Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 204

Thread: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

  1. #41
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,056

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Oh no! We're now only as rich as we were in the most prosperous decade this country has ever had!
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Ok, which of the 6 definitions for the word federation did you wish to use?
    LOL! I don't have to pick one. If there is one among this or any other list that applies, then your silly attempt at semantics-playing is revealed as the deflective stunt and sham that it was from the outset.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Second of all.... yes, you should trust me in terms of understanding socialism.
    You are still well short of convincing me. You haven't so far in fact typed a single word actually relevant to socialism or your supposed understanding of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Thirdly. Your doubts are your own and it will take willpower and open-mindedness to get you past the doubts.
    I'm opening as many doors and window here as I possibly can in order to let the light of your undeetanding shine in, yet all remains strangely unilluminated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Socialism is a leeching system. It is not very dissimilar to parasites, only in that it provides something in return to the host for all the leeching it takes. In this case, the host is a good capitalism... and the parasite is socialism.
    LOL! If that's the light that you bring, let me assure you that it will be perfectly alright to hide it under a bushel basket.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Do not get me wrong, I am not completely against socialism.. I just against most of socialism. I don't support complete capitalism either. None in the purest form is a humane way to govern a country... but the ratio needs to be less in the socialist part and more in the capitalist part. Why? because I cannot emphasize this enough... socialism cannot survive without a lot of MONEY. It is however a system that cannot produce said amount of MONEY and therefore must leech off other systems that do produce the money.
    Money is simply an ambassador for value, typically the value embodied in the real goods and services produced within an economy. You seem to be suggesting that there is a sort of internal speed limit associated with the production function in economies that rely perhaps on distributive ideals and practices borrowed from socialism that does not apply within the production function in economies where such ideals and practices are not borrowed from socialism. Can you explain in more detail what that speed limit is, how it works, and how it knows whether to switch itself on or not?

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Under Obama's watch...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    US median income lowest since 1995 - FT.com

    mere confirmation of our own experience, what americans are living

    what can we expect when so many more of our neighbors, friends and family members are filing for disability and food stamps than are actually gaining employment

    what's new when four times as many of our associates and relations drop out of the work force than find a job

    when 58% of the frighteningly few of our friends who do hook up end up pulling down between $10 and $12 per hour

    CNN: Low-wage jobs explosion - Aug. 31, 2012

    when real middle class incomes are down TWICE as fast AFTER the recession officially ended than they declined DURING the deepest, darkest days of depression

    Household income fell 4.8% during economic recovery - latimes.com

    food stamps at a record hi, poverty at a record hi

    if the workforce were the same size today, even disallowing for natural population growth, as it was on jan 20, 2009, bls' unemployment # would be 11.2

    we can never hit bottom til housing, which brung us here, finds its basement

    Time: How ‘Shadow Inventory’ Is Killing the U.S. Housing Market

    3 to 10 million homes haunt the shadow inventory

    who's lying to you, time, cnn or ft?

    maybe it's sigtarp you shouldn't believe

    Bloomberg: Obama Loan-Modification Effort 'Failed Miserably'

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    LOL! I don't have to pick one. If there is one among this or any other list that applies, then your silly attempt at semantics-playing is revealed as the deflective stunt and sham that it was from the outset.


    You are still well short of convincing me. You haven't so far in fact typed a single word actually relevant to socialism or your supposed understanding of it.


    I'm opening as many doors and window here as I possibly can in order to let the light of your undeetanding shine in, yet all remains strangely unilluminated.


    LOL! If that's the light that you bring, let me assure you that it will be perfectly alright to hide it under a bushel basket.


    Money is simply an ambassador for value, typically the value embodied in the real goods and services produced within an economy. You seem to be suggesting that there is a sort of internal speed limit associated with the production function in economies that rely perhaps on distributive ideals and practices borrowed from socialism that does not apply within the production function in economies where such ideals and practices are not borrowed from socialism. Can you explain in more detail what that speed limit is, how it works, and how it knows whether to switch itself on or not?
    I am starting to think you have an idealized form of socialism in your mind and will not accept anything else. Any statements I make, although proven by the very reality of socialism throughout Europe, will not be in accordance to your own idealistic view and thus, will reject it.

