FINALLY ... "The GOP is debating whether Reaganomics needs an update"

Feedman

Cyber-Hunter
May 28, 2003
17,312
In the basement
Wow, I read it that they are going to continue what they are doing plus look at other thins that will help the economy an middle class workers. They need to be more like Regan not less
 

Wildcat

12 pointer
Jan 7, 2002
15,116
Ledbetter, Ky.
The fat corporate executives have done a wonderful job helping the working class.

And OBAMA has done a wonderful job helping the fat cat corporate executives against the working class.

For the last 7 years the middle class wages have been flat while the rich have been getting richer by the day. Look at all those BILLIONARIES that support Obama.

The Feds have been pumping $80 Billion EVERY MONTH into certain bonds. Has anybody in the Middle Class ever seen any of that money in the last 2 years?? Has it helped the Middle Class in any way?? Where is it all going?? It's sure helped the Stock Market and guess where the "fat corporate executives" park their money?? The Stock Market.By the way, that $80 Billion a month is American TAX PAYER money. Look at the top 100 richest people in America and you will see 90% of them support Obama and NOT the Republicans. How is that possible???? Why would they support someone that "publicly" attacks them and blames them for all the Middle Class problems?? That's like saying that PETA supports HUNTING. There is a pay off that's helping make them richer.

Have you all ever seen Obama play golf with a bunch of Middle Class people except his personal friends, now how many millionaires has he played golf with???

Look at Warren Buffett, in the last 6 years he's made more money than he made in the 15 years before that. Also for 10 years under Clinton and then Bush he fought the IRS for $1 Billion in BACK TAXES. Once Obama came into office the IRS pulled away and never bought it up again.

Guess who owns the vast majority of those oil rail cars that are taking the oil from Canada to the Gulf?? Warren Buffett. Now what is the REAL REASON Obama is so against the Keystone Pipeline. Really????
 
Last edited:

riverview

8 pointer
Jan 27, 2014
788
On a hill in Hancock County
We have the most educated, productive workforce in our nations history, yet inflation adjusted income for the middle class has been stagnant for 25 years. Clearly the trickle down theory has not worked for the middle class.
 

EdLongshanks

12 pointer
Nov 16, 2013
18,543
Northern Kentucky
Take a look at Indiana. Pence has lowered taxes, but done everything he can to cut public and private unions off at the knees and the average income has gone down.
They both brought their respective states back to reality and balanced the budget. And I'll never understand why a government workers salary averages way more than their counter part in the private sector. It makes absolutely no sense.
 
Last edited:

KYBOY

12 pointer
Apr 21, 2005
8,412
Floyd,co..Kentucky
It depends..Many if not "most" state government workers salary are less than those in the private sector..Then many federal govt workers salaries are higher because their qualifications are higher and many in the private sector cant make the grade or even pass the background and financial checks that they require..Also when you work for the federal govt you take on the extra weight of the govt poking in your private affairs and monitoring what you do as to not make them look bad..When you work in the mines they don't care that you got a drunk and disorderly as long as your at work the next day..When you work for the govt and get that charge you may not have a job the next day..Its a trade off, more money but much tighter restrictions and policies.
 

EdLongshanks

12 pointer
Nov 16, 2013
18,543
Northern Kentucky
It depends..Many if not "most" state government workers salary are less than those in the private sector..Then many federal govt workers salaries are higher because their qualifications are higher and many in the private sector cant make the grade or even pass the background and financial checks that they require..Also when you work for the federal govt you take on the extra weight of the govt poking in your private affairs and monitoring what you do as to not make them look bad..When you work in the mines they don't care that you got a drunk and disorderly as long as your at work the next day..When you work for the govt and get that charge you may not have a job the next day..Its a trade off, more money but much tighter restrictions and policies.
You are right. I was thinking of federal workers compared to the private citizens. I understand the added scrutiny, but the difference in wage is almost double. Off the top of head, I remember a stat that said the average private worker earns $45,000 annually. The average federal worker earns over $75,000. I just don't see how that is justified.
 

riverview

8 pointer
Jan 27, 2014
788
On a hill in Hancock County
They both brought their respective states back to reality and balanced the budget. And I'll never understand why a government workers salary averages way more than their counter part in the private sector. It makes absolutely no sense.

I think you missed my point. The typical GOP platform of lower taxes, which I am not against by the way, and anti union legislation produced a decline in middle class income. I don't think lowering taxes is a bad thing, and I think a balanced budget is a good thing.
 

Dubya Gee

8 pointer
Apr 10, 2012
882
Snow, KY
FINALLY ... "The GOP is debating whether Reaganomics needs an update"

and anti union legislation produced a decline in middle class income..

I would love to see someone that could prove a correlation here......

We are speaking of average middle class income. A true, comparative average over a period of time will capture all the middle class over a given set of years. That would include the flush years, and the years of massive contraction where many lost their jobs all together. So, the 5 years Johnny was making 6 figures count, just like the last 5 where he is stuck flipping burgers. Naturally, that is going to force the average down. The contraction period had zero to do with anti Union legislation......

In fact, the other side could make a very compelling argument that during periods of contraction, a business is much more viable without the excessive burden placed on it with unnecessarily high wages for a given job.

The best outcome would be fairly paid workers that actually had a place to work, JMO.
 
Last edited:

possumal

10 pointer
Jun 21, 2007
1,530
Nicholasville, Ky.
I would love to see someone that could prove a correlation here (Quote from Dubya Gee)

I don't know if this is proof of a correlation, but I am old enough to have watched the growth and decline of the middle class. When the union workers fought for better pay and benefits, non union workers went up with them. At the same time, the United States had the strongest manufacturing element of any country in the world. If you look at the decline of the middle class, it runs simultaneous with anti union legislation. If the big corporation owners had voluntarily paid the salaries and benefits needed and deserved by their workers, the need for the union movement would never have happened. The outsourcing and such which rode on the wings of questionable tax evading techniques by the big corporations has resulted in the loss of millions of jobs, and at the same time has cost our government operating capital. This TPP crap they are pushing for fast track authorization on is just another example of something that needs to be thoroughly debated, not fast tracked.

There is an obvious effort by the big money interests to kill unions or anybody else who helps further the cause of the working class. They couldn't care less if the middle class declines as long as their bank accounts keep growing. My opinion is that if the working class people all make more money, the entire country benefits.
 

Dubya Gee

8 pointer
Apr 10, 2012
882
Snow, KY
FINALLY ... "The GOP is debating whether Reaganomics needs an update"

There is an obvious effort by the big money interests to kill unions or anybody else who helps further the cause of the working class. They couldn't care less if the middle class declines as long as their bank accounts keep growing. My opinion is that if the working class people all make more money, the entire country benefits.

You said a mouthful here, and I agree with it to a degree. Also, there was most certainly a time when this country had to have Unions. I don't think anyone could honestly say otherwise.

However, when the Unions get greedy, and corporations are gradually forced to pay well over what a job is actually worth, you are de facto forcing them to find a way to cut costs to maintain as a going concern. If the company falls on the sword, and they go under anyway, did the employee really benefit?

There is plenty of greed and blame to go around when you talk about the plight of American manufacturing. When a worker is overcharging for their services, the company is going to explore options that allow them to maintain their desired level of profit. If it were your wallet, you would do the same, and anyone who says otherwise isn't being honest. Why does anyone ever seek a promotion, or a pay raise, if this isn't the case?

Also, I'll say this and some of you can flame away, but at the end of the day, if a company pays you a fair wage, provides some other benefits, and in general takes care of you while you are there, they don't owe anyone a thing past that. You were paid for your services, and that is all they ever agreed to do. If you negotiate a huge raise for yourself, and the company decides to move somewhere more profitable, well......
 
Last edited:

EdLongshanks

12 pointer
Nov 16, 2013
18,543
Northern Kentucky
I would love to see someone that could prove a correlation here (Quote from Dubya Gee)

I don't know if this is proof of a correlation, but I am old enough to have watched the growth and decline of the middle class. When the union workers fought for better pay and benefits, non union workers went up with them. At the same time, the United States had the strongest manufacturing element of any country in the world. If you look at the decline of the middle class, it runs simultaneous with anti union legislation. If the big corporation owners had voluntarily paid the salaries and benefits needed and deserved by their workers, the need for the union movement would never have happened. The outsourcing and such which rode on the wings of questionable tax evading techniques by the big corporations has resulted in the loss of millions of jobs, and at the same time has cost our government operating capital. This TPP crap they are pushing for fast track authorization on is just another example of something that needs to be thoroughly debated, not fast tracked.

There is an obvious effort by the big money interests to kill unions or anybody else who helps further the cause of the working class. They couldn't care less if the middle class declines as long as their bank accounts keep growing. My opinion is that if the working class people all make more money, the entire country benefits.
I would say that the loss of jobs is due to the fact that unions priced their workers out of the market. Wages kept increasing and companies quickly realized that they could produce goods abroad much cheaper than they could in the us. Same with corporate taxes. Companies make more money overseas. As manufacturing jobs have vacated, our economy has switched from a manufacturing basis to a service based consumer economy. I agree that the end result is bad because we don't make anything, but I hardly think anti-union policies have anything to do with jobs being outsourced.

I think the goal of energy independence ASAP and the means to get there would greatly help the working class. We need to stabilize the economy and focus on free market principles. If the GDP grows the middle class grows. The hard part is, like you said, we need the middle class to grow to increase the GDP.
 
I am thinking that NAFTA thing never really helped the manufacturing segment either, and I have been in it since 1979 and working as a taxpayer from 1977.

Also remember before Reagan under Carter we had 20+% unemployment where we were living.

I used to take novels to the unemployment lines to read they were so long!

Just saying.
 

High Rack

12 pointer
Dec 21, 2009
6,122
in the hills
I would say that the loss of jobs is due to the fact that unions priced their workers out of the market. Wages kept increasing and companies quickly realized that they could produce goods abroad much cheaper than they could in the us. Same with corporate taxes. Companies make more money overseas. As manufacturing jobs have vacated, our economy has switched from a manufacturing basis to a service based consumer economy. I agree that the end result is bad because we don't make anything, but I hardly think anti-union policies have anything to do with jobs being outsourced.

I think the goal of energy independence ASAP and the means to get there would greatly help the working class. We need to stabilize the economy and focus on free market principles. If the GDP grows the middle class grows. The hard part is, like you said, we need the middle class to grow to increase the GDP.

I would not go as far as saying unions priced themselves out of the market causing a company to relocate overseas. IMO, it is alot about Greed........Having kids or the poorest of poor working for pennies and avoiding the laws on wages and worker safety, add that they also still call themselves an American company sheds alot of light on motive. These trade agreements are tilted for a reason, soon the serviced based economy will run out of people to service.....die on our own sword will be the effect of the cause. GDP will flat line unless we produce something other than debt, and we are soon going to see that.
 


Latest posts

Top