The Great Recession Is Over, So Why Are American Workers Still Struggling?

Ben Stein tells Fox & Friends that taxes on the rich are too low on an appearance in 2012

Ben Stein tells Fox & Friends that taxes on the rich are too low on an appearance in 2012

It’s almost a daily occurrence where I’ll hear some conservative complaining about how “Obummer is killing our economy” and how government regulations are killing the jobs market. This is usually combined with a rant about how President Obama is trying to kill off Americans with Ebola, impose Communism, sharia law or whatever else the right-wing conspiracy du jour is. When you point out that the stock market has fully recovered from the crash in 2008 and unemployment is now below 6% as well, the usual response is denial – especially when you explain that this proves trickle-down economics doesn’t work. After all, if it did work, wouldn’t we all be swimming in a warm sea of wealth since Wall Street is doing great and corporate profits in 2013 were at record highs?


Surely if trickle down economics weren’t a myth, wouldn’t the wonderful and generous job creators be lavishly spreading that wealth around to each and every one of their workers? How could it be that since Wall Street and all of these companies are doing so well, wages are still stagnant and not keeping up with inflation?

The answer is that during the Great Recession, employers took that opportunity to freeze or cut wages and benefits in the name of staying afloat in those tough economic times. Employees were told that sacrifices had to be made as bonuses for productivity were cut back or even eliminated, and retirement or healthcare plans suffered the same fate.

When the Great Recession hit I worked for Sprint. Pay raises were frozen, matching company contributions to our 401k plans were halted, and some call centers were closed. We were told that in order for the company to make it through, we would all have to make sacrifices and work harder if we wanted to keep our jobs. Of course, not being represented by a union, there wasn’t much we could do. When I left in 2010, even though the financial crisis was over and the economy was coming back, very few of the previous benefits were restored and pay increases were still almost unheard of.

Here we are now 5 years after the end of the financial crisis and while corporate profits are way up, worker’s wages aren’t. The reason for this is that many of these companies decided to keep wages and benefits at the level they were cut to during the recession, and keep on pocketing the extra cash. Corporate executives and stock holders are doing great, but that isn’t the case for many American workers, especially those not represented by a union. Even though companies can afford to hire more workers and/or offer better compensation, they’ve decided not to do so and keep on asking workers to do more for less. This is something companies will continue to do, so long as the labor market remains in their favor.

While paying low wages and refusing to hire workers unless absolutely necessary is legal for businesses to do, they are still pushing the cost off on the taxpayer. Meanwhile, many of these companies also contribute to the political campaigns of candidates who complain about people on public assistance. Amazing, isn’t it? After all, as David Siegel has proven, millionaires can pay their employees better wages and still make great profits


The cost of living and many products continues to climb, even as wages remain stagnant, as The Atlantic notes:

What’s more, there is the troubling fact that wages barely grew faster than inflation in the past year, which is consistent with how they’ve been doing since the recession. Job rolls may be growing, but paychecks aren’t, which is bad news for the majority of Americans who rely primarily on wages for their income. Median household incomes are down about 8 percent since 2007.

And even for those Americans who are working for their stagnated wages, rising costs for crucial services that might enable them to get ahead—healthcare, childcare, education—may make the good life feel increasingly out of reach.

At the same time, stocks and bonds have rebounded more quickly than the job and housing markets, exacerbating income inequality. Wealthy Americans, who keep more of their wealth in financial assets, simply experienced a different recovery. (Source)

The fact that corporations and their stockholders are enjoying these huge profits while asking the rest of us to pick up the tab for their employees is ridiculous, yet Republicans in Congress refuse to end their tax breaks and subsidies, or vote to raise the minimum wage. I’m not saying that raising the minimum wage will lift all workers out of poverty, nor will it end the need for public assistance. However, if conservatives really want to do something about ending the need for public assistance, perhaps they should look at corporations first.



Comments

Facebook comments

  • Charles Vincent

    People are still struggling because they had to take on two part time minimum wage jobs to replace the middle income full time job they lost. You can see that in the jobs numbers if you bothered to drill down a bit Manny

    • Stephen Barlow

      And you wanted Mr Offshore and Shutdown to be President!!!! The Sellf Proclaimed INVENTOR of 21st Century healthcare ROMNEYCARE.

      Which has been refine, strengthened, made more comprehensive and nationalized into the PPACA.

      The guy who took a year to come up with a onesentence guess as to how his tax reform would work. “Weel, maybe a single limit on all deductions, of say $25,000.” So you could have your mortgage interest, college expenses, medical expenses… What ever you need in your life that is deductable….”

      Without changing any single loopholes for the rich or for businesses.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong again I wrote in mickey mouse in the blank space and voted for him because a fictional mouse could have done a better job running this country than either Obama or Romney.

      • Stephen Barlow

        YOu are NOT that clever kid.

      • Charles Vincent

        You only wish.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Why would i WISH when I don’t even care?

      • Charles Vincent

        Yeah that’s a lie just like your comments about having to make the Steve Brains profile cause you couldn’t access your Stephen Barlow account and the lie that you would never talk to me again which is presently proven a lie since your talking to me. And the you don’t care lie, you see if you didn’t care you wouldn’t reply incessantly to my posts, in fact you would completely ignore them. Something you have continuously failed to do. You are a liar and no one should believe anything you say ever.

      • Stephen Barlow

        YOu don’t LOSE well Do you? Is that because your Mom always cheated @ strip poker so she could get naked first?

      • BB-Mystic

        Stephen. You really don’t need to bring someone’s mother into this, do you? That’s rather a nasty remark.

      • Stephen Barlow

        NOpe. I do that special for Chuck when he makes it personal.

      • Sandy Greer

        You started the personal attacks here. You are way ahead in number. Even before you got to his mother – You were way ahead in making personal attacks.

        17 of your posts contain personal attacks, by my count.

        His four are defensive in nature, and not nearly so egregious as yours.

        I get your frustration. But believe personal attacks add to our own frustration – making us more resentful. We need to justify our right to make personal attacks – so our resentment of others builds, until we turn Opponents into Enemies.

        Resentment is a Poison – eating at the best within us.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Click his name. And scope back as far as you can into his comments. CHECK for honesty.

        Snide remarks an personal attacks are 2 very different things.

        Considering how devastatingly personal you took My observations of you, I can’t really call you a credible source here darling Sandy.Considering that if I wrote to YOU what you wrote to Me, YOU would have taken it as venomous assault. So your bell curve is double shifted to the sensitive, over reactive side of the chart.