    If you want us to get somewhere, you may want to stop just playing the smart-ass card and trying to question me, but instead, steer the direction in a course where it will get somewhere. I am willing to talk to you about socialism on any level because it effects the country on many level. from political programs, to social programs to economic programs. There are different impacts made by different branches of the ideological socialist system.

    At the core, what i have said prior stands, regardless of whether you accept it or not. It is not a matter of debate because it is a reality. Socialism needs a lot of money to live. It cannot survive without a LOT of money, and it is poorly equipped to make the amount of money without a huge government intrusion into private life and private business. Ironically... it is the intrusion in private life that will also cost a lot of money.

    But I digress... I propose we discuss specifics instead of generalization because we would get nowhere. Propose a topic about socialism and which of the main branches you wish us to discuss about. And within that branch, we can discuss the social policies, economic policies, political policies or whatever you want.

  5. #45
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    According to the propaganda of the Heritage Foundation/WSJ, whose listing boils down to countries that sort of do things the way we'd like to see things done, even though actually doing things that way has always led to disaster.
    triteness is all you have to offer?

  6. #46
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    That's great! We get lament after right-wing lament over the horrors of euro-socialism, and then it turns out that all these countries are actually beacons of free-market driven entrepreneurship. How many faces do you all have, anyway? It's plainly at least two.

    Here is a perhaps more enlightening measure of who is a socialist and who isn't. The data are from 2007, as everything that's been published since has been scrambled to bits by the effects of and reaction to the Great Bush Recession...

    In these countries, federal spending is at least 50% of GDP:
    France, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Malta, Qatar, Kuwait, Belgium, Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Finland, Portugal, United Kingdom.

    In these countries, federal spending is 40-50% of GDP:
    Germany, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, Israel, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia.

    In these countries, federal spending is 30-40% of GDP:
    Switzerland, Luxembourg, South Africa, Japan, United Arab Emirates

    In these countries, federal spending is 20-30% of GDP:
    India, Russia, China, Poland

    In this country, federal spending is less than 20% of GDP:
    United States of America
    nice apples to oranges. I like how you ignore the fact that in a federalist system such as our own the states take on a much larger portion of governing functions than in other nations. government spending in the United States has been above 30% of GDP since 1970, and has recently broken 40%

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    I am starting to think you have an idealized form of socialism in your mind and will not accept anything else.
    More pedantics? You could have taken a shot at answering some of the questions concerning this mechanism you seem to imply, but you didn't go there. Just as you didn't go anywhere near the implications of who's a socialist and who's not, but instead chose a romp in the weeds over your idealized version of "federal". If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start acting like it. You wasted an initial presumption on jerk-like posting and now need to make a comeback. We'll see if you are up to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Any statements I make, although proven by the very reality of socialism throughout Europe, will not be in accordance to your own idealistic view and thus, will reject it.
    Let me point out ways in which you will need to do better than this. You have not become an authority on socialism by virtue of current residence in Europe. Trying to claim status as an expert on such a basis is dishonest. You are complaining that things accepted as proven in your own mind may not be in mine. That's for sure. Your job would be to show why the conclusions you've reached are well-based and rational in their derivation. Maurice Sendak-style images of leeches are not going to get the job done. Got anything else?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    I am willing to talk to you about socialism on any level because it effects the country on many level. from political programs, to social programs to economic programs.
    You've already walked away from two opportunities to do just that. Wllingness not noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    At the core, what i have said prior stands, regardless of whether you accept it or not. It is not a matter of debate because it is a reality.
    This sort of thing is why I do not hold out much hope for you at the present time. Argument by proclamation? That's simply laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Socialism needs a lot of money to live. It cannot survive without a LOT of money, and it is poorly equipped to make the amount of money without a huge government intrusion into private life and private business. Ironically... it is the intrusion in private life that will also cost a lot of money.
    It doesn't sound to me like you understand very well what money is either. On this level, capitalism needs a lot of money -- money which it must extract from welfare uses to devote to the formation of ever more capital. Capital in capitalism is a bit like the church during the Dark Ages, sucking up ever more wealth that would have been used for necessities by serfs and devoting it instead to the construction of ever more grand but utility-lacking cathedrals and of course, comfy lifestyles for the priestly class. What I suppose you would call "socialist intrusions" are necessary on this level to prevent such "malinvestment" in the modern world.

