Posted by moy23 on 10/23/2014 11:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/23/2014 9:03:00 AM (view original):
And, to answer tec's question, I imagine Obama has helped some in the middle class.    And made things worse for others in the middle class.  I'm not sure where "middle class" begins and ends but it's a pretty large group.

I think the fact that there are 15 million more people on food stamps now than there were 6 years ago combined with an increasing and already all time high income inequality just speaks volumes about the overall disintegration of the middle class under Obama. Sure you can find success stories like my wife and I... We've done VERY well during this period nearly lifting us out of the middle class but we also both manage way less people than we did 6 years ago which means somebody somewhere is without a job.

I am supposing the middle class ends at $250,000 per HH since Obama defined that for us ;)

6 years ago was just as the economy was crashing. I know you guys get real upset when Bush gets blamed for stuff, but Obama wasn't even in office 6 years ago. It's not like Obama caused the crash that caused the increased food stamps.

And if you want to do something about income inequality, awesome. Just as long as you don't have to pass legislation to do it, that **** is a non-starter with the GOP in congress.

Income inequality.     What a pile of steaming horseshit.   Some people are more valuable to society and they're compensated for it.  

Posted by moy23 on 10/24/2014 12:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2014 9:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/23/2014 11:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/23/2014 9:03:00 AM (view original):
And, to answer tec's question, I imagine Obama has helped some in the middle class.    And made things worse for others in the middle class.  I'm not sure where "middle class" begins and ends but it's a pretty large group.

I think the fact that there are 15 million more people on food stamps now than there were 6 years ago combined with an increasing and already all time high income inequality just speaks volumes about the overall disintegration of the middle class under Obama. Sure you can find success stories like my wife and I... We've done VERY well during this period nearly lifting us out of the middle class but we also both manage way less people than we did 6 years ago which means somebody somewhere is without a job.

I am supposing the middle class ends at $250,000 per HH since Obama defined that for us ;)

6 years ago was just as the economy was crashing. I know you guys get real upset when Bush gets blamed for stuff, but Obama wasn't even in office 6 years ago. It's not like Obama caused the crash that caused the increased food stamps.

And if you want to do something about income inequality, awesome. Just as long as you don't have to pass legislation to do it, that **** is a non-starter with the GOP in congress.

Income inequality. Take more from the 50% of taxpayers to give to the other 50% of non-taxpayers so they can misspend it at the companies the 1% own. Brilliant!

Honestly I don't care about income inequality.... I've simplified it down to this: the more people on subsidies the less people I have to compete with to succeed in the workplace. Take more of my money and put more people on food stamps - don't care. Until people become more educated (in particular financially educated) they will never succeed at life and if they choose to accept life as living on food stamps so be it - I'm all for freedom of choice. That's not a life I want to live and I can control that for me and my family... Which I will.

Fo sho.

There was some ******* in here a couple days ago ******** that his health insurance subsidy was cut in half. You should find him and give him a stern talking to.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2014 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Income inequality.     What a pile of steaming horseshit.   Some people are more valuable to society and they're compensated for it.  

Two points:

1) No one is arguing that everything should be equal. Saying "income inequality is a problem" is shorthand for saying "the degree in which income inequality has grown, where such a small percentage of the population controls such a large percentage of the county's wealth, is a problem."

2) Because of that small percentage/large percentage problem, the people at the top have been able to essentially game the system to grow their wealth even more. Somewhat eliminating the idea that people more valuable to society are compensated more. Now, the highest compensated people can be terrible at what they do and still maintain their wealth. http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/

Worst performers tend to lose their high paying job.   Except for Presidents.   That's one difference between private enterprise and government.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Worst performers tend to lose their high paying job.   Except for Presidents.   That's one difference between private enterprise and government.

Except they don't. In terms of job security, there's very little difference between a CEO of a fortune 500 company and a high ranking, powerful politician.

Posted by moy23 on 10/24/2014 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2014 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2014 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Income inequality.     What a pile of steaming horseshit.   Some people are more valuable to society and they're compensated for it.  

Two points:

1) No one is arguing that everything should be equal. Saying "income inequality is a problem" is shorthand for saying "the degree in which income inequality has grown, where such a small percentage of the population controls such a large percentage of the county's wealth, is a problem."

2) Because of that small percentage/large percentage problem, the people at the top have been able to essentially game the system to grow their wealth even more. Somewhat eliminating the idea that people more valuable to society are compensated more. Now, the highest compensated people can be terrible at what they do and still maintain their wealth. http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/

People should stop worrying about what the 1% of the population is doing and start worrying about what they themselves are doing. They will get a lot further ahead if they did.

You're missing the point.

Massive concentration of wealth at the top leads to an unstable economy prone to crashes. 

Posted by moy23 on 10/24/2014 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2014 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Worst performers tend to lose their high paying job.   Except for Presidents.   That's one difference between private enterprise and government.

Except they don't. In terms of job security, there's very little difference between a CEO of a fortune 500 company and a high ranking, powerful politician.

So how is that poor performing CEO that makes millions affecting you personally?

Did I say it was? I was responding to mikes claim that people who are more valuable make more money. It's not always true. We don't live in a meritocracy. 

Posted by moy23 on 10/24/2014 4:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2014 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/24/2014 3:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2014 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2014 12:36:00 PM (view original):
Income inequality.     What a pile of steaming horseshit.   Some people are more valuable to society and they're compensated for it.  

Two points:

1) No one is arguing that everything should be equal. Saying "income inequality is a problem" is shorthand for saying "the degree in which income inequality has grown, where such a small percentage of the population controls such a large percentage of the county's wealth, is a problem."

2) Because of that small percentage/large percentage problem, the people at the top have been able to essentially game the system to grow their wealth even more. Somewhat eliminating the idea that people more valuable to society are compensated more. Now, the highest compensated people can be terrible at what they do and still maintain their wealth. http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/

People should stop worrying about what the 1% of the population is doing and start worrying about what they themselves are doing. They will get a lot further ahead if they did.

You're missing the point.

Massive concentration of wealth at the top leads to an unstable economy prone to crashes. 

Am I? We spend record $$$$ on the war on poverty and its only got worse, way way worse. Maybe increased food stamps or welfare is not the answer after some 4 decades or so of data. Giving money to people is not working.... Maybe holding them personally accountable to better their lives will. Its interesting that in countries like Denmark iirc that had 5 year unemployment terms those on the program amazingly found a job in year 4. Then they shortened the period to 3 years and amazingly it only took 2 years for people to find a job. The only person holding a person back is themselves and worrying what a 1% is doing rather than what you yourself is doing will in no way help your individual situation... It only hurts.

Christ, you're still missing the point. I'm not arguing for or against any specific policy. Maybe you're right, maybe unemployment and food stamps increase income inequality. All I'm saying is massive income inequality, where a tiny percentage of the population holds a large percentage of the wealth, is a bad thing.

Posted by moy23 on 10/24/2014 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2014 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Worst performers tend to lose their high paying job.   Except for Presidents.   That's one difference between private enterprise and government.

Except they don't. In terms of job security, there's very little difference between a CEO of a fortune 500 company and a high ranking, powerful politician.

So how is that poor performing CEO that makes millions affecting you personally?

I find it hard to believe that a company that's hemorraging money says "Don't sweat it.   The people at the top are safe.   We gotta crack down on those minimum wage workers."

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2014 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 10/24/2014 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/24/2014 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/24/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Worst performers tend to lose their high paying job.   Except for Presidents.   That's one difference between private enterprise and government.

Except they don't. In terms of job security, there's very little difference between a CEO of a fortune 500 company and a high ranking, powerful politician.

So how is that poor performing CEO that makes millions affecting you personally?

I find it hard to believe that a company that's hemorraging money says "Don't sweat it.   The people at the top are safe.   We gotta crack down on those minimum wage workers."

Find it hard to believe.

Or read about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/

What ever you want.