        I have told this wormbot I would iggy him after being deluged with derailing dialog so off point it doesn’t even belong on this blog. yet he gets his worm on by baiting Me. SO I thought i would just enjoy humiliating him every time he sells frauds or partial information as whole and absolute truth.

        And guess what Magna Cum Loudly Sandy? His game worked on you. Your dialog no longer has ANYTHING to do with even the DATE of a 17 year old Heritage Foundation Policy concept! It has nothing to do with how the individual mandate and the PPACA are related.

        He has completely hijacked the conversation AND he HAS HOODWINKED YOU into being his accomplice. THAT is how insidious this little wormbot is! He has YOU DEFENDING his bullsh*t. He has YOU insulting others on his behalf. he has YOU SPEAKING FOR HIM WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF KNOWLEDGE. You even ADMIT that you don’t know the history…

        YOu are EVEN KEEING SCORE FOR HIM!!!!

        Now I understand WHY you are defensive! You NEED to be because you are so openly vulnerable to any con that has a teardrop in it’s diaper. So I am going to leave you to your budding romance with Chucky. I hope the two of you are happy misleading the blog together.

        I stand by the TRUTH of what I said about the individual mandate. That while being integral and essential and Republican in origin, it is a tiny part and one of the least significant parts of the PPACA.

        I am so sorry that you were so easily smoke & mirrored away from the POINT and sucked so willingly into the role of Mommy/Enforcer/Knight in Shining Armour for such a ridiculously worthless cause.

        Goos luck to you both. Don’t expect polite replies in the future. Neither of you.

      • Sandy Greer

        >Snide remarks an personal attacks are 2 very different things.

        ^^^Neither are necessary. Both are distractions from debate, and cast a shadow upon the giver.

        >So your bell curve is double shifted to the sensitive,

        ^^^Ha ha. I saw your “I see how RIGHT you are Sandy Greers” throughout the thread. And while you caught the four I mentioned (you got upvotes on those) you were also ‘sensitive’ to innocuous posts (which still don’t match your 17) So pots and kettles, you and I – when it comes to ‘sensitive’.

        >He has YOU insulting others on his behalf.

        ^^^Who do I insult? You? I say what I see. In this case (keeping score) I take no pleasure in it. But felt it necessary because you seem to feel justified in making personal attacks. I want to like you, and will if you let me – but I’m not blind to your faults.

        >Don’t expect polite replies in the future.

        ^^^More than fair warning – Thank you. You may expect polite replies from me, even so.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I NEVER denied being acutely aware and attuned to Snarkolitics, but I generally try to stay on point. All the justification I NEED for what YOU FEEL are attacks is A) the pleasure I derive from using RALITY to crush the soul of those who lie as easily as they breath and fart and B) the Righteousness of Reality as my motivation. Particularly against those whose main mission in life is to hijack a discussion 1/8th truths and subvert the weak and witless among the crowd who might end up helping them EXACTLY as you are doing RIGHT NOW.

        Please don’t bother Me with this crap anymore. I can’t be any clearer than I have been. NOTHING can can spin will change either My opinion nor My behavior in this matter. Sleep well and proud dear child.

      • Stephen Barlow

        One is more fun that the other.

      • Charles Vincent

        Bwahahaha you’re a child in an adult body, and incapable of utilizing adult discourse and adult reason.

      • Stephen Barlow

        See Sandy Greer? This is the stalking game he has plagues this blog with for almost 2 years. Sounds a lot like mosquito doesn’t he? Humn…? A lot like Big Goober and Bah too.

        Makes a huge point of Me forgetting a password instead of explaining how the individual Mandate created by Republicans on the early 80 and published as a concept in 1989, only to be refined into part of a revolutionary policy sold to the GOP by the Heritage Foundation in 1996 as the CLinton Killing agenda.

        If his single point is DO correct, why is there no defense of it and only an attack on Me Sandy? I learned from Hitler and Stalin both, just as the current Redpublicans have. I am just surprised he hasn’t brought up Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers or The ObamaKoran and the Muslim Brotherhood. LMAO!

      • Sandy Greer

        Please, no insinuations of sock puppetry. I know him well enough to know he wouldn’t do that. Unfounded accusations which cannot be proven are anathema to me.

        It’s poisoning the well. And bullying. Please don’t go there. Please. It makes a difference to me.

        You started the personal attacks here in this thread. Whatever ‘history’ you’ve had with him – should not be carried from one thread to another.

        It’s OK to dislike a person. But not OK to lower ourselves to act out on it. We make ourselves look bad that way. We only preach to the choir.

        Have you ever disliked a person because somebody else told you to? No. Neither do we.

        JMHO, FWIW

      • Stephen Barlow

        I see how RIGHT you are Sandy Greer.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I am NOT talking TO you chucky. I am pointing at you and laughing, and giving play by play coverage of your face first flop into the mud puddle, Stooges Style!!!

        There IS no discussion here. You made a specific all inclusive claim that I debunked twice and you still cling to. end of story, except for your stalking and your shame at learning you aren’t that good a poker player after all.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I see how RIGHT you are Sandy Greer..

      • Charles Vincent

        Romney nor Obama came up with the ACA it was based on research the heritage foundation did in 1989 which they stopped researching, this was revived by Hilary Clinton and dubbed Hilarycare.

        http://americablog DOT com/2013/10/original-1989-document-heritage-foundation-created-obamacares-individual-mandate DOT html

      • Stephen Barlow

        I read the entire 1996 Heritage Foundation Platform. But Romney FAMOUSLY took credit for the Massachsetts Healthcare Plan. then when it was improved by Pelosi’s Congress with Much Republican input and Democratic compromise… and actually began to work where REDS didn’t obstruct it, Romney swore to end it on day one of office. As if he could. But nonetheless, history may mention your footnote, but HISTORY WILL BE WRITTEN as I stated it already has been written.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I read the entire 1996 Heritage Foundation Platform.”
        So you read the 1996 platform good for you the research I spoke of was started in 1989. Now you’re just trying to create an argument you can win.

      • Stephen Barlow

        And solidified into the GOP PLAN for the 21st Century. You are reading the germ of an idea you little virus. I am talking about the FINISHED product. Which has so much more to do with the PPACA than the miniscule morsel of thought Heritage germinated in 1987. SIX YEARS BEFORE hillary’s bid for Universal Healthcare.

        It’s not enough to read the first paragraph of a blog and perhaps skim halfthe rest. To avoid being a permanent laughingstock, you would need to never return to THIS blog. But to reduce the roar of hilarity over your existence, you need to actually STUDY the HISTORY of what you are pretending to know JACK SHIT about.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re still getting your dates wrong. 1989 not 1987 or 1996.
        I have actually read all 1000 pages of the PPACA, and about the research the heritage foundation did and about Hilarycare and all of them are the equivalent of a snowball that started with the research done by the heritage foundation.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Sorry you CAN NOT admit that WRITTEN HISTORY says your TIDBIT of information is only the TINIEST PART of the REPUBLICAN CONTRIBUTION to the PPACA… the individual Mandate.

      • Charles Vincent

        http://www DOT nytimes DOT com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives DOT html?_r=0

      • Sandy Greer

        So conservatives were for the individual mandate before they opposed it. Seems, once again:

        You’re both right.

      • Charles Vincent

        and if memory serves the individual mandate is a big part of the ACA… just saying.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But some of us are less right than others.

      • Sandy Greer

        Yes! You’re both less right than me. 😀

        You’re like a train wreck, the both of you. I have to watch, covering my eyes.

      • Stephen Barlow

        hehehe. The BEST PART of “The Bridge Over the River Kwai” IS the trainwreck!!!

        If you are gonna peek an know it, why lie an obstruct your enjoyment. If you are gonna hump with the light on why put a candle in the corner? Do it on the pitcher’s mound with all the stadium lights up!

      • Sandy Greer

        Why? Because I don’t enjoy it. I like you both (even you, even though I’m new to that, and even though you try my patience)

        And I just don’t enjoy it. It distresses me.

        I’ve been ‘here’ before. Caught between two people I like who don’t like each other. Or who argue. It’s distressing. I know I can’t control it – and wouldn’t even want to control others, especially men.

        But it is distressing to me. I’m torn.

        Thanks for asking.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But being a nanoparticle right isn’t quality controlled enough for Me. For Chuck, seeing the ball is enough. Me, I have to catch his punt and run it all the way back across the goal line before I chalk it up on the scoreboard.

      • Sandy Greer

        Exactly why I don’t argue minutia – so I don’t get bogged down. I let go what I can – it’s just easier. But it takes a certain amount of goodwill towards the ‘other’ to do that.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I see how RIGHT you are Sandy Greer. Talk to you new BFF about defending pointless minutia, it’s HIS forte`

      • Sandy Greer

        I have. I can no more control that in him than I can your personal attacks – or your willingness to argue minutia with him in return till my eyes glaze over. Train wrecks, with me as horrified onlooker.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Then put on your shades and catch some rays doll.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Then WHY are you going so far out of your NATURE to try and control me, unless it is to do it on behalf of your co-conspirator? You have not only been seduced into the Dark side, but are now part of it’s hierarchy. When are you planning on having Shuck’s baby Sandy?

      • BB-Mystic

        Stephen. I don’t know what you think you’re doing here, but you need to back off and think about what you’re saying. You’re attacking Sandy for no reason. It’s unnecessary, and it’s reprehensible.

      • Stephen Barlow

        YOu are not in this conversation and SHE chose to have it here. You wanna find out what reprehensible feels like sport?

      • BB-Mystic

        With all due respect, that sounds like you’re trying to play the bully, “sport.” I’m here because I stand up for women against cracks such as, “When are you planning on having Shuck’s baby Sandy?” Which is a petty, sexist remark that has nothing to do with the conversation.

        It seems to me that you flew off the handle because Sandy happened to say (regarding you and Charles Vincent): “You’re both right.” Which appears to be a fair assessment. But if your pitiful little ego can’t stand admitting that maybe Charles Vincent is right about something, then the problem lies with you, not with Sandy.

        Also, I just noticed you up-voted Sandy’s comment above. If you did that, why are you arguing with her?

      • Stephen Barlow

        And what part of the END of this conversation did you appear?

      • Stephen Barlow

        YOU don’t need to be read in on other people’s history MR BB Hero. Long before your intrusion, I CONFIRMED the partial correctness of Chucks BLurbs. I also filled him in on the OTHER 75% of the story. HE couldn’t handle that. So I shoved more dynamite under his ass and he STILL holds on to that tiny partial truth. So I laugh harder.

        Sandy is the definition of Bleeding Heart liberal. Which is why she gets defensive if someone gets curious. With her it’s not “Not in My back yard” it’s “All in YOUR front yard.” Wounded puppies and flightless birds are her forte. I bet she’s a Libra.

        Upvoting and agreement are not necessarily mutually exclusive, nor assured. Since WHEN is her comfort level and YOUR judgment of that coincident? It’s not and before you intrude, maybe you should ASK if she needs your “help”.

      • Sandy Greer

        Capricorn. Though I did have a Libra boyfriend, once. Does that count? What are you, Barlow?
        Bleeding Heart Liberal. Tell it to my detractors, who get mad when I like my Opponents, and upvote posts of conservatives.
        I’m grateful for BB-Mystic’s help. You’re a hard person to stand up against, and I am proud of her. Not just for this thread – She knows why. She does The Right Thing, as she sees it.
        We don’t always agree. Like I don’t, with you. But I am proud of BB-Mystic.

      • BB-Mystic

        Well, I’m a “bleeding heart liberal,” too, as far as that goes. As was stated in the West Wing, I will pick that up and wear it as a badge of honor.

        (Also, your second paragraph makes no sense. What does being a “Libra,” if you’re referring to the astrological sign, have to do with anything?)

        If Sandy asks me to bow out, I will certainly do so. But she and I had this conversation about sexism in these threads a long time ago, and she approved and supported my speaking up. She also, as I recall (and Sandy, please correct me if I’m misremembering), used your name as an example of someone on this site who attacks women.

        I really don’t care what goes on between you and Charles. You can go round and round with him all you want, though it does get boring after a while. But you threw out a stupid remark just because Sandy suggested that Charles might be right. That’s what I’m calling you out for. I notice you’re not denying that what you said was indeed petty and sexist. You could have made your point just as well without shooting your mouth off about babymaking.

      • Sandy Greer

        It’s true – No correction needed.

        I hoped to make a difference. Because he’s got wounds too. I saw he was a wordsmith – liked him for it – seized the opportunity to learn more. I know people don’t understand why I’d do that, or let him insult me, and keep trying to progress.

        I’m not a Masochist. But I hoped to make a difference. Because there are good women out there. And he’s got wounds.

        So he’s right – Bleeding Heart Liberal. Wounded puppies, stray cats, and flightless birds. I’m always for the Underdog. Gets me into a great deal of trouble sometimes.

