PM
Comment #309517

Edge,

America needs income (liquidity) to mount an assault on the problems our recent meltdown left us with. Because the meldown took out the half of our middle class that Reagan and Cheney/Bush did not take out, we have no middle class left to generate that income (liquidity). The poor have no resources, the middle class is shrinking and so is their income. The wealthy had their chance to provide a little help along the way because Cheney/Bush gave them that big tax cut, saying that the extra monies would be used to generate jobs. Cheney/Bush forgot to mention those jobs would be generated in China and Bangladesh. The reason for not extending the cuts for those making over $250,000.00 is very simple…if those folks are going to invest overseas, or sit on their wealth which staunches job growth, the poor can’t help and the middle class needs help, what’s left to form the necessary liquidity?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 12:03 AM
Comment #309518

RF,

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and sounds like a Republican…what is it?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 1, 2010 12:07 AM
Comment #309551

Edge said: “It would seem compared to tax rates of our capitalistic cousins we are already hitting the wealthy hard.”

Hitting the wealthy hard, by my definition of the phrase, would result in the wealthy no longer being wealthy, or causing them enormous privation stresses akin to those unemployed having their homes foreclosed upon, or, their losing wealth reserves which cannot be summoned forth for investments when our economy is capable again of capital growth and expansion.

Of course, at the other end of the definitional spectrum are those arguing that any taxation of the wealthy is unjust since having wealth should entitle one to the power to protect that wealth even from the society and government that aided in its accumulation.

Now is the absolute best time to increase (and we are talking modest increases here) the taxes on the very wealthy since their wealth reserves are either leaving our country or sitting on the sidelines earning next to nothing. Of course, the fear is, when the economy is poised for capital growth and expansion, the government won’t be willing to ease back on those taxes in order to promote the investments that our growing economy needs again, in the future. But, my reply to that is, the wealthy got their tax cuts for 8 years in the last decade. So, that fear is unwarranted and unjustified. When our economy demands capital to fund constricted growth, taxes do and will ease on the capital investment wealthy class.

There is no balance if their taxes are cut to promote economic expansion during the good times, and not raised when the economy is in recession or sluggish and government debt is underwriting economic activity and recession prevention or offset. This dynamic is one of several prime movers which causes Democratic majorities to take over Republican majorities and vice versa. We should have faith in this balancing mechanism which is evident throughout the our history since the 1940’s.

The problem is the lies both political parties levy toward the public surrounding tax policy to take the public’s eye off the larger and vastly more difficult challenge to leadership, spending. If we had responsible leadership in our government, government spending would increase and tax rates reduced on the wealthy during economic expansion, and reversed during economic constriction and sluggish growth.

But, we don’t have responsible leadership in government. We have irresponsible political party ideologues instead, whose first and foremost obligation is to those wealthy special interests which underwrite their election campaigns or threaten them. What should be is obvious. Getting it is a matter of political will, and right now, instead of the voters and consumers will for responsible management governing, the will of the political party ideologues prevails instead.

With the anti-incumbent movement growing, there is hope this will change.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2010 8:05 PM
Comment #309563

David, can you say this another way:

Now is the absolute best time to increase (and we are talking modest increases here) the taxes on the very wealthy since their wealth reserves are either leaving our country or sitting on the sidelines earning next to nothing

I guess I need context too:

> If this is now do you agree that wealth is low compared to two-three years ago?

> Why did our capitalistic cousins lower tax rates? Out of stupidity?

> Define wealth reserves, I think dude or someone argued that they are not here in the United States.

I guess to my last question, I just don’t think we can pin down the idle surplus. I don’t think our money transfer system is sophisticated enough to prevent. It is only on a “allow” basis. Meaning, the wealthy just move it to the western economy that currently has the best, most favorable tax rates and/or investment opportunity.

Which leads to another questions

> Isn’t taxing the wealthy really an international issue, domestically since it has been pointed out to me that it won’t stick, stay in the US (I agree) then we really need all societies to agree to tax at the same rate?

> Blatant JAB question … and did not our President, President Obama, come into office having THE MOST POLITICAL CAPITAL WITH WESTERN NATIONS? I don’t think I read his idea on unifying taxation to ensure equity plan.

Posted by: Edge at October 2, 2010 12:58 AM
Comment #309564

Dude, can you define middle class by age and income. I mean what you think as you type that statement. Who?

I’m not sure what the value of bringing in a past administration does. President Obama had the majority, how do you judge him? I don’t think you can really, honestly blame BushCo. That means we can blame Obama for all the years following his departure. Ain’t it more grey than that?

You said: The poor have no resources, the middle class is shrinking and so is their income

How do you feel about their purchasing habits? Nutritional habits? Do you thin ka middle class or poor person goes without fast foot (on the whole), or a mobile phone, or cable TV?

Do you define middle class as more gainfully employed than not? Is the employment rate of the middle class higher or lower than the national average? This one is important to me, because you describe the middle class as being hammered, which (to me) would mean they work harder, longer, and get less, and less.

What are the upper most levels of high poverty to you? Age, income, family size, job, education? I might say 30 years old, $30,000 per year, wife two kids, bus driver, and a high school education. but 40 years ago that was enough, why not now? Is yours lower than mine? Higher?

I know the evasive answer is “Edge, it is more complicated than just answering questions. This is real poverty, real shrinking, middle class populations”. OK, then how are they shrinking in what context? Purchasing power? Income adjusted for inflation (that is pretty dang low), etc.

Posted by: Edge at October 2, 2010 1:12 AM
Comment #309565

Edge,
The Federal Poverty line stands at $22,500.00/yr for a family of four which is up from the $16,500.00/yr. just a few years ago. Thus, by federal standards a family of four making about $50,000.00/yr. is considered Mediam Income which is down from where it was just a few years ago.

Now, depending on where one lives federal standards and the principles of banks loaning money states a person home and utilities payments should not exceed 30% of their income. So higher levels of poverty can range upto 120% of poverty depending on availability of afforcable housing. And we haven’t even begun to discuss taxes, food, health and medical care, etc… Therefore, making the answer more complicated than just quoting a few numbers.

However, if one really cares to look at the true cost of poverty in their area than make a list of what you believe every Citizen (family) basic needs are, their fair share of all the taxes, and the items others say one has to have in order to keep up with the Community Standard of Living. And BTW, don’t forget to add savings, college, repairs, emergency funds, etc.. As they also will have to be reflected in ones’ income before the first “Spendable Dollar” can be seen.

For why 40 years ago the idea of having a job paying $40,000.00/yr clearly put one in the Middle Class. Looking out over the next 20 years the idea that an income of a $100,000.00/yr. will make one elible for Low-Income Relief from the federal government might be a reality. Since, today a peron making between $150,000.00 to $249,999.99/yr. can be said to have only reached the Upper Middle Class.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 2, 2010 4:32 AM
Comment #309568

Edge,

Those are hedge questions you’ve asked. So, before I go into numbers, I’d like to ask one myself…do you deny that the middle class is shrinking (that the wealthy are increasing in wealth as compared to the middle class who are decreasing in numbers as well as wealth)? Are you denying that more middle class are joining the poor at the bottom of our income spectrum (I know, that’s two questions, but I just couldn’t help myself)? I’m not being smart-alecky, but your questions would lead me to believe you are not even listening to your own political alliances, let alone mine.

We can leave the philosophical discussion as to whether middle class deserved to be middle class or whether they squandered the privileges of being middle class or not until later. Right now the discussion is whether the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and whether the middle class is working harder for less income, and shrinking in numbers.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2010 9:37 AM
Comment #309587

From Wikipedia…”The late-2000s recession (or the Great Recession[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]) was an economic recession that began in the United States in December 2007[17] and ended in June 2009 (as determined by the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research).”

So, the recession ended about 15 months ago. I would assume that since June 2009 obama can take full credit for conditions today as he ended the recession. Let’s give credit where it is due.

Makes one wonder why the libersocialists are still blaming Bush. Makes one wonder why jobs have not rebounded. Makes one wonder why some on Watchblog still call for more federal spending to create jobs. Makes one wonder why all the calls for tax increases.

Make me president for one year with the congress in my pocket and I guarantee I will produce real jobs, real wealth, real economic stimulation…not the stagnation we see and endless spending that has solved no problems.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 2, 2010 6:05 PM
Comment #309590

I don’t think a republoficist can produce anything but more wealth for the rich and more misery for the country.

Posted by: Jeff at October 2, 2010 8:10 PM
Comment #309598

RF,

You really need to look up the required signs that determine what a recession is. The downward curve may have stopped, but the filibuster keeps it going and going and going…ad nauseam.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2010 10:41 PM
Comment #309601

Here’s someone who professes to believe in God:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) attempted to convince pastors that economic issues are moral issues at the Greater Freedom Rally at a church in Spartanburg, South Carolina yesterday, imploring them to help conservatives retake Congress in November.

In addition to reiterating anti-choice talking points on abortion and backing “traditional marriage,” according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, the senator went further and “said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn’t be in the classroom.”

So what if those individuals might be the best of the best teachers in the school…I wonder what could possibly be next…let’s see, maybe if someone is a Mormon or a Jew? How about an atheist or Gnostic? Perhaps a Muslim or someone who visits nightclubs or masturbates? I’ll bet with the monies he’s taken from tobacco companies, he’d never say a teacher shouldn’t smoke or chew.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 2, 2010 11:39 PM
Comment #309603

Ooops! Erase that, I intended it for another column.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 3, 2010 6:10 AM
Comment #309618

Dude I would ask that in a discussion where I am learning from you and your answers, or lack there of, that you not try and define my political alliances. I really don’t know yours. Honestly. I am not being a smart alec either. You don’t post enough for me to know whether your fall into one camp or another based on what posts I do read. For all I know you might be a flaming conservative that likes debate and dialog.

On your question no I can’t see how the middle class is declining when what is considered wealthy is now about $250k and what those that are considered in poverty oddly have enough to pass their time with PS3, food, etc. Items I have heard, that I believe to be true include that more than 1/2 of school kids have some kind of government subsidy for meals, obesity is the biggest problem with the homeless, etc. To me Dude what we consider poverty and middle class is a lifestyle, security, and length of life better than 40 years ago. The fact that others have more money has not changed the fact that the middle class has the access to many of the same life benefiting “wants” and health. I believe all accross the board the gap between the middle class and wealthy has closed in terms of life style, vacation, health. You will forever have me on the dollars though. I just can’t argue with you there.

Sorry, yes I am denying that the middle class are not joining the ranks of the poor because you still have not defined middle class to me in your terms so I know what question you are asking me to answer. What is poverty and what is middleclass today?

To me if a family has two employed parents, pays federal income tax, has kids in public school, has a home, takes vacation, and is saving for themvels and college and they make under $100,000 I would say that is my middle class.

Do they, IMO have less disposable income that 40 years ago? I think they do because of government programs, healthcare costs, and too many “wants” that are material and they feel connect them as a family to wealth. A family, in theory, should not be spending $400 on PS3 if they have not paid themselves (saved) first that month. But they do anyway because the incentive is not there for them to save above buy a “want”.

Dude, this is the frustrating part of many of your posts:

We can leave the philosophical discussion as to whether middle class deserved to be middle class or whether they squandered the privileges of being middle class or not until later. Right now the discussion is whether the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and whether the middle class is working harder for less income, and shrinking in numbers.

Because you are saying that I’ll keep my opinino on definition, you withold yours. And let’s set the bookends as undefined rich and poor. I don’t accept that arguement because it would not work for me as a professional and certainly not in a dialog. What if the simple fact is we are just off in our different definitions of weath and poverty?

I guess the logical conclusion of your position to me is that the rich have too much and it should be restributed through taxation then government programs? I am asking. To me that wealth is better distrubted by letting the weathly retain it, invest it in opportunities they deem worth while, and let those investments create jobs and wealth for other Americans.

Sorry four cups of coffee.

Posted by: Edge at October 3, 2010 12:57 PM
Comment #309631

My point is not redistribution. My point is without bottom up spending an economy collapses. We are losing the bottom up spending by way of lost middle income spenders.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 3, 2010 4:06 PM
Comment #309639

This argument does not work for you because …you may be a bean counter…you may need numbers to bolster whatever you desire to convey to others. There is nothing wrong with that, but in this instance it is not necessary.

The capitalist’s game is to own all the nickles. But, no matter which capitalist wins, it deprives everyone else of any share of the nickles. Without nickles nothing can be bought, so the capitalist’s system must be modified so that the game does not end with too many dead to count, by default.

Assume by virtue of his intelligence, skills, hard work, and luck, Bill Gates ends up with all the nickles. Who then can buy his computer software? No one, because Gates has all spendable income, all the liquid assets. He is King-of-the-Hill. Because he has wrenched everyone else’s buying power from them, they have not been able to take care of themselves, and the resultant squaller has bred infections and diseases that not even Gates can buy the cure for. The King-of-the-Hill has shot himself in the foot and taken everyone else down with him. That game is stacked in Gate’s favor, because their are no taxes, regulations or methods of enforcement to stop that from happening. If he is taxed, some of those nickles will remain in the hands of buyers, thus keeping the economy running smoothly. Gates still has a lot of nickles, but his possession of them has not killed the economy, infections and diseases have not spread, and life continues it’s march to the sea.

All of this, and the only math necessary to convey meaning is ‘all’.

I can go to various sites, develope an Excel program, bring it on line and prove that the middle class is shrinking, but I don’t need to because you know it too. And, if you still have doubts about that take a look at recent census reports that concentrate on economic demographics.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 3, 2010 6:09 PM
Comment #309659

Sorry for the late reply. I am not a bean counter, that would be my wife. In order to engage in a dialog with me I do need JUST a definition with mean, mode, max, & min.

I need numbers to bolster my desire? I are your telling me that I should run my credit union based on spirit, energy, and yin/yang? That my members want me to come to work everyday and determine rates on loans, deposits, fees, charges based on my “equity vein” or “my sense of fairness”. I think you’d agree that they’d eat me alive.

Doesn’t capitalism pay for poverty? Do you see 100% of wealthy folk ignoring poverty, or was that Gates contribution out of the need for a tax break? Do you care that it is IF the donation benefits the poverty stricken? I CANT think of a succesful country that is run via progressive terms. Liberal terms … can you? Where is your proof that poverty is not defined differently today? And why is or is it not defined differently?

If someone that is poor has a mobile phone and is overweight what are they missing from a base need standpoint? They obviously are connected to emergency healthcare (911) and they are overweight why? Leno is good at making fun of how “fat” out country has become. Lower the income, bigger the waistline right?

Too many dead … don’t your excel spreadsheets point towards increasing age, longevity? How is that possible? Certainly given your previous posts you won’t argue that it is because of the dominant control progressives and liberals have had on policy? Ain’t the foundation of your point on stupid conservative administrations?

I have looked at recent census reports, they show that poverty is down not up. The definition of poverty might have changed in the progressive or entitlement world. But I don’t see Americans suffering at the level they did in during the last recession, last depression. Do you think things today for Americans are worse than 1970s? Your new definition of poverty and middle class (that you still have not defined) is not in line with the 70s definition.

Define the capitalistic game in terms other than the rich rob from the poor? Are you Bill Maher and just think 90% of Americans are stupid? Your posts often promote this. Like someone most Americans JUST DONT SEE how they are being swindled. To me this is absurb.

How is it tha Americans are smart enough to create a richer, more stable, longer living citizen … yet stupid enough to have the wool pulled over their eyes when they are following politicians? Again, absurd. You are trying to define the opinion of the middle class against your paradighms not theirs.

Posted by: Edge at October 4, 2010 1:30 AM
Comment #309660

“I CANT think of a succesful country that is run via progressive terms. Liberal terms … can you?”

How about the Scandinavian countries? How about Canada? Just a few countries that come to mind. Stong economies. Strong social welfare systems. Less wealth inequality. Higher levels of satisfaction happiness.

Posted by: Rich at October 4, 2010 6:57 AM
Comment #309673

This crap kills me. You perpetuate one facetiousness with another, then another. You know better, and you know the answers to your own challenges. To you this is an exercise of power and domination (the school yard bully).

Okay, it’s your game I guess, since you insist it be played by your rules:

I need numbers to bolster my desire? I are your telling me that I should run my credit union based on spirit, energy, and yin/yang? That my members want me to come to work everyday and determine rates on loans, deposits, fees, charges based on my “equity vein” or “my sense of fairness”. I think you’d agree that they’d eat me alive.

The reason there is such a separation between rich and poor and the reason for a shrinking middle class, etc., has absolutely NOTHING to do with how you run your Credit Union. You know that, so your bringing it up in this manner is condescending and a waste of my and your time. You are a self confessed busy man, so if not to bully, why else?

Doesn’t capitalism pay for poverty? Do you see 100% of wealthy folk ignoring poverty, or was that Gates contribution out of the need for a tax break? Do you care that it is IF the donation benefits the poverty stricken? I CANT think of a succesful country that is run via progressive terms. Liberal terms … can you? Where is your proof that poverty is not defined differently today? And why is or is it not defined differently?

Perhaps I used the wrong perquisite for my example. I did not need to use a person, Gates, or anyone else. It came to mind that an example would be the simplest method to convey my point…oh, well, some just need numbers to see anything outside their little nook. I have NOTHING against capitalism, it is my bread and butter, it allowed me to raise my eleven children in an environment of achievement, and has given me a fairly comfortable way of life for my seventy years. Please get your head out of the deep hole it’s in, and see that just because someone does not see eye to eye with you about the excesses of Capitalism they are somehow less than human. That is like saying because twenty year Marine and war veteran is against a dishonorable war he is un-American. The reason poverty is defined differently today is because today is different than yesterday. To live in poverty in the early days of the industrial revolution was to live with nothing, to live without hope, without any creature comforts, in squalor and disease. If you had a job, it was for pennies, there were long hours of work and zero benefits. That was your America, until collective bargaining came along and began an ascent to what we look back on with nostalgia as the Golden Days. Even with all the poverty in Appalachia, it does not compare with that because as median income rose for the middle class, so side benefits rose for the abject poor (rising tide raises all boats). Water, electricity, sewer and the like made it so. Where is my proof? Look around you, the proof is in front of your eyes.

If someone that is poor has a mobile phone and is overweight what are they missing from a base need standpoint? They obviously are connected to emergency healthcare (911) and they are overweight why? Leno is good at making fun of how “fat” out country has become. Lower the income, bigger the waistline right?

Most poor do not have mobile phones, many do not have homes. The myth of the Welfre Queen was put assunder years ago. Leno’s jokes about the overweight poor has little to do with whether they are poor or not. Poor people eat what is available for the least amount of cost, or eat from other people’s plates or dumpster dive. The types of food out there for poor people leads to less that nourishing fatty foods. Potatoes, rice, day old bread and sour milk are all fattening. Government programs have kept many from falling totally out the bottom. Those programs (damned socialist crap) have likely kept our nation from suffering from conflagration and disease. And, many are recent poor, who have managed to keep a few possessions for a little while, but will not be able now to replace those meager belongings.

I have looked at recent census reports, they show that poverty is down not up. The definition of poverty might have changed in the progressive or entitlement world. But I don’t see Americans suffering at the level they did in during the last recession, last depression. Do you think things today for Americans are worse than 1970s? Your new definition of poverty and middle class (that you still have not defined) is not in line with the 70s definition.

Modern poor Americans do not suffer the way people did in the depression years, and those in the depression years did not suffer the way people did in the new age of industrialization, and those folks did not suffer the way poor people did in the Dark Ages, and Dark Age suffered less than those…well, you get the picture…er…maybe not. I think it’s called progress (progressive?), or something like that. Are you saying that no one who is not Bill Gates deserves to live any better than serfs in Merry Olde England pre-Carta? Oops! I threw in that name again…please forgive me.

Define the capitalistic game in terms other than the rich rob from the poor? Are you Bill Maher and just think 90% of Americans are stupid? Your posts often promote this. Like someone most Americans JUST DONT SEE how they are being swindled. To me this is absurb.

The rich do rob the poor, and the rich take advantage of the poor, etc., etc., but that has little to do with this subject. Capitalism is designed to feed off greed and is fueled by the emotionless cretins who practice it. Within bounds it works out pretty good. Currently it does not satisfy to rob the poor and/or take advantage, satisfaction comes from creating poor. There seems no challenge in getting rich, the challenge is in making sure others don’t. That’s a game that cannot end well. Maher, may be right because America is fast sinking into the quagmire of ignorance, but not even that is the cause of our shrinking middle class problem.

How is it tha Americans are smart enough to create a richer, more stable, longer living citizen … yet stupid enough to have the wool pulled over their eyes when they are following politicians? Again, absurd. You are trying to define the opinion of the middle class against your paradighms not theirs.

Americans were smart enough to create a richer rich person, more stable economy for the wealthy (as long as a government can intervene in their behalf), longer living citizen, but does not seem smart enough to keep abreast. The separation between wealth and lack of wealth continues to grow, stability went out the window with GLB and living in filth will soon erode the longer life. As far as political smarts is concerned…well…if a plurality of our citizens can look at the debt increases under Reagan, Bush Sr, and Cheney/Bush, and not note the flattening of the debt under Clinton…if that plurality cannot see the mess that was laid at Obama’s feet, cannot see the benefits of not going back to the same ol’, same ol’, what can I say. What is the question? How do you define insanity? What is the answer? The one who practices the same mistakes over and over and over, believing the result will be different THIS time.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 4, 2010 1:46 PM
Comment #309685

Thank you Dude, I better understand where you stand. I don’t know about you, I fine more agreement above than disagreement. I appreciate your patience. I think I am starting to sound like talking points, and you are SOMEWHAT too. Not totally. It helps to debate a different point of view. So until I need to point out your other errors in thinking, take care! Or is that me pointing out that what you think about my errors is really your error, yet the result of my ignorance? ;-)

Posted by: Edge at October 4, 2010 7:20 PM
Comment #309704

Be at peace, Edge.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 4, 2010 10:32 PM
Post a comment