    In perhaps more elegant terms, there is nothing at all within free-market economics that assures socially desirable or even socially acceptable outcomes. Markets are by definition amoral. They do not care what damage they might do so long as they can find or remain in what they experience as an equilibrium. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That's Adam Smith with a warning that free markets are ever targets for manipulation and exploitation by the actors within them, all of course to their own benefit and the detriment of all others. Even he called for micro-level "intrusion" on such and other accounts.

    Then there is the longstanding historical example of laissez-faire macro practice having resulted in nothing but one long series of collapses, panics, scares, and depressions. All that has ever succeeded in calming the waters and introducing even remotely durable periods of macro-level consistency has been managed capitalism -- what latter-day right-wingers want to call socialism.

    Your desire to run away from the "who's a socialist" data is meanwhile understandable as the distribution is rather shocking in its clarity. People nearly everywhere have made decisions in the matter of whether to rely on the public or private sector for the provision of goods and services that are very different from the ones we have made here. The data strongly suggest that the US has in fact undervalued the marginal utility of public sector production. Recent debates of the cost and effect of national health care systems should have highlighted that problem. Our profit-driven, private-sector dominated systems deliver at least nearly the worst levels of overall health care and do so at the highest levels of cost. Everywhere else relies more on "intrusions" into health care-related markets, and they get better and cheaper heath care for their trouble. The point seems to be lost on assorted free-market ideologues, however.

    So, I will see your supercilious "leeches" ramblings and put a few actual theses on the table for you. First, it is capitalism, not socialism, that drains wealth away and devotes it to non-welfare purposes. Second, free-market micro-level notions come out of the box offering no protection against amoral markets or against deliberate market-rigging by unscrupulous profiteers. Third, laissez-faire approaches have never known macro-level success and have been easily overshadowed by more "intrusionary" approaches. Fourth, utility evaluations in the US are so out of line with those of the rest of the economically successful world as to suggest that we have indeed missed something. Feel free to deal with one or more of those if you can.
    Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 09-21-12 at 09:18 AM.

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    triteness is all you have to offer?
    The Heritage Foundation is a propaganda mill. The so-called Index of Economic Freedom is a fraud. If that is trite, it is only because so many, many people have said so before me.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I like how you ignore the fact that in a federalist system such as our own the states take on a much larger portion of governing functions than in other nations.
    The point is well ebough taken in a technical sense, but does not in fact have meaningful affect on the distribution. The data of course are not mine but were produced from those collected by the OECD and UN. These do not include sufficient detail for sub-national levels of government in the majority of countries to make consistent presentation on such a basis possible. It is meanwhile the case that US subnational levels of government account for a greater share of total public sector spending than in most other countries, but nearly every other country does in fact have a state, province, region, municipal, and similar structure of partially autonomous subnational governmental units that do in fact raise and spend money. Inclusion of US state and local spending would push us past the 30% mark alright, but past few if any of the other names on the list. You are by the way yet to address any of the implications in the original data. Seeking refuge in a demand for unavailable data will not save your day on that score.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    government spending in the United States has been above 30% of GDP since 1970, and has recently broken 40%
    Your source does a fine job of illustrating the point that everything since 2007 has been scrambled to bits by the effects of and reaction to the Great Bush Recession. It's sometimes amazing how little concern for data quality right-wingers actually have.
    Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 09-21-12 at 09:48 AM.

  10. #50
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,709

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    As usual, not a fact in sight. Bush ACTUALLLY DID all the things that he gets blamed for. Stupid tax cuts. Stupid war. Stupid recession that his own stupid policies helped manufacture. He doesn't get to skate on those matters now or ever. History books will be maligning the Bush-43 presidency for as long as there are history books. Better get used to it -- you are backing one of history's great losers.
    Stupid tax cuts-now that is some brilliant debate. THe tax cuts for the top were brilliant. For those who were dropped off the rolls-perhaps they were stupid. GEnerally, less money for a bloated government is a good idea. it gives the power hungry collectivist clowns less stuff to waste

Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •