Monday, September 30, 2013

Move Over, Bush...It's All Ted Cruz's Fault


Right Wing Obamacare Myths DEBUNKED

"Man, I hate these stupid, crazy, tea bagging right wingers. So foolish, so uncivilized. They run around screaming like crazed anarchists about how they want to stop Obamacare. Damned idiots don’t realize that the government needs to be involved in our health care decisions; we’re too helpless and feeble to handle it ourselves — unless we’re making the “medical” choice to get an abortion, in which case, THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, YOU GOVERNMENT PIGS. GET OUT! I mean, leave your wallet on the table, ’cause I’m gonna need you to pay for this, but then GET OUT, JERK.

There are many scare tactics being used by the tea baggers in an effort to discredit Obamacare. Personally, I hate scare tactics. You should never let anyone scare you away from supporting socialized medicine, mostly because without it every poor person in the country will get sick and die. Anyway, like I said, I disapprove of scare tactics..."

Read the rest of the piece at The Matt Walsh Blog

"According to an April survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, 41% of 603 small business owners said they have delayed hiring because of the federal healthcare law. One in five already cut hours, while 20% have reduced payroll..."
Read the whole story: With Eye on ObamaCare, Companies Move to Cut Workers’ Hours

101 comments:

Tater said...

Socialism at it's finest! Just what the doctor didn't order.

Later

Bram said...

How to crush the middle class with one giant bill.

Foxy Wizard said...

I believe parents are also required to allow their offspring to live in their basement. Forever.

Foxy Wizard said...

By the way, I work as an on-site Minister at a Native American spiritual center. Of course, they can't pay me so I took a part time job last year. 32 hours a week. Since I have been top sales since the second month I was there, they tried to get me to go full time. I won't, so now they are trying to cut my hours to 25 so I don't qualify as a full time worker.

Bram said it in one sentence. If you want to find out what Obama is attempting to do, listen to what he says he's "fighting for". That will be what he is attempting to destroy.

So if he says he's "fighting for jobs", you can rest assured yours is in trouble. If he says he is "fighting for the middle class" you can bet he is committed to destroying you. If he says he wants "affordable healthcare for everyone", he will destroy our healthcare system. See how easy it is?

Hoss said...

I like how Pelosi and Obama are going around telling everyone that Obamacare (ie. more government control) means more freedom for you. And you wonder why we have such a disconnect: those morons think more government means more freedom. Way to absolutely fucking destroy the middle-class Obama and comrades.

Zelda said...

That Matt Walsch piece was absolutely hilarious. I went on the Obamacare exchange website today. They said on the radio that it was up and running. But it wasn't.

This is finally a comedy.

Foxy Wizard said...

Drudge reported that 37 states had no access. It is what happens when you put teenagers in charge of your country. Maybe Obama will be laughed out of office. His incompetence is on full display.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Obo's whole admin is of the chilrun, by the chilrun, and for the chilrun.

Foxy Wizard said...

Yabba Dabba Doo!

Anonymous said...


Does this blogger even know what she is talking about or does she just take cues from the right. I'll bet I can answer that,

Oh Boy !!!!!!

Zelda said...

What an edifying comment. Does anyone know what it's talking about?

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Must be the hooch.

Well, there they go again. The usual meme, read: lie, is rearing its slimy head. This is all about racism. Yep, there it is. The sure talisman of intellectual bankruptcy and complete lack of moral or rational arguement. Toss out "That's Racist!" Good job, brain dead lefties.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, I think we can safely assume that Enemas is using too large a hose again.

Nate said...

I think most reasonable agree that this is not the time to try to negotiate.

free0352 said...

Well I can understand how you get confused Nate, to a Democrat "negotiate" means Give us every goddamn thing.

I mean after all, that's what you've said to us for three years. I can see how you'd get confused.

Personally, I'm happy for the House to keep sending appropriations bills Reid won't even table for a vote. Eventually he will break, and we can fund the government piece meal. Insta limited government and spending cuts? Oh yeah.

I hope they never pass a budget again.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I, too, am happy to see the house do what it is. Free0352 is right. Comrade Hussein and the Commassars will expand their ownership of this mess everytime they alienate another small constituency.

rbb said...

There will be no compromise on repealing Obamacare. There will be no compromise on stopping Democrats from growing government and raising taxes. And if I haven’t been clear enough yet, let me say again. No compromise.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/mike-pence-leaves-no-wiggle-room-on-whether-republicans-will-compromise/



rbb said...

Wal-Mart Returning To Full-Time Workers-Obamacare Not Such A Job Killer After All?

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest employer, announced Monday that 35,000 part-time employees will soon be moved to full-time status, entitling them to the full healthcare benefits that were scheduled to be denied them as a result of Wal-Mart’s efforts to avoid the requirements of Obamacare.

While some analysts believe that the move comes as Wal-Mart is attempting to deal with the negative view many Americans have of its worker benefits program, a closer look reveals the real reason for the shift—

Wal-Mart’s business is going south...

...For anyone who has not been following the Wal-Mart saga, sales have been sinking dramatically at the retailer as the company has turned to hiring mostly temporary workers (those who must reapply for a job every 180 days) to staff their stores while cutting full-time employees’ hours down to part-time status in order to avoid providing workers with healthcare benefits.

The result?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/09/25/wal-mart-returning-to-full-time-workers-obamacare-not-such-a-job-killer-after-all/

Nate said...

Well I can understand how you get confused Nate, to a Democrat "negotiate" means Give us every goddamn thing.

I'm sure you agree that you don't negotiate with hostage takers, and it is Republicans that have taken our government hostage in an attempt to avoid paying for bills that they've already passed.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Ah, Nit, the constitution gives the House of Representatives control over the purse strings as part of the system of checks and balances, specifically, to curb executive excesses like those of Jug Ears. The House is perfectly within its' rights.
Does "reaping the whirlwind" ring any bells?

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Hostage taking is an idiot's analogy, see Chris "Thrill Down My Leg" Matthews, but let's go with it for a moment. When a hostage taker offers to release hostages, what moron says "No, get back into the building!" Only churls like Ried. Really, the Howard Zinn taught witless rubes have no idea about how government works or about our history.

Nate said...

the constitution gives the House of Representatives control over the purse strings as part of the system of checks and balances, specifically, to curb executive excesses like those of Jug Ears. The House is perfectly within its' rights.

Likewise, the house is in its "rights" to refuse to fund the military and insist on a volunteer force. However while they've got the "right" to do so, I think everyone would agree that they'd be idiotic to hold the operating budget of the government hostage to get their way. Likewise doing to same to try to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act is equally deplorable.

I'm frankly disappointed in Republicans. We need two strong parties with good ideas and the ability to get them enacted.

When a hostage taker offers to release hostages,

The senate has passed clean continuing resolutions three times, without even attempting to rollback the sequester funding the government at 2013 levels.

Roboto said...

I'm frankly disappointed in Republicans. We need two strong parties with good ideas...

You state that we need parties with 'good ideas', and your disappointment lies with the Republicans?
Are they the ones arming Mexican drug lords? (Classy move asserting 'executive privilege' over the documents subpoenaed, by the way.../s)
Were they in charge of the US Ambassador to Libya and his protection?
Are they the party that supports pedophilia?
Or druggie politicians?
Or segregation?
Or the KKK?

I guess that YOUR notion of 'good ideas' and mine are diametrically opposed, is all.

Zelda said...

You state that we need parties with 'good ideas', and your disappointment lies with the Republicans?

I cannot stop laughing. It's is an epic comedy at this point.

Nate, everyone wants the military funded, especially with Obama sending weapons to al Qaeda.

But where do you get the idea that the House should just fund everything that comes it's way? It's that kind of thinking that has put us 16 trillion in debt. It's submoronic. Everyone hates Obamacare. It is incredibly unpopular. Why shouldn't the House scrap it? Think of Obamacare like the Vietnam War. It was incredibly unpopular, the House voted to defund it, and that was the end of that.

Obamacare is such a massive failure, the House is doing him a favor by trying to defund it. Naturally he's too stupid to see that.

Nate said...

Zelda,

Imagine the shoe on the other foot, where some Democrats decide that they are going to filibuster any bill to fund the government that doesn't also disband our professional military. I'm not saying that democrats have such a deathwish, but I'm sure you could imagine a world where they did.

Zelda said...

Here's an interesting tidbit of information for you, Nate:

"Of the 17 shutdowns in America’s history, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened under unified government!"

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360142/government-shutdowns-history-charles-c-w-cooke

Now I could definitely imagine the Democrats trying to defund the military because Democrats are stupid. But there is no death wish in not funding Obamacare. Everyone hates it, and they are only going to hate it more and more. Shut downs aren't that big a deal. If the press was honest, it would tell people that this has all happened before and no one died. But they won't because they're sensationalist morons who love Obama beyond all reason.

Foxy Wizard said...

Have you ever wondered, if he could actually talk, what your dog would say to you. Your cat? I have.

I have also wondered what my Liberal friends would say if they could actually talk. You know, address the issues that concern us Conservatives?

I am considering a post entitled "If Liberals could talk." In it, I would ask some questions that never get discussed. And since you, Nate, are one of the Liberals on this blog, I have some questions for you.

What about the debt? It stands at $17 trillion, and is projected to rise to 25 trillion within a decade. If you add unfunded liabilities- promises made by our government for future expenditures- the figure is closer to $90 trillion. This comes out to somewhere in the area of $250,000 for every man, woman and child in America. How do you, a Liberal, explain the wisdom in the course we are on? Do you support this expansion? Do you believe, as some have called for, that we should eliminate the debt ceiling altogether? Do you have children, and if so, are you concerned with the enormous debt we are piling on them?

Please explain. Who knows, you might convert me. I might repent of my evil, racist tea-bagging ways and become an Obama supporter.

Zelda said...

They don't answer those questions, Foxy, because they love the poor. And if you loved the poor, you'd be fine with the 17 trillion dollar debt because it's all going to them.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Foxy Wizard, people who are driven by emotion are incapable of a rational discussion. Don't expect any response that makes sense.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

Vile, vicious, vindictive. More to follow.

Anonymous said...

uh....does anyone know why Nate quit talking?

Nate said...

uh....does anyone know why Nate quit talking?

Spent a nice weekend get away with the family, otherwise typically pretty busy with work and family.

But where do you get the idea that the House should just fund everything that comes it's way?

I don't. The House SHOULD fund the enforcement and operational basis for laws that it has already approved. If the House decides that they want to defund an agency or group of agencies, let them try and pass a bill that does exactly that. However refusing to fund the government in order to gain concessions is hostage taking.

Also, as Ted Cruz mentioned, what Republicans are afraid of is not that Obamacare will be a disaster (they profit politically if it is), what they are scared of is that it will be successful.

Foxy Wizard said...

"uh....does anyone know why Nate quit talking?

Spent a nice weekend get away with the family, otherwise typically pretty busy with work and family."

But still you sidestep the completely relevant questions.

"But where do you get the idea that the House should just fund everything that comes it's way?

I don't. The House SHOULD fund the enforcement and operational basis for laws that it has already approved. If the House decides that they want to defund an agency or group of agencies, let them try and pass a bill that does exactly that. However refusing to fund the government in order to gain concessions is hostage taking."

Says who? The "shellacking" Obama referred to in 2010 was a repudiation of Obamacare. We elected the current House to do battle with the implementation of that law.

"Also, as Ted Cruz mentioned, what Republicans are afraid of is not that Obamacare will be a disaster (they profit politically if it is), what they are scared of is that it will be successful."

Really. Where did he mention that, and in what context?

Nate, I will ask again...how do you feel about the debt and unfunded liabilities adding up to $90 trillion, and what is the Democrat plan to pay it back?

Nate said...

Funny, if voters really wanted to repeal Obamacare, they wouldn't have reelected.... wait for it... One more second... Obama.

I will ask again...how do you feel about the debt and unfunded liabilities adding up to $90 trillion, and what is the Democrat plan to pay it back?

Obama has signaled entitlement reform is on the table. However he wants additional revenue to help close the gap. This has been negotiating stance for a number of years.

Nate said...

I just realized that I didn't answer your question about how *I* feel. I think we should think about that $90 trillion with every bomber we buy, every war we start, and every soldier that gets injured and results in disability that we are going to have to pay for the rest of their life. I think we should reconsider drug laws and punishments to save some costs.

We should also look to bolster our revenue with some good ole fashioned protectionism.

rbb said...

Looks like even way right of center gops are blaming Rafael Cruz now.

gop is a bad joke.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, I just realized that I didn't answer your question about how *I* feel. I think we should think about that $90 trillion with every bomber we buy, every war we start, and every soldier that gets injured and results in disability that we are going to have to pay for the rest of their life. I think we should reconsider drug laws and punishments to save some costs.

We should also look to bolster our revenue with some good ole fashioned protectionism.
is stupid even for you.

Nate said...

U.S. consumers have a spending problem. What better way to solve it than make flat panel TVs and cell phones more expensive? Might even create a few manufacturing jobs. It was how the founding fathers funded the government. Sure, it'll cost our multinationals some money, but shit, it isn't like they aren't going out of their way to avoid paying a dime of taxes back into the system. W
I'd even accept a VAT.


Rickvid in Seattle said...

U.S. consumers have a spending problem. Damned right! What the hell makes people think they can just go out and spend their own damned money? We need our Leaders to tell us how they think we should spend it. After all, they act so responsibly now. And we need to make things more expensive and piss on the people. Tariffs! They helped a lot in the 20's and 30's.

Good grief.

Foxy Wizard said...

"U.S. consumers have a spending problem. What better way to solve it than make flat panel TVs and cell phones more expensive? Might even create a few manufacturing jobs. It was how the founding fathers funded the government. Sure, it'll cost our multinationals some money, but shit, it isn't like they aren't going out of their way to avoid paying a dime of taxes back into the system. W
I'd even accept a VAT."

Nate, it is a really bad idea to blog drunk. Sober up, and we'll continue tomorrow.

Foxy Wizard said...

"Obama has signaled entitlement reform is on the table. However he wants additional revenue to help close the gap."

You cut and pasted that from somewhere, didn't you, Nate?

CrabbyOldMan said...

You cut and pasted that from somewhere, didn't you, Nate?

The clueless never have had any idea what they are talking about. That is why they are not embarrassed to parrot drivel.

Nate said...

Damned right! What the hell makes people think they can just go out and spend their own damned money? We need our Leaders to tell us how they think we should spend it. After all, they act so responsibly now. And we need to make things more expensive and piss on the people. Tariffs! They helped a lot in the 20's and 30's.

They seemed to work for Korea, Japan, China, the U.S. and every other country that has built a manufacturing base over the last 200 years.

If your nation has a negative savings rate, you are going to have a bad time. Does anyone else see the coming disaster of negative savings rates and the dilution or elimination of SSN as a far bigger issue than any debt problems?

Nate said...

The clueless never have had any idea what they are talking about. That is why they are not embarrassed to parrot drivel.

Take note Zelda.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Zelda said...

What better way to solve it than make flat panel TVs and cell phones more expensive? Might even create a few manufacturing jobs.

And to think, there are Obama voters who are actually stupider than Nate.

Tell us, tits. How does artificially making things more expensive result in more manufacturing jobs? I am eagerly awaiting the laugh I'm going to get as you try to explain this rationally.

And what on earth makes you think the government is competent to set prices and make these rules? It can't even manage itself and you want it to micromanage the American consumer?

U.S. consumers have a spending problem.

Yes. But not compared to the government. Because consumers, unlike the government, do not have a slush fund of stolen money to abuse.

Zelda said...

And of what am I supposed to be taking note?

That entitlement reform is not controversial, and yet every time a Republican mentions it they want to kill people?

That Democrats and their constituents are helplessly dependent on the government?

That your biased sources mentioned entitlement reforms but skipped the overall spending increase in Obama's budget?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/19/president-obamas-predictable-budget-more-spending-more-tax-increases/

Take note, Tits. Obama doesn't love you.

Nate said...

Tell us, tits. How does artificially making things more expensive result in more manufacturing jobs? I am eagerly awaiting the laugh I'm going to get as you try to explain this rationally.

Tariffs could create more domestic manufacturing jobs. Make a good more expensive to manufacture and export from a foreign country and it incentivizes companies to build domestically. Look at trucks which have been subject to a 20% tariff since '63 as a great example. Domestic automakers have kept that market while losing much of the auto market. Foreign companies that have competed have moved truck manufacturing to the US to avoid the tariffs, resulting in more domestic manufacturing jobs.

And what on earth makes you think the government is competent to set prices and make these rules?

A tariff is not a price control. Setting duties and import controls are tasks reserved to the federal government by the constitution. Our founding fathers believed in funding our government this way

Yes. But not compared to the government. Because consumers, unlike the government, do not have a slush fund of stolen money to abuse.

Credit cards, mortgages, car loans, student loans, home equity loans or payday loans.... Note that I think the comparison is not meaningful or important. A government should spend more money than in brings in revenue during difficult economic or war times.


Off goes Zelda on the anti-Obama crusade. I guess no one is wearing their Republican badge these days -- the party is disarray. The partisans are unifying behind their dislike of Obama. While I guess I'm the same way when it comes to football, I wouldn't tank our nation to see the Ravens lose.

I've answered a number of your questions, can you answer one of mine? Why don't Boehner put a clean CR on the floor?

Foxy Wizard said...

Well, you didn't answer my question, but I'm glad you brought up the Continuing Resolution. I will answer your question like this:

"A continuing resolution is a type of appropriations legislation used by the United States Congress to fund government agencies if a formal appropriations bill has not been signed into law by the end of the Congressional fiscal year. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution"

The Senate has not passed a budget in five years. Against the law, by the way. This is the only reason we are even talking about a CR. So I'll answer your question with a question. Why won't the Senate pass a budget, so we don't keep having to pass a CR, clean or not?

Nate said...

Shcoker, Foxy won't answer my question.

To the low information voters:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/budget-conference-republicans_n_4020621.html

Foxy Wizard said...

It's a loaded question, Nate. Kinda like this one. Nate, have you quit beating your wife yet?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Ah, Nit, have your ever heard of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff?
Tariffs do not exist in a vacuum. The other countries retaliate. We slap a tariff on their bananas and they retaliate with a tariff on our soybeans. Trade declines accordingly. Both countries are poorer. It is astounding that your ignorance of economics is as bad as your ignorance of history!
GAWD!!!

Nate said...

IOM,
Try and sell a car, any US made car in Japan. The trade war is ongoing, and we are taking punches without even swinging.

Foxy Wizard said...

"I've answered a number of your questions, can you answer one of mine? Why don't Boehner put a clean CR on the floor?"

Nate, the reason Boehner won't put a "clean" CR on the floor.... wait for it... One more second... Us. He's terrified of us. We The People. The Tea Party. Conservatives. Patriots.

Trust me. He'd love to capitulate, just like he always does. But we have teeth. we are on to the Republican get along and get re-elected crowd. I personally don't care if a single Republican ever gets reelected. I want my country back, and I am going to do everythig in my power to defeat you, the Democrats, and the Republicans who won't get on board and honor their oath of office.

That clear?

Foxy Wizard said...

Nate, that is because American cars suck, and the Japanese aren't stupid.

And they suck because by the time all the union forced benefits are added to the manufacturing cost, the car is overpriced and cannot compete.

I bought my Nissan Altima in 1999 for $17000. It just went over 325,000 miles with nothing major repaired. Original everything except a radiator and A/C compressor. You think an American car can do that?

CrabbyOldMan said...

I was a General Motors buyer for over thirty years. Our last several cars have been Nissans. The quality is better. Nissan was not stolen from its' creditors by the Chicagocrats and given to the UAW as GM was. I doubt that I will ever buy another GM car.

Nate said...

Foxy,

Viewing funding the government as capitualization is the exact type of tantrum that will have Republicans relegated to the fringe of the government for the foreseeable future. It is quite unfortunate really, because some contention within congress results in better governance.

Nate, that is because American cars suck, and the Japanese aren't stupid.

US car makers have made significant inroads into markets that aren't protected, including markets where japanese car makers compete.

Foxy Wizard said...

Nate, do you cut and paste all your answers? "Signaling entitlement reforms are on the table?" "Significant inroads" Really? US car makers have a huge albatross around their necks. It is called Union dues, union pensions, union wages and the worlds best healthcare plans. Each car produced has thousands of dollars added to the cost of making it because of parasitic unions. They are junk. Significant inroads...lol.

Nate said...

Foxy,

Ford reported nearly 12B in earnings last year. Their stock has gone up 65% in the last year (vs 15% for the S&P 500). GM made 8B in earnings last year and the stock has gone up 41%. Ford has 10% of the European market, with two of the top 10 models (Ford Fiesta, Focus). GM is killing it in China.

The relationship between unions and the automakers has changed dramatically in the past 25 years. Frankly I think the unions are often an excuse for management's failures, but I certainly understand that they can and sometimes were a competitive disadvantage. Since the '08 though the unions have had to give up a ton of their benefits, and auto analysts and execs agree that US automakers have similar labor costs as their competitors.

If you read my links, you'd know that Obama's budget included republican proposals for entitlement reform. If Republicans were serious about entitlement reform (and shrinking the budget deficit), they'd work with Obama to implement his budget it. Alas they are beholden to tea party ideologues that are unwilling to compromise on revenue, even if entitlement reform and fiscal solvency is the goal. Understand how difficult this is to Democrats who've watched incomes stagnate over the past 30 years while GDP has grown dramatically. They are pissed that Obama is even considering cutting the most popular federal programs instead of taxing the people whose incomes have increased dramatically during the same 30 years.

As a frequent flyer, Fords are my favorite rental, and will likely be my next car. Nissans are uninspired and lack features, Hondas and Toyotas drive like boats. Mazdas are fun, and what I currently drive. They also lack features at the moment. Hyundais have nice features though.

Zelda said...

Yeah, I can't imagine anyone in Japan paying more for an American car when it's cheaper to buy a Japanese car. It's horrible how unions have prices American goods out of the market.

But back to the law and Obamacare. We don't need a CR. We need a budget. That's the law too. Why are the Democrats allowed to pick and choose what laws they follow?

Foxy Wizard said...

"Mazdas are fun, and what I currently drive."

Ah, yes. The truth comes out buried at the bottom of the story. You drive a Japanese car, cuz, in the end, they are a much better deal. But those damn Japanese should buy American, right? Typical Liberal thinking. These laws, are good for thee, but not for me. Lol.

So why hasn't Harry Reid presented a budget for five years, and why was President Obama's budget rejected, not getting A SINGLE VOTE FROM EITHER PARTY?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, boiling away all the bullshit, it is plain that you are of the same mind as the MP that Thatcher asked are you saying that you would rather see the poor poorer if only the rich were less rich?
The rest of your drivel comes down to raising taxes ON SOMEBODY ELSE. You would have a little credibility if only you also supported a single income tax rate that applied to all.

Nate said...

I love how your ignore 99% of my post, including the part about buying a ford as my next car, and that everyone that follows the industry thinks that US automakers have similar labor costs as their competitors. I've been following the auto market, because I view Ford and GM as solid investment opportunities.

So why hasn't Harry Reid presented a budget for five years,

Not true: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/289989-senate-passes-first-budget-in-four-years

Remember my link above that mentioned that the dems have been trying to negotiate a budget all year? This bill died in the house of course.

Why was President Obama's budget rejected, not getting A SINGLE VOTE FROM EITHER PARTY?

It was never put on the floor for a vote. Nearly 100% of budgets put forward by the President aren't brought to the floor. I don't think you could find a single vote on a budget proposed by the president. Historically a presidential budget is simply a tool to demonstrate priorities and start the discussion. Quite interesting that Obama proposed entitlement reform with this purpose don't you think?

Zelduh, take not being clueless and parroting drivel. You seem to be doing both in this case.

free0352 said...

Since the '08 though the unions have had to give up a ton of their benefits, and auto analysts and execs agree that US automakers have similar labor costs as their competitors.

They'll give up even more under ObamaCare. Cadillac health plans you know...

Nate said...

IOM,

It is my opinion that high economic inequality actually hinders economic growth and results in greater economic and political volatility. See the developing world as evidence. I don't know the cause, but perhaps the extremely rich pull up the ladders that they themselves used to climb to economic ranks. Maybe unequal economic environment results in educational and cultural barriers to economic mobility. I don't know all of the reasons, but I think the evidence is clear.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, it has been demonstrated time and again that economic inequality contributes to economic growth. Did you take ANY economics courses?
I challenge you or any of the other simpletons to disprove the proposition that a small minority of people drag the rest of the population along. In terms that even you can understand: Was all the wealth that the Ford Motor Company generated, that benefited huge numbers of people, because of Henry Ford or because of a bunch of people tightening bolts?
People have always wanted to come to this country because they get to keep most of the fruits of their own efforts. They were/are sick of giving what they earn to one of or a combination of the church, the landlord, the warlord, the bureaucrats, the commissars and the cronies.
Socialism appeals to able bodied parasites of working age who don't want to support themselves. Such people always think it is a great idea for everyone else to support them as some kind of "right". The losers always think that they are persecuted and so blame everyone and everything imaginable for their problems, economic and otherwise, on everything but themselves.
It has been a very common defense mechanism among the losers I have known that people who have bettered themselves did so only by cheating and stealing from others to whom the wealth rightfully belongs, like that nasty Henry did. You cannot make them believe otherwise.

Nate said...

Leeching Old Man,

Funny how the man cashing the government check every month is the one talking about parasites.

Anyway, I look at what you are describing a little differently. I don't argue that everyone should be compensated equally. Talented hardworking people should reap the benefits of their hard work. However I think the current model is pretty favorable to those types. The top 25% of the earners gained 100% of the income growth over the past 30 years, with a disproportionate amount of the growth going towards the top 1%. The remaining 75% of the people are not better off comparatively than they were in 1983. Think about that for a second. Our productivity has doubled in that time period, but the majority of us haven't benefited. I don't know what the causes may be, but I simply don't have a lot of sympathy for the top earning brackets.

I also don't necessarily equate talent and hard work with income. My boss works 20-25 hours a week, and will make a cool $2-3M this year. I work 50-75 hours a week managing his company and will not make a tenth of that. In terms of Henry Ford, how well would he have done had he not found talented and hardworking managers, engineers and even line workers to implement and improve his vision? No man is an island, and every entrepreneur out their relies on their suboordinates. With your copious taxpayer subsidized free time, you should read the book Outliers by Malcom Gladwell. A fascinating book about those that are wildly successful.

Now LOM, I remember you waxing on irrelevant bullshit about how it used to be so great in the past, back in the 50s and 60s, and how much better it was. I'd like to give you a history lesson. In the 50s and 60s, the US top income tax rate was somewhere between 94% and 70%. As a nation, we agreed that pretty much everyone should top out at somewhere between $200k and $400K ($1.4M and 2.4M adj for inflation). This is why I giggle when Foxy talks about taking "their nation back".

Zelda said...

You're both wrong. Huge income disparity is not a sign that things are going well. What Lefties don't understand is that it's a sign that there is overregulation and small businesses and innovators are being stifled. There is no one to give the big businesses any competition and they become huge and bloated.

Lefies think the solution is just taking some of the money and tossing it at the poor, but that doesn't make any difference at all. If the poor can't use it to start a business because of high taxes and overregulation, it just gets spent and the poor stay poor.

Foxy Wizard said...

What happened to your S-corp, Nate?

Zelda said...

LOL. His S-corp. Yeah, how are your old titties doing, Nate? Has Crabby sucked them good and dry yet?

Nate said...

What happened to your S-corp, Nate?

Still own it. Just don't have any time to put towards actually building anything that pays the bills. Work and family make it pretty tough.

Nate said...

LOM,

The great mecca of capitalism by LOM:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-110-people-own-35-133554175.html

Zelduh,

An insightful point. I certainly think that regulation can create barriers to entry, however I also think that like Russia, wealth concentration will create a plutocracy.


CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, I invite your attention to my June 21, 2013 post concerning Social Security, which, by the way, is a compulsory bad deal, like Obama Care.

OF COURSE the Henry Fords of the world direct the efforts of lots of other people, but the Henrys (and probably your boss) bring something to the table the rest DO NOT, hence the income disparity.

Zelda said...

And what do you think drives wealth concentration, Tits? The free market drives competition which is good for everyone. Crony capitalism/government favoritism/corruption hurts everyone except for the government and the big corps. You Lefties cause the problem with your demand for an overreaching bureaucracy, and then blame the free market for the consequences. It's getting stupid already.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, those were the top marginal rates and were window dressing for the clueless. No one actually paid 90% of their aggregate income.

Does As a nation, we agreed that pretty much everyone should top out at somewhere between $200k and $400K ($1.4M and 2.4M adj for inflation). mean that the government should confiscate the income above those numbers?!?!?

Has the productivity doubled because the assembly line workers are working harder or because the employers have purchased productivity enhancing machinery that must be paid for? Think computers Nit!

How much would the remaining 75% have fallen behind where they were in 1983 without the inovation and investment of upper 25% or 1% as the case may be?

By the way Nit, you do understand that the individuals comprising "the upper 25%" are not the same individuals that comprised that bracket 30 years ago, don't you? That is, income brackets are dynamic, not static.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda, leftards can't think. They just can't.

Zelda said...

They just aren't self-confident. They're always worried they are going to fail at life and they want to make sure someone is there to take care of them.

Nate said...

Parasitic Old Man,

I don't see you turning down your government checks. You obviously lack the principle. You demand market returns without having accepted the risk, which is entirely unreasonable. It is perfectly possible that you may have gotten injured and been unable to work for 25 of those years, and your market based solution would have you begging on the streets.

Zelduh,

There are a lot of reasons for wealth concentration. One is that our taxation rules favor investors heavily over wage earners. Thus every dollar you can earn investing is worth more than a dollar from earning a wage. A 30 something wage earner will at best earn only a few percent of their total income from investments. Now someone that is wealthy gets the majority of their income from investments. The top tax bracket for investments is 20%, while someone making a reasonable 37k is taxed at about 33% (including FICA). Note that you don't pay FICA on investment income. Tax rates incentivize investment over wage earning, and investment requires wealth to begin with. Makes it much easy for people with capital to accumulate wealth.

Another reason is very distorted markets for top earners. CEOs salary and incentive options are decided by their board of directors. CEOs are often members of the board, and can essentially bribe their board with company resources. A CEO can give board member 7 figure consulting contracts, free use of corporate jets, and free secretarial and office services. Note that since they are at the top of the food chain, they aren't accountable to anyone. Many have golden parachutes that result in 8 figure payouts if they get fired, even for incompetence.

I'm not making this stuff up.




CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit you idiot, actually read the numbers and you will see that they DO reflect the risk.

...another reason...making this stuff up
We know you are not. Someone else made it up and you cut and pasted it. Whoever made it up is very out of touch with reality.

Hoss said...

Nate, they levied the lower rates on investment because people were putting their money in much lower bonds which was giving the government nothing. It was basically a tax dodge to put your money in bonds, but people will play the game according to the rules you set. Also, you can lose your ass investing, many of us have either lived it or seen someone else get their asses handed to them, as I'm sure you have. Do you really want to give people less incentive to invest in the markets? Obama and his crew can't pump south of a hundred billion into them every month for eternity.

Hoss said...

Should have been "lower yielding bonds."

Nate said...

POM,

Social Security is like disability insurance, retirement, and and life insurance all wrapped into one blanket. Of course none of these benefits on their own are great, but when combined they become an ok deal.

We know you are not. Someone else made it up and you cut and pasted it. Whoever made it up is very out of touch with reality.

Pretty easy to accuse someone of being a liar. A little harder to prove it. Many of the behaviors I mentioned are well documented. Maybe you should use your taxpayer funded retirement to read a book or two.

I've been reading an amazing book called Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco. Mentions exact behaviors that I discussed. Written by an investigative journalist from first person sources. A fascinating view into the world of high finance and corporate takeovers.

Hoss,
Corporate bonds are taxed as income (minus FICA). I suspect pushing money into bonds would lower t-bill rates even further and make it even easier to finance our debt. I don't think lack of investment is dragging down our economy. On the contrary I think it is lack of consumer demand from instability and poor wages in the job markets.

Sure you can lose your ass investing. However if you invest in a diverse portfolio and don't have near term needs, the risk is pretty minimal (thanks government bail outs and corporate welfare!).

Zelda said...

Oh you can't tell Nate anything. No matter what the problem, he always has the same solution. More cowbell.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Social Security is like disability insurance, retirement, and and life insurance all wrapped into one blanket. Of course none of these benefits on their own are great, but when combined they become an ok deal.
Nit, if you can't see how asinine that is without outside help, there is no hope for you at all.

I've been reading an amazing book...Mentions exact behaviors that I discussed...Written by an investigative journalist...
You will always be able to find aberrant behavior if you look hard enough. The question is if there is enough of it to matter.

Nate said...


You will always be able to find aberrant behavior if you look hard enough. The question is if there is enough of it to matter.


POM,
These CEOs are self interested and will inevitably will use the tools available to enrich themselves using these means. A cursory understanding of economics (which you claim to have) indicates that those in the position to take advantage of a distorted market will do so, whether that is selling $5 water at a concert, or ensuring they have a diamond studded parachute (to fend away hostile takeovers, I promise!).

Are you really so naive?

CrabbyOldMan said...

There isn't anyone on the planet who does not have their own self interest at heart.
The stock holders let the CEO enrich himself as long as he is making money for the stockholders. If he is not, watch the door hit him in the ass as he flies out.
People get paid whatever others are willing to pay, no more, no less. If anyone on the payroll is given to excess (which I personally strongly dislike by the way), they will stay on the payroll if they contribute more than they cost. If they do not, they always get the boot.
I am naive?

Foxy Wizard said...

"U.S. consumers have a spending problem. What better way to solve it than make flat panel TVs and cell phones more expensive? Might even create a few manufacturing jobs."

"On the contrary I think it is lack of consumer demand from instability and poor wages in the job markets."

Two completely contradictory quotes from Nate on the same thread. Nate, do you actually read what you write?

Nate said...


There isn't anyone on the planet who does not have their own self interest at heart.
The stock holders let the CEO enrich himself as long as he is making money for the stockholders. If he is not, watch the door hit him in the ass as he flies out.


POM,

Let's take Rick Wagoner as an example. He was CEO of GM from 2000 to 2009. During his reign, GM's market cap dropped $82B. Were the shareholders clamoring for his firing? Maybe, but it took bailout and corresponding pressure from the Obama administration for him to resign. He left with a $10M exit package -- $1.65M per year for the first five years, a $74k pension the remainder of his life, and a $2.6M life insurance policy that doesn't require him to die for him to get paid. It is more than a little ironic that it took some government ownership of GM for their to be accountability for the CEO. (Source)

Gene Isenberg got $130M leaving Nabor industries. Apparently that is nearly 2 year's profit for the entire company.
(Source)

Sam Palimsano will get $170 million for leaving IBM. Eric Schmidt got $100M in stock after leaving Google.

People get paid whatever others are willing to pay, no more, no less.

Sure, however CEO's determine their own compensation. Understand now how CEO compensation has increased so dramatically? Do you think that U.S companies are really that much more profitable than they were in the past?

Foxy,
Let me clarify -- spending is generally good for the economy. Overspending is not good for the long term economic health. I think the primary problem with the U.S. economy is not overspending, it is lack of middle class jobs. These jobs would result in more spending, but less spending as a percentage of earning. Make sense? I'd love to see a 3-5% savings rate, but first I'd love to see median income hit $70k a year.

CrabbyOldMan said...


Nit, please tell me that you don't think somone who others believe is capable of running a large enterprise has no more negotiating power than an IT guy.
Sure, however CEO's determine their own compensation only if they own or control a majority of the stock.
I can't speak for Foxy Wizard, but I think that he probably shares my curiousity about what your definition of "overspending" is, and if you include the government as an overspender.

Foxy Wizard said...

Nate, quit copying and pasting out of the book yer reading. It's annoying, and doesn't make you look smart at all. So CEO's make a lot of money. Yawn. Athletes do as well. Entertainers make a lot of money, too. And you secretly despise your boss cuz he doesn't work the long hours you do. Yawn again. You are a typical Liberal. Covetous and envious. Quit your job and make that S corp work if you're so damn good at it. Nothing is easier than being number two, stabbing number one behind the back. And you probably feel virtuous about it.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Well said, Foxy Wizard.

Nate said...

POM,

CEO compensation doesn't have to be approved by shareholders in any corporation that I've owned an interest in. I've directly owned equity in about 8 publicly traded companies over the past 15 years and never had the option to vote on any CEO compensation. Unless none of those CEOs have taken a raise in the past 15 years (hahahahahah).

I'm coming to the conclusion that POM lacks even the basic understanding of the organization of most publicly traded companies. He must be one of those low information voters that Zelduh complains about.

please tell me that you don't think somone who others believe is capable of running a large enterprise has no more negotiating power than an IT guy

A CEO used to make 27 times more than his least paid worker back when you thought the world was a better place. Now a US CEO makes 475 times more. Negotiation positions haven't changed over the past 50 years. What has?

If you look international, Japanese CEOs make 11 times more than the average worker. German CEOs make 12. Canada is 20 times the average worker. The U.S. is 475 times average worker pay. Do you believe American CEOs particularly good negotiators? Do you think the market for CEOs in the US is particularly crowded? Can you explain the imbalance?

Do you ever try and reconcile your beliefs with evidence, or is it more important to be conservative than right? Are you religious by chance?

Foxy,

If you read my posts, you'd also read my sources, none of which bare the slightest relationship to that book. I'm beginning to feel like I'm a science teacher in an evidence free zone.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, I have never heard of CEO compensation being approved directly by shareholders either. It is normally done via the shareholder representatives, the board of directors. I'd say that you have a lot of gall telling anyone else they lack basic understanding, OF ANYTHING.
Can you explain the imbalance?
Can you explain it's relevance?
I say it is no one else's business what the shareholders decide to pay the CEO, or anyone else for that matter.
It seems that when Foxy Wizard called you Covetous and envious, he hit the nail squarely on the head.
You're such a turd.

Nate said...

I'd say that you have a lot of gall telling anyone else they lack basic understanding, OF ANYTHING.

POM,
Considering your last sentence is exactly what I said about 30 comments ago, and contradicts what you said about five comments ago, I think you'd be a little more understanding. Remember it was your own factually incorrect comment that we were discussing.

Can you explain it's relevance?

There is no market driven reason that can justify this level of compensation. We aren't benefitting the shareholder with golden parachutes. The market is distorted, and it allows a few to get rich enough to disrupt our democracy. Think Koch Brothers, and George Soros.

Foxy Wizard said...

Nate, although I am somewhat fond of you, I really have very little interest in the topic you have decided to go on and on about on this thread. If CEO pay is the root of what ails the US, in your view, than we are so far apart in our views that there really is no discussion possible. Your topic is irrelevant and boring, in my opinion. So, no, I don't read your links, and I'm pretty sure you don't read mine.

And I understand why you don't want to discuss Obamacare and the effect it has on the US economy.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Remember it was your own factually incorrect comment that we were discussing.
No Nit, you said that CEOs set their own compensation. I said the stockholders control that compensation. I didn't think it necessary to explain that they do it indirectly because the stockholders elect the directors who do do it directly.
you have not explained the relevance of your quacking.
You're still a turd.

Nate said...

And I understand why you don't want to discuss Obamacare and the effect it has on the US economy.

I don't want to discuss Obamacare because I don't know enough about it to pass judgement. I know that it is pretty much irrelevant to me individually, since my health insurance was of significantly high quality that it didn't need to change significantly. Like any major new program, it has some opportunities for improvement and gets some things right. I suspect when the obstruclicans swallow their pride and start trying to fix the issues that arise, the law will become pretty popular.

Just remember before it was Obamacare, it was Romneycare.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, I am waiting for your response.

Foxy Wizard said...

Nate, you've been on this blog long enough to know that most of us despise Mitt Romney.

Nate said...

Parasitic Old Man,

You've still not refuted my point that the board is able to be bought by the CEO using company resources. Your argument thus far can be reduced to putting your head in the sand and claiming that it isn't widespread. Honestly, unless you are a huge shareholder in a company, can you justify taking on the typically unpaid position that likely makes you highly liable for getting sued if not getting phenomenal perks?

Foxy,

So I understand that you've decided to troll. I do the same some times. I'd recommend understanding these topics since while uninteresting they are critical to understanding the world and the systems that define large parts of our lives.



CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit, does the word "Director Fee" ring any bells?
By the way, you cannot "take on" the position of Director. You have to be elected to it by the stockholders.
I am still waiting to find out what relevance this has to anyone who is not a shareholder. I think Foxy Wizard might be too.

Foxy Wizard said...

"So I understand that you've decided to troll."

Nate, I prefer top water fishing, myself.