Marxist Victory

Marxist Victory (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 8:19:11 AM)
The wealth is being redistributed. Private sector income is down while government sector income is up. So, when do the riots start. How long until the gravy train goes dry? quote: Private pay shrinks to historic lows Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds. At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010. Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs. The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says. Full article at :http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-05-24-income-shifts-from-private-sector_N.htm

mnottertail -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 8:28:26 AM)
gravy train was dry a long long time ago. we've been borrowing for many many years now.

flcouple2009 -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 8:29:41 AM)
So you would rather at this point in time these people were all just out on the street starving? So things like food stamps and unemployment payments are up while paychecks are down. That's a shock, unemployed people don't receive paychecks. Which is it, Marxist, Communist, or Socialist? You don't really seem to grasp that those terms and ideas are all vastly different. I take this to mean your just for throwing everyone who might be unemployed under the bus?

truckinslave -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 8:34:53 AM)
How long till November? Does anyone know for certain whether those are the worst 16-month numbers ever for a President? Obama is much like the oil disaster: he just keeps giving and giving and giving. He cannot be bothered with Arlington on Memorial Day, either; his plans for a second vacation since the oil spill preclude that. He will soon look back at 44% with yearning.

vincentML -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 8:44:54 AM)
Well gosh, Sanity, what would you suggest the solution should be? Are you advocating rioting? And a Marxist victory? Really? Did not Karl advocate the death of Capitalism? Ya think this is it? Are we at the End Times?

pahunkboy -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 8:46:34 AM)
I cant go to the riot until I wash my hair and charge my phone.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 8:49:25 AM)
~ Fast Focus ~ Appreciating that attacking Sanity is a much easier task than responding to the issue - you see no problem in the fact disclosed? The recession has erased 8 million private jobs. "Marxist, Communist, or Socialist"; put whatever label on it suits you to get on to addressing this reality: The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says. Play work games all you want with labeling, I guess it has become the favorite pastime for this Administration's apologists needing to distract from observable results; but respond to two in particular - "not sustainable". We may have "been borrowing for many years" but not at this pace, not without any plan to change the trend, and not with an agenda to INCREASE federal spending for entitlement programs. Time for full disclosure, there are two ways to view this reality cited in the article. Seeking more government involvement and reliance you have this take; *The shift in income shows that the federal government's stimulus efforts have been effective, says Paul Van de Water, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.* Or this view; Economist David Henderson of the conservative Hoover Institution says a shift from private wages to government benefits saps the economy of dynamism. "People are paid for being rather than for producing," he says.

Moonhead -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 8:54:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Does anyone know for certain whether those are the worst 16-month numbers ever for a President? Probably not. Nixon's last year or so before getting impeached didn't go well at all, and Clinton had Starr humping his leg like a randy intern for at least eighteen months. Then there's pretty much the whole of Bush imprimis' presidency and the civil war for a start.

Musicmystery -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 9:09:23 AM)
quote: Well gosh, Sanity, what would you suggest the solution should be? Come on, isn't it obvious???? Cut taxes and watch the magic happen. That always works, and never increases the deficit. Everyone will be wealthy, and the economy will soar!

flcouple2009 -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 9:13:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth ~ Fast Focus ~ Appreciating that attacking Sanity is a much easier task than responding to the issue - you see no problem in the fact disclosed? The recession has erased 8 million private jobs. "Marxist, Communist, or Socialist"; put whatever label on it suits you to get on to addressing this reality: The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says. Play work games all you want with labeling, I guess it has become the favorite pastime for this Administration's apologists needing to distract from observable results; but respond to two in particular - "not sustainable". We may have "been borrowing for many years" but not at this pace, not without any plan to change the trend, and not with an agenda to INCREASE federal spending for entitlement programs. Time for full disclosure, there are two ways to view this reality cited in the article. Seeking more government involvement and reliance you have this take; *The shift in income shows that the federal government's stimulus efforts have been effective, says Paul Van de Water, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.* Or this view; Economist David Henderson of the conservative Hoover Institution says a shift from private wages to government benefits saps the economy of dynamism. "People are paid for being rather than for producing," he says. Surprisingly (not really) you left out all of the comment, "The shift in income shows that the federal government's stimulus efforts have been effective, says Paul Van de Water, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "It's the system working as it should," Van de Water says. Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says." Setting aside the fact that yes as the economy recovers, the shift will go back from unemployment and food stamps to wages. Do you suggest that as a nation we just throw those who have lost their jobs under the bus? We just leave them in the street hungry? "President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs — but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists. Unemployment would have hit 10.8% — higher than December's 10% rate — without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs. "http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm?csp=obinsite

LadyEllen -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 9:24:44 AM)
Surely shrinking pay to historic lows is a capitalist victory? and one that comes on top of keeping pay down for the last decade or two so it didnt increase in real terms at all. and one on top of that that came with overturning the tax codes so that the wealthy paid less and less so that their wealth might "trickle down" (still laughing at that one, its a timeless classic - whodathunk it that the masses believed it?) E

brainiacsub -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 9:31:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Does anyone know for certain whether those are the worst 16-month numbers ever for a President? Probably not. Nixon's last year or so before getting impeached didn't go well at all, and Clinton had Starr humping his leg like a randy intern for at least eighteen months. Then there's pretty much the whole of Bush imprimis' presidency and the civil war for a start. A quote from the New York Observer PolitickerNY: "Consider this first sentence from a Washington Post story dated November 25, 1981: "Americans enter the 1981 holiday season with gloomy expectations for themselves and increasingly critical views of Ronald Reagan's handling of the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll." Sound familiar? At the time, the country had just plunged into a recession. Unemployment in November '81 stood at 8.3 percent - nearly a full point jump from Reagan's inauguration - and it was clear that things would get far worse before they improved. Reagan had, months earlier, pushed his massive tax cut program through Congress, but voters were increasingly tuning out his pleadings that - given enough time - it would help combat the economic downturn. In the Washington Post/ABC News poll mentioned above, he scored a 53 percent approval rating - the lowest of his presidency. Only 45 percent of voters approved of his handling of the economy, and just 41 percent thought his tax cuts would help the economy."

vincentML -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 9:37:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth ~ Fast Focus ~ Appreciating that attacking Sanity is a much easier task than responding to the issue - you see no problem in the fact disclosed? The recession has erased 8 million private jobs. "Marxist, Communist, or Socialist"; put whatever label on it suits you to get on to addressing this reality: The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says. Play work games all you want with labeling, I guess it has become the favorite pastime for this Administration's apologists needing to distract from observable results; but respond to two in particular - "not sustainable". We may have "been borrowing for many years" but not at this pace, not without any plan to change the trend, and not with an agenda to INCREASE federal spending for entitlement programs. I respect that you hate labeling, Merc, but a little history reminder is in order. The Federal Budget was balanced in 2000 when W became president. Massive tax cuts to stimulate the supply side were voted in by the Congress along with a medical entitlement and a war that was not budgeted. In 2008 the federal deficit was north of $one T and the National Debt had doubled from $5T to $10T. All predicated on the premise that a dynamic economy would return sufficient revenues to make up for the shortfall. In the meanwhile we have been undergoing a massive Deregulation of industry and banking since 1980. Nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism or whatever you wish to call it. I call it the failed policies of Reagan-Bush supply side economics. Unregulated Capitalism has had its heyday and has blown a great opportunity. The bankers and the global industrialists have fucked the middle class and now articles like this try to switch the blame to public employees, pensioners, and the unemployed. Tis bullshit. quote: Time for full disclosure, there are two ways to view this reality cited in the article. Seeking more government involvement and reliance you have this take; *The shift in income shows that the federal government's stimulus efforts have been effective, says Paul Van de Water, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.* Or this view; Economist David Henderson of the conservative Hoover Institution says a shift from private wages to government benefits saps the economy of dynamism. "People are paid for being rather than for producing," he says. The second view by Henderson is BS imo. Unregulated Capital had a party, got drunk, left us with economic recession and disasterous ecological damage. And really, Merc? Do you drink this koolade? quote: We may have "been borrowing for many years" but not at this pace, not without any plan to change the trend, and not with an agenda to INCREASE federal spending for entitlement programs. Ya think Reagan or W had a plan? Fucking stunning notion.

vincentML -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 9:40:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Surely shrinking pay to historic lows is a capitalist victory? and one that comes on top of keeping pay down for the last decade or two so it didnt increase in real terms at all. and one on top of that that came with overturning the tax codes so that the wealthy paid less and less so that their wealth might "trickle down" (still laughing at that one, its a timeless classic - whodathunk it that the masses believed it?) E Gotta agree with you, Lady E

vincentML -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 9:43:53 AM)
Oh Pa! Don't forget to do your nails. Crimson for the Internationale.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 10:13:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 Surprisingly (not really) you left out this part, Appreciating you providing an example of a "lie" versus as "bold face" lie by bolding your response. Or was it a function of selective blindness to miss that both sides were provided an equal amount of quote coverage? Why be so shy about representing you are for a more government in the lives of citizens? The "system working" opinion, "working" defined by Mr Van de Water, as more people on the dole. You do know the difference between opinion "working" and the fact that "8 million private jobs" have been eliminated? I didn't want to point out Mr. Van de Water's position because it should generate more questions; how and why will the economy recover when the incentive set before the people is to sit home and wait on an government entitlement check or yet another government program providing less incentive to find a job while at the same time businesses are working under the promise from the Administration of more taxation and more regulation. Since you support that position perhaps you can enlighten me how Mr. Van de Water's position is anything more than hollow rhetoric? Your other bolded position - is as any "would have been worse" representation; neither fact, nor lie, nor relevant. I put it in the same context of response to any failure that can't be excused. "It could have been worse!" is a rationalized version of "we were wrong - but we could have been wrong-er." quote: Do you suggest that as a nation we just throw those who have lost their jobs under the bus? We just leave them in the street hungry? I forgot, your consistent position has been that the path taken by this Administration as the only solution. However, in the future - the people on the streets hungry will generate more head bobbing if you put it; "We just leave children in the street hungry!" quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I respect that you hate labeling, Merc, but a little history reminder is in order. The Federal Budget was balanced in 2000 when W became president. Massive tax cuts to stimulate the supply side were voted in by the Congress along with a medical entitlement and a war that was not budgeted. As I respect your take on the issue. However shouldn't the question be posed to the Administration and not me? Wasn't that "history" obvious to Obama and his people when he took power? I challenge you to point to a time when there was "unregulated capitalism". There were always regulations, and they were always compromised. Being the skeptic that I am, I say the compromised loopholes were deliberately included in the regulations. Where you lose me is the pointed fingers at one political party or one administration. I believe there were 8 years between Reagan and Bush and much of the 'Clinton-Boon' was a result of regulation loopholes as well as entitlement programs dovetailing into those regulations such as the Barney Frank "everyone should own a house" regulatory change while he was in charge of 'Fanny' & 'Freddie'. I've always represented that smart folk work for the government to establish regulations and laws; while the smartest people are employed in the private sector figuring out ways to exploit them before the ink is dry on the Presidential signature. quote: articles like this try to switch the blame to public employees, pensioners, and the unemployed. "Blame"? No. Reality, and a use of grouping that I don't infer from the article. Negotiated pensions, SS payouts, and even unemployment (except for the ongoing extension now at 99 weeks and counting!), should not be grouped with "public employees". They are employees of a struggling business, in this case a cash strapped government. Why should they be sacrosanct to the same cuts being felt by the growing private sector unemployed? You talk about "unregulated capitalism", what label would you apply to a business entity who in the face of massive losses doesn't reduce payroll and instead goes on a hiring and spending spree? I'd use irresponsible. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Ya think Reagan or W had a plan? Fucking stunning notion. The US and the economy as it is now compares to what it was during the Reagan Administration? "Fucking stunning notion." Or perhaps since you do compare it to Reagan - you are in favor of Obama following the Reagan play book in this case as he followed another Republican example by signing off on the Bush II 'Stimulus Program'. Better be careful with your label representations - next thing you know Obama will be running for reelection under a Republican banner! After all - as you point out - he's only doing what Reagan and Bush did. But then - how do you rationalize for the 'CHANGE!' mantra?

flcouple2009 -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 10:29:05 AM)
No I didn't miss that this is what you posted. "The shift in income shows that the federal government's stimulus efforts have been effective, says Paul Van de Water, an economist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Nor did I miss that this is the portion you cut out. "Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says." The fact that you cut the quote n half to emphasis your point was not lost, I got it. I'll ask specifically again. Setting aside the fact that yes as the economy recovers, the shift will go back from unemployment and food stamps to wages. Do you suggest that as a nation we just throw those who have lost their jobs under the bus? We just leave them in the street hungry?

brainiacsub -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 10:30:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth We may have "been borrowing for many years" but not at this pace, not without any plan to change the trend, and not with an agenda to INCREASE federal spending for entitlement programs. "This pace" was dictated by the recession teetering on depression that Obama inherited. Every reputable economist agrees with this. I watched the Congressional hearings on the stimulus and TARP proposals last fall and again after the inauguration. Bush and Obama were getting advice from the same economists. You couldn't find an economist at that time who didn't agree that only the govt could spend the money required to prop up the economy, especially since credit had been frozen to the private sector. It was only the right wing talking heads who disagreed. "Without a plan to change the trend" is conservative talking head bullshit. Obama has said many times in response to this criticism that when the house is on fire, you don't sit around and think about how to rebuild. You put out the fire. It may take 2 years to put out this fire, but he didn't start it. He has also said many times that when the economy has improved and it's time to rebuild, there should be no sacred cows and all options should be on the table. He organized a commission -criticized by the right - to do just that. There is no doubt in my mind that if he could have his unadultered way, he would piss off both the left and the right in doing what is necessary to fix this mess. He will only be hamstrung by the people's elected officials and special interests, as would be the case if a Republican were in the oval office. If you are trying to make the case that the Health Care bill is this great increase in entitlement spending you referred to, then you have already lost that debate many times in these forums in recent months. The current health care system is part of the problem. The Republicans never offered any real solutions to fix it. They only offered talking points and half measures that were aligned with Conservative ideology, but did little to actually fix the problem - ie, tort reform.

Real0ne -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 10:31:29 AM)
fr nah we can just feed them oil

Mercnbeth -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 11:05:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 Do you suggest that as a nation we just throw those who have lost their jobs under the bus? We just leave them in the street hungry? My perspective is that "We as a nation" under this Administration ARE "throwing people under a bus"- the bus of government reliance. I "suggest" that people are motivated by need. There is no need to work when you are paid a subsistence stipend to stay home. Given your limited straw-man argument - Yes, my preference would be to facilitate individual accountability. Soup kitchens during the FDR administration doesn't seem to have hurt his legacy. Faced with the choice of that option and working people would be motivated. quote: If you are trying to make the case that the Health Care bill is this great increase in entitlement spending you referred to, then you have already lost that debate many times in these forums in recent months. The current health care system is part of the problem. I have? Wow - I wasn't notified. The public acclamation for this solution must be evident in some poll somewhere - why not point to it? I wasn't referring to the Health Care Bill in particular. I considered it in addtion to the rest of the bills being run up. It's a given that it will be contributory to the ongoing problem, but there's enough currently in play to point to. The implementation of 'Universal Health Care' will only serve to make it worse. Or do you disagree with the CBO as well as the IMF? "The current health care system is part of the problem". Anther use of the "it would be worse!" excuse. Seriously is there any implemented Obama program that isn't rationalized with that 'logic'? quote: "Without a plan to change the trend" is conservative talking head bullshit. Must be effective since there is no other response except in firemen type 'parables'. Who knows it worked for Jesus - it may work for Obama. Obviously you've bought it.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875