        I just don’t know how to be any other way than me.

        But I do lose hope. If he tells me straight out he’d rather I don’t Reply to him in future – I will give him the wide berth he needs. Though I’d count it my loss, not to read some of his ‘screeds’.

      • Stephen Barlow

        She seeks balance. “Both sides are right.” I attack corrupted principles, fraud and deceptions, outright lies and misinformation, make corrections of fact with references and refuse to let a thread be derailed.

        The fact that she became his Stockholm Syndrome Defacto Accomplice in this derailment, enough so that she got YOU to crawl out of the woodwork kinda REALLY cements the point I was making about the flaw that is this guy she so eagerly defends, ad whom by proxy, you defend as well.

        Notice how the ‘guy’ is long gone and YOU are doing your best to keep the conversation AWAY from “Union busting has caused the flatlining of American worker’s prosperity” and made it about someone else’s third party conversation.

        The longer you talk, the more you PROVE My point and the more you make Sandy RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. In this, she’s like the husband who beats his wife and dies, and you are the son who is beating your mother because you don’t know any better.

      • BB-Mystic

        Oh, bullshit. You’re still dodging my point, and refusing to admit that you were (and still are) petty and sexist. I don’t care if you argue with Charles Vincent till the cows come home. Exactly how is talking to the two of us preventing you from talking to him? They’re two (or three, I guess) separate conversations. You mean you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time?

        I’m not making Sandy responsible for anything. If anything, you’re the one who’s not being responsible, because you’re not owning up to what you so clearly said. Sandy is a big girl and can talk to you on her own (though why she would want to, I have no idea). But I WILL NOT stand by while you toss out sexist remarks at her, or any other woman here. Get used to it, Sparky.

      • Sandy Greer

        >(though why she would want to, I have no idea)

        I think you’re right, BB-Mystic. I think I made a mistake. He’s broken – and there’s nothing I can do about it. I was foolish to hope I could.

        This is our third fight, he and I. Either as Stephen Barlow, or Steve Brains (he goes by both) Third time’s a charm not even his wordsmithery or my sympathies can overcome.

        You hear that, Barlow-Brains? You pushed me away because I listened to your story – and gave a damn about you. You pushed and pushed – like the Abuser you are – until finally even I turn away in despair. You’re just too much work.

        Barlow-Brains and Heart are done.

        ^^^Six word novel – now it’s written.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I noticed you new BFF has been AWOL since you started disrupting the thread for him. Sorry you got played, but that is his MO and he might sound more polite than I… but he NEVER gives validation to his claims, always purposely tells half truths and I BET you can’t even remember (without looking it up) what the original discussion was about, can you.

        (It was about UNIONS making the middle class strong and until the ANTIUnion agenda of Reagan and his apostles undercut the 1st Amendment RIGHT to free assembly and a redress of grievances… the AMERICAN Middle Class was assured of a prosperous future.)

        NOW you understand why I REFUSE to be gentle OR respectful to the wormfood who is your new BFF.

      • Sandy Greer

        The original discussion, per Charles OP:

        >People are still struggling because they had to take on two part time minimum wage jobs to replace the middle income full time job they lost. You can see that in the jobs numbers if you bothered to drill down a bit Manny

        ^^^Your initial Reply to Charles told him who he wanted for president (you’re no mind-reader) and brought up PPACA. If anything – You disrupted his discussion.

        You did mention unions – in your own OP – another
        discussion entirely. Yours was the second OP in this thread, and I Replied there.

        You can (and did) open a discussion in your own OP. But you don’t ‘get to’ control convos of others.

        True, you’re not gentle or respectful. But Charles is just one of many, there. I need look no further than Matthew, and your Replies to him. You’re an Abuser. You abuse others, as a matter of course, with regularity. Got nothing to do with anybody but you.

        Shame of it is it’s self-defeating, and reinforcing. Hostility is a barricade erected to keep others at bay. And when they turn away from us – We are left even more hostile.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Great, but that doesn’t change the WHOLE truth. That no matter the date nor the source, the mandate is only the tiniest part of the PPACA, even though it is the failed Republican lynchpin in the sabotage of the LAW. The Supreme Court couldn’t manage to abort the law because even THEY aren’t THAT publicly corrupt. but they managed to scuttle a 50 year old voting rights law JUST ENOUGH to throw the last election a little.

        Only they failed and NOW, with actually GAO results slapping their asses and faces, they HAD to squash racially motivated voter suppression in Texas and Wisconsin. How NC escaped with their law I don’t know, but I am sure it had something to do with unseating Kay Hagan.

        The SCOTUS ruling about PPACA was the same kind of partially partisan kick in the sack to the President. But the fact remains there is 98% more to the PPACA than JUST the mandate.

      • Stephen Barlow

        MANDATE, not the PPACA. YOu are trying to make a part, the WHOLE.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But the final product of your ‘research’, the 1996 POLICY the heritage Foundation published as a BOOK, which the GOP Embraced for the last 18 years, were the precursor to ONLY PART of the PPACA. YOU are tryingto sell it as more than a Cornerstone, but as the whole concept of Healthcare reform. Which it is NOT!

        “Regulations intended to reduce prices throughcompetition will make plans and prices more transparent and price comparisons more accessible for consumers with online information;[150][151][152] and federally approved, multi-state plans will be phased-into state exchanges[153] to help guarantee enough options.[154] And price regulations will be implemented, including a minimummedical loss ratio,[155] and partial community rating that prevents price discrimination from pricing individuals out of the market through unaffordable plans or premium increases on the insured[143][156]—namely poor and sick individuals who are more expensive to cover for insurers motivated either by profit maximization and/or the economics of insurance; specifically, the risk of an insurance pool not providing enough net-premiums to offset net-pay-outs.[157]

        These regulations are enabled to function due to the individual mandate[26] — the requirement to buy insurance or pay a penalty—and the limits on open enrollment,[146][158] without which healthy people might put-off insuring themselves until they got sick. In such a situation, insurers would have to raise their premiums to afford the remaining (relatively sicker and thus more expensive) population,[26][159][160] which could create a vicious cycle in which more and more people drop their coverage – a result known as an insurance death spiral.[161] Alternatively, the process could settle at a stable equilibrium relying on relatively high premiums for the insured and less coverage (and thus more illness and medical bankruptcy) for the uninsured.[156][159][162] The absence of the Mandate would have likely caused the exchanges as a whole to malfunction, and ultimately perform similarly to the current private insurance market, according to its supporters,[163][164] based on studies by the CBO, Jonathan Gruber, and Rand Health have concluded.[165][166][167] Conversely, the inclusion of the mandate increases the size and diversity of the insured population, broadening the risk pool to spread the cost of insurance in a sustainable manner.[168] Policy experience in New Jersey on the one hand and Massachusetts on the other offers evidence of such divergent outcomes.[156][166][169] In September 2012, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that nearly six million will pay the penalty in 2016.[170][171]

        This is Wikipedia simple, just for you.

        the MAIN FEATURES of the PP HALF of the ACA are:

        1) Cannot be cancelled for getting sick NOR have you premiums raised

        2) children allowed on parents policies through 26 years of age (all of college)

        3) minimum standards of coverage to qualify. both for improved medical care AND consumer comparison.

        4) The ELIMINATION of ‘pre-existing conditions’. Consumers can no longer be SCAMMED into believing they are insured only to be DNEIED treatment for a ‘pre-existing’ cold when they we 11.
        Consumers are also protected from being FENIED coverage for that cold in the first place.

        And NONE of them have ANYTHING to do with the tiny piece of history from 1989 (which really began in 1987).

        You should try reading the OTHER 1700 pages of the PPACA some day. sorry to catch you in YET ANOTHER public LIE. You didn’t read 100 pages of legislation. You probably didn’t even skim the CLiff Notes.

        “But there’s a lot more to President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. After all, the law is 2,700 pages long. Its provisions—and overall effects—will not only change America’s health care landscape, but will have ripple effects felt in all other sectors.

        With regulations that began back in 2010 when Congress passed the law and dozens more being implemented through 2018, there’s a lot to keep up with.”

        Benefitpro dot com

        If you had done that minimum research… then you would have seen that the mandate is a tiny part of he whole and not really even part of the healthcare. it’s just a LAW that makes EVERYONE pay their fair share, while giving people the option of NOT participating.

        In 2024, a Democratically gerrymandered Congress will use the success f the PPACA to END the criminal for profit health insurance industry in America. and by 2040, America will be the last nation in the Western World to have Universal ATCOST healthcare for every citizen.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I see how RIGHT you are Sandy Greer…..

      • Stephen Barlow

        I see how RIGHT you are Sandy Greer…

      • Stephen Barlow

        First of all, that document you reference ONLY concerns JUST the individual mandate part, about 2% of the PPACA. The REDS injected this ‘necessity’ in the Bill they tried and failed to repeal 54 times, so they had grounds to vote to repeal the bill! it was Sabotage, not THE ONE AND ONLY SOURCE as you so mistakenly are trying to sell here.

        you REALLLY have to stop challenging people who read better and comprehend more than you do Charles. A public auto erotic suicide would be less embarrassing, don’t you think?

      • Charles Vincent

        Speaking of reading comprehension you miss what i stated but i can point it out for you “it was based on research the heritage foundation did in 1989”.
        Always with you trying to reinterpret what is said to prop up your poorly crafted argument. The rest of your post is irrelevant to the point of my topic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        A smmmmmmmmmmmall portion of one aspect of the PPACA was based on you tiny grasp of reality.

      • Charles Vincent

        I would hardly call the individual mandate of ACA small.

      • Stephen Barlow

        It’s such a small part that the GOP was willing to negotiate it as part of the GOvernment Shutdown decision. As a last ditch effort to keep from coming away from the GOP SHUTDOWN BLACKMAIL EXTORTION Failure with NOTHING!!!!

        Such a small part that it is NOT being enforced and the GOP wants it so bad they are frivolously suing the president on the Taxpayer’s dime.

        So unimportant that it doesn’t matter as much as a cheap shot @ embarrassing the President with MORE than 54 votes proving mass stupidity on behalf of YOUR party.

      • Stephen Barlow

        It’s three of 270+ pages. It’s important enough to be considered by the Supreme Court. but you are trying to sell it as THE WHOE LAW.

      • Charles Vincent

        No I am selling as one of the more important functions of the law( in terms of Who it effects) just as the employer mandate or the respective mandates for the insurance industry. you can t seem to grasp that concept of this discussion.

      • Stephen Barlow

        “Romney nor Obama came up with the ACA it was based on research the heritage foundation did in 1989 which they stopped researching, this was revived by Hilary Clinton and dubbed Hilarycare.

        http://americablog DOT com/2013/10/original-1989-document-heritage-foundation-created-obamacares-individual-mandate DOT html”

        Sure SOUNDS like you are selling it as THE WHOLE ENCHILADA.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Why is the DATE more important than the SUBSTANCE of your posts? WHy are you NOT willing to understand that BEFORE your enssie weenie bit of knowledge… the heritage Foundate was outlining the concept in published documents?

        It’s as if you pick up this Weeks Sports Illustrated, and read the date then proclaimed you invented baseball because the Royals are on the cover. but to YOU, it’s nOT that the Royals won 8 straight playoff games beating better teams twice, it’s the DATE that is all that matters to your crippled OCD braincell.

        Is the DATE the ONLY point of your topic?

        If NOT, then EVERYTHING I said was not only MORE than just relevant, it was massively substantive. Meaning it matters hugely enough to change the partial reality of your claim.

        Sp keep whinnnnnnning about being WRONG AGAIN.

      • Charles Vincent

        no the point is youre sloppy i provided the date s and you cant even get them right. YOu are either ignoring them and trying to create a straw man argument or you are just plain stupid.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I see how RIGHT you are Sandy Greer.

      • Charles Vincent

        There it is I face rolled you and now you are broken record.

      • Stephen Barlow

        What nonsense is this?

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re so myopic pointing it out would be a waste of effort.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You sure have the dick to point out the obscure and necroscopic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I see how RIGHT you are Sandy Greer.

      • Sandy Greer

        You challenged him. Told him who he wanted for president. When he said “no” – You didn’t believe him.

        Sound familiar? 😉

        Personal attacks (smears) negate the bulk of what a person has to say. Just my opinion, and I can only speak for myself (as a wordsmith thankfully reminded me recently) But I stop listening when I see them. I doubt I’m alone in that.

        Nice is better. My wordsmith friends likes nice.

        And, you’re both right. About germs of ideas and history written. Best part of history starts with the germ of an idea. Again, JMHO but hardly worth an argument.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Charles Vincent is a Barlowstalking GOPbot. It ENVER matters what I say or prove. The only thingthe little masopunkichist enjoys is being humiliated in public. So I let him wet his pants wiht My rapier wit.

        You are suggesting I try telling the color RED To wish it were Green. I have no intention of that futility. I just wanna give this little puke the wedgie of all wedgies so that he NEVER reproduces.

      • Sandy Greer

        No. You’re wrong. Charles isn’t GOP. He’s Independent. His was the first OP here. He didn’t stalk you. He’s as much reason to avoid you – as you, him.

        I like him. He likes me. I was wary at first, just like with you. But I saw the good in him, and liked him for it. Now I like him so much I try to understand what he’s saying – even when we’re at odds. Helps me grow.

        You I was even more put off by. But now I’ve seen the good in you too. And I’m looking for it. Won’t be dissuaded by barricades thrown up. I am determined to like you – because it just feels better, doing so. Won’t hear a word against it.

        I know he likes me. Think maybe you do too. Or at least, respect me. If I can make Peace between you – I will. If not – If you both bear in mind I like the other – maybe it’ll help keep the worst of it at bay.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Sorry, you don’t know the last 2 years history. WHY is the DATE more important to him than the SUBSTANCE of his post? Because I caught him selling 2%, reduced truth propaganda AGAIN, and he knows it. Just like a 5 year old caught lying about sneaking a cookie, the more I pin him down with reality, the harder he fights for that tiny misinformation. Which MAKES it a lie.

      • Sandy Greer

        True I don’t know the history between you. Having seen your interactions – I can’t blame either of you for disliking the other. I’ve already said I wouldn’t argue minutia. But that’s just me – and you both do.

        I think you both see it as a Zero Sum Game. Opponents to be slain. Hard feelings on both sides cause you to view each other with suspicion; assign worst motive. Any little thing becomes ‘bad’…

        If we decide somebody is bad – they just are. We give no quarter. Where we see good – we give benefit of doubt. That’s been my experience, and why I look for the good.

        I’ve no right to ask either of you anything. I know I’m way out of line. Best I can hope is you each have enough goodwill for me – to consider what I might see in you both. My fresh eyes.

        You’re both opposed to what I say here. You’ve that in common, at least. 😉

      • Stephen Barlow

        He’s not ‘bad’, but when he’s wrong and too dishonest to admit it, I won’t give him a pass just to have you think I am warm and fuzzy.
        I am SELDOM opposed to what you say. But as with most people, you stand in your own biggest blind spot.

        Does giving another the chance to BE HONEST and retract or amend an error qualify as “the benefit of a doubt (regarding integrity)?” And does a doubling of doubled double downs (8X reinforcement of a mistake kinda makes it an outright LIE in My book) deserve more benefits of all the doubts? or is that just giving a liar a PASS because you wanna come off as warm and fuzzy and all Pollyanna about the scum of the blog?

        When he can man up to an error and stand corrected, THEN I’ll respect him for that. But as long as he worms through his own feces, he’s not even gonna get a 10′ pole from Me.

        The closest he can manage to an adult apology is restating his rant for the 9th time and then adding “.. I’m just saying.” Which is New Yorkese for “I’m dead wrong and we both know it , but Not in front of My kids and MOM ok?”

        We’re not in new york here.

      • Sandy Greer

        Nobody would mistake you for warm and fuzzy. Or him. But you can’t tell me you don’t think he’s ‘bad’ and call him ‘scum’ instead. I’m not buying it.

        This particular argument – this thread – I see both your points. Think you both right, and both wrong. He’s detail oriented. You’re big picture. That’s the argument. You’re arguing ‘past’ each other.

        And why? Testosterone. Zero Sum Game.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Without SCUM, Ponds would be lifeless. PONDSCUM is food for much of the food pond life feeds on.

      • Sandy Greer

        True about lifeless ponds. Why I appreciate so my Opponents. For without them I am left with ‘yes man’ feeding me Confirmation Bias.

        Where we differ is I appreciate my Opponents – enough to respect them. I don’t denigrate them for the very ‘life’ they bring to our pond.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I appreciate HONEST opponents, not Guerilla buttmonkeys like Bean, Vincent and all the alias’ they abuse. I respect them as equally as I respect pond scum, @ they level of the food chain they operate in.

        you want that I should give them BLOG WELFARE? A handout because they are the 47% of the blog world? (snickering commences) A special short bus ride to the Fair because the tax bracket for My intellect can afford to pay that extra tariff? (chuckle sequence activated) An executive order for that one or two special interests you support because you are lobbying Me so cutely? (Guffaw generator overload) A Papal Dispensation for arrogance and deception beyond the earthly realm and somehow sanctified through Papal Decree DIRECTLY FROM THE ALMIGHTY HIMSELF? (Liver ejection imminent!) WARNING WARNING!! Clear the blast zone!!!) Keep praying sister.

        Tell your new BFF to apologize for and retract intentionally incomplete posts and I will start considering him a debate partner. Keep paving the Handicapped Parking Space for him and you will continue to command less and less of My respect.

      • Sandy Greer

        Would that ‘less respect’ be less than the no respect you said you have for me a week or two ago?

      • Stephen Barlow

        two different contexts and 2 diverse conversations. I can respect your age and beauty without respecting your martial arts skills and visa versa.

      • Sandy Greer

        Ha ha. Age and beauty. You’re fishing, Barlow-Brains. Don’t think I don’t know.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Wanna be dinner once this week?

      • Charles Vincent

        The history is easy he replies to me incesently and when I reply to the things he posts to my comments he claims I stalked him. One incident he posted no less than twenty times to only three of my ops on a thread. I Can screenshot them. In this instance he is no less a liar than in the others you have caught him in. I don’t know barlow personally nor do I care to, but I don’t hate him I just disagree with his ideas.

      • Sandy Greer

        I know. Yours was the first OP here. He Replied to
        you. You are not a stalker – and certainly not here. This I know, absolutely.

        Not even those who dislike you believe you a stalker. PITA, maybe – You stick to your guns. But no stalker. That’s his projection – and not the Truth.

        I don’t answer every post Replied to me – dissipates my Energy. I pick my battles. Let go what I can. Works for me.

        When a man endures many provocations (as you do) and doesn’t respond ‘in kind’ – He gains stature. For the Strength of Will required to forgo insult for insult. I respect it, and admire it.

        Much as I do a Colorado Man, born and bred.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I see how RIGHT you are Sandy Greer…….

      • Sandy Greer

        I would defend you as vigorously, were you unjustly
        accused.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Funny how I NEVER seem to need that because A) I tell the whole truth as I understand it, B) I acknowledge a mistake, and correct it and C) I don’t perpetuate lies to foment an argument, I debunk them to put a dialogue BACK on track.

        I Do respect your particularly odd balance of righteousness, but truth can stand on it’s own 2 feet and the truth is:

        that the Mandate is a small part (three pages) of “all 1000 pages of the PPACA” your boy LIED about READING, that it was originally conceptualized in the EARLY 80’sand FIRST documented @ the HF in 1987, that it was finalized into a whole AGENDA that was published in 1996 as a New Republican World Order for the US government that included ENDING 5 Cabinet divisions, maximizing Defense, minimizing education and suppressing the vote.

        The MANDATE he mentions was not meant to be a part of the PPAC, it was meant to be a GUARANTEE of future MEDICAL VOUCHER SPENDING to the Insurance Industry. guaranteed cash flow from the taxpayer DIRECTLY to RED PARTY board members of the GOP’s biggest donors.

        But thanks to your circumvention, that reality was delayed a day in being exposed. Do you NOW see how you were SEDUCED by poor Little crying wet diapered Chucky into becoming his overt ally and fellow thread deflector in Chief?

        Now KNOCK IT OFF!

      • Sandy Greer

        I won’t argue minutiae with you. My eyes glaze over when you and he do so.

        1) He is detail riented
        2) You’re big picture

        You each want to be right. And you each are. But for me it’s like a long car trip, kids in the back seat, squabbling – each says it’s the other one’s fault. Front seat doesn’t care who started it. Front seat just wants the back seat to KNOCK IT OFF!

      • Stephen Barlow

        The nQUIT DRIVNG the conversation AWAY from “unions are good”.

      • Sandy Greer

        You don’t control the convo. QUIT thinking you do.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I kept it firmly in your lap. Just part the Great Clea and see for yourself.

      • Stephen Barlow

        NO one can write as i do WITHOUT being intrinsically detail oriented down to the las ball hair on a moth. I know you have smelled moth balls before so you know I am right.

        Kinda of a bitch getting all 6 legs apart though, ain’t it?

      • BB-Mystic

        Your metaphors are atrocious. Pray tell, what do mothballs and insects (if that’s what the “six legs” means) have to do with being detail oriented?

        Oh, wait a minute. “Ball hair.” Another stupid sexist joke. Really, do you have any sense of humor besides crude?

      • Stephen Barlow

        ( are you saying you dare to be bold enough to dream of a threesome?) Not without a 36 pack of rubbers.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Funny how Romney asked for, helped direct the legislation of and SIGNED THE BILL INTO LAW for it. Funny how Obama insisted on the key points you conveniently FORGET which ARE THE ACTUAL PPACA!!!

    • strayaway

      American workers are struggling because the leadership of both parties promote exporting jobs and bringing in foreign workers to work for less. The law of supply and demand suggests that fewer domestic jobs combined with more workers available to compete for them means lower wages.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re conflating here. Your line of logic has to to with the globalization of economy and how workers value(skilled v unskilled) relates to that globalized market of supply and demand.

      • strayaway

        Well yes but I am tying to measure the effect of foreign labor on US labor. The effects of globalization can be measured within our borders. I m trying to point out that measures like increasing minimum wages have the long range economic effect of trying to push string – great where one’s hand is pushing but not much more, I can’t get too excited about new jobs if 2/3 of them are at lower wages than average jobs lost in the early stages of this recession and immigrant labor accounts for 2/3 of new hirings. IT workers’ incomes have been stagnant for a decade yet the Senate passed amnesty bill will also double the number of imported contract IT workers as indentured corporate servants. The result will be a more crowded job field and getting back to supply and demand, that will further stagnate or depress the wages of US workers.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Yet 10 million jobs have been NONEXPORTED and createdIN AMERICA!! I mean since Bush was gleeful about LOSING 750,000 + a month for half a year or more.

    • You can also see that we are at near depression levels of jobs. The numbers of people not counted in the job market are near all time highs on a percentage basis.

      You can thank Obama for all the part time jobs, since he screwed over the labor markets with Obamacare.

      • Stephen Barlow

        More Students, more retired people and small business owners. more preschoolers!!!! Yay!
        47% of the citizens don’t file tax returns because they are not employed by choice. They have better things to do.

      • Charles Vincent

        yep the picture is less rosey than the government wants to admit.

  • Stephen Barlow

    YOu mentioned Unions 3 times. And THAT was the REASON fo hte great BOOM of prosperity in the 50’s and 60’s. Did I ALSO mention the FREE GIBill education that made lawyers of Yertle the McConnell and his generation of stagnation addicted legislators? Did I also mention that during that time companies made great profits, AND fully funded pensions and healthcare fo their workers? Downsizing was never considered and neither was buying out workers from their pension plan 1 year before the VEST @ a fraction of the present vaalue of the actual amount PROMISED AND OCNTRACTED at hire by the companies who regularly and habitually DEFRAUD workers as a business model.

    • Sandy Greer

      Unions help. Sometimes unions give back; sometimes they get more. On the whole – Stronger unions = stronger middle class.

      Yes to GI Bill. Home ownership, and Education. One of the best things we ever did.

      Pensions and Healthcare. When I first worked, we didn’t have Dental or Vision. Birth control was never even considered for coverage. Pensions changed from a monthly (old) to lump sum (my day) to the poor excuse they are today. 401Ks are fairly new, and Roths even newer.

      Downsizing has always occurred with M&As.

      • Stephen Barlow

        What no one seemed to realize during REAGAN was that what was once 100% company funded is now perhaps up to 5% company funded. Not only are workers nOT getting raises the meet inflation, they are PAYING 95+ 5 into their own retirements and spending their wages to pay for up to 75% of the insurance benefits.

        Corporations are almost completely off the hook.

      • Sandy Greer

        Agree. Absolutely. It’s a real shame.

        Corporations may be people. But seems like people are worth less than corporations these days.

        Maybe they should be abolished, like Matthew said.

      • Unions always make out, because all they do is steal from their workers to contribute to the political world. They are nothing more that a legal version of the Mob.

        The home ownership you spoke about being so wonderful is what caused the collapse in ’07, thanks to Clinton, who setup the ponzi scheme for Fannie and Freddie.

        Benefits are not something that businesses should be forced to give. Health Insurance is NOT a right, and neither is a pension.

        The fact that businesses make money, and share it with their stock holders, is the entire reason for being in business. It’s not to become the hand holder for all of their employees.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Except for Congressional Quality healthcare, GUARANTEED pension funding (Unlike Christie in NJ, reneging on YET ANOTHER funding promise for ALL New Jersey Civil Servants), child labor laws, EQUAL PAY for ALL members and a standard of living 140+% above the average in most communities.

        That’s shitload of theft there boss. I guess you work for Walmart, Feed you kids on foodstamps and just WIDH your state would have expanded Medicaid so your wife won’t die of cancer because she can’t be screened.

  • Matthew Reece

    The stock market is so high because the Federal Reserve has debased the dollar. The unemployment rate is so low because people are giving up on job hunting, which shrinks the numerator of the percentage.

    I urge you to go a step further and advocate for the abolition of corporations and the Federal Reserve.
    1. Corporations are legal fictions designed to shield the wealthy from civil and criminal liability, as well as raise a barrier to entry for competitors. This is antithetical to a free market, and is an aspect of fascism.
    2. If you want to give the average person more purchasing power, the best way to do that is to abolish fiat currency and return to sound money. In 1964, the minimum wage was $1.25, which was five silver quarters. Today, those quarters have a melt value of $15.68. The problem is not the minimum wage; it is the money itself.

    • Sandy Greer

      Even middle class can incorporate. Don’t have to be wealthy for that. One can still start a business today.

      For the rest, I agree.

    • Stephen Barlow

      Are you saying 5 50% silver quarters weigh 1.8 ounces? There is NOT ENOUGH precious metal in the WORLD to support a gold standard for American Dollars.

      The actual value of Gold is a fictional and hallucinatory as paper dollars value. if a seller believes his wares are worth $X Then $X are th value of a car, a sheep, a hotel room or whatever. EXACTLY the same PERCEPTIONAL VALUE assigned to Gold. Was Gold REALLY worth $1800/oz? or is $35/OZ (the Gold Standard) the real value?

      As long as currencies can be traded like pokemon chips, NO money has ANY intrinsic value. Only perceptual value created by speculators with smoke and mirrors.

      • buricco

        “All currency is fiat”

      • Stephen Barlow

        but you can’t get cash for a used Fiat. You can only trade them in on a Mini Cooper or a Burp. Which is the Russian equivalent. But they are awful as the 2015 Fart. There is a car that stinks worse than the Yugo.

      • Matthew Reece

        1964 quarters are 90% silver, 10% copper with a total mass of 6.25 grams.

        There is not enough precious metal to support a gold standard at current valuations. There would be enough to support a precious metal standard at an alternate valuation. This would require a significant deflation of the US dollar as well as a sharp decrease in government spending, which would disproportionately help the bottom 95% and hurt the top 5%.

        There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is subjective.

      • Stephen Barlow

        By about 95% down to $50.

        So minimum wage goes down to $0.37??? HOw does THAT help a single mother?
        Wouldn’t it just be better to overthrown the government and create a new currency, say the Fluegel, divided into metric Morons . Then base the economy @ one moron an hour… a Cadillac is 10,000 Fluegel.

        A home 100,000FLugels.

        Read much SciFi as a kid? it infected you like Alien DNA from a Wookie!

      • Matthew Reece

        I would abolish the minimum wage as well as all assistance programs. Companies (not corporations; I would abolish those too) would then pay their workers more because they would have to, as it is logically impossible for people to work for a living at wages that will not keep them alive.

      • Stephen Barlow

        What’s the difference between a Corporation (which is just a document defining the structure and scope of a business) and a Company?

        WHY would they have too pay more? they do the same things in China for 25 cents as we do here for 12 Dollars. 50% of customer service/sales jobs are minimum wage + 10% if you are the manager too. been like that since Bush tanked the economy and NOTHING is going to change that this decade. (Not unless we have massive turnout and give the House back to Pelosi so she can miss MORE golden opportunities)

        People are willing to keep a bad paying, nowhere job out of desperation now. Why should Business owners change a winning labor strategy? WHAT logic makes them change?

      • Matthew Reece

        A corporation cannot be formed without involving the state, as corporations are a legal fiction created by the state. A company, on the other hand, can operate in the absence of a state.

        If wage laborers lose their assistance programs, they have to start getting that part of what they need to live from their wage. Individual welfare is corporate welfare in this sense; businesses do not have to pay for that part of a worker’s needs which a government assistance program will pay. People would not be willing to work for a living at a wage that will not provide a living in the absence of some external assistance because this is logically impossible.

      • BB-Mystic

        That doesn’t make any sense though, Matthew. You’re relying on the free market to solve everything, and it simply doesn’t. There are plenty of people with jobs that don’t pay enough for them to live on NOW. People don’t give up these jobs; on the contrary, they take on more part-time work (that is, if they can get it). Remember the story of the woman who died recently in her vehicle, trying to catch a few hours of sleep in between her FOUR part-time jobs?

        Yes, in this instance individual welfare is corporate welfare. So why don’t we eliminate this corporate welfare by forcing said corporations to pay a living wage and thus getting the employees off government assistance? That would be far more of a win-win situation, and the corporations (like Wal-Mart for instance) could certainly afford it. (Hell, the Waltons could finance it all by themselves.)

      • Matthew Reece

        The free market may not solve everything, but it does solve everything that can be solved. Remember that the free market is just the sum of all transactions in which no coercion or fraud is present. None of what you said refutes my point, which is that a person needs X amount of resources to live, and if none of X can come from government assistance because that is abolished, then all of X must come from one’s labor.

      • BB-Mystic

        I’m still not understanding you, I guess. Are you saying that, just in the name of the Glorious Free Market, people should be forced to take two, three or four part-time jobs just to survive, because no one job pays enough on its own? And this would be a desirable way to live?

        Again, why don’t we eliminate the corporate welfare by forcing corporations to pay a living wage? That way, you wouldn’t have to abolish government assistance; it simply wouldn’t be necessary for most people, and the assistance could be used for the unemployed and truly destitute (and be assured such people would still exist, Free Market or no Free Market).

      • Matthew Reece

        No one is forced to partake in wage labor. In a free market, one could start a business with much fewer burdensome barriers to entry, live off of private charity, live off the land, or choose not to survive.

        No one should initiate the use of force for any reason because it is immoral to do so.

      • Di Kelley

        Matthew, Free Market is why this country is *in the state it is now.* I disagree strenously on the abolition of the safety nets, in matter of fact I feel they ought to be expanded to include the singles that are either unable to get work or unable to work due to disability again. You are just *dead wrong* in your thought pattern.

      • Matthew Reece

        A free market requires anarchy, so it cannot possibly be blamed for the current mess.

      • Stephen Barlow

        They are a LEGAL REALITY guy. no company can operate OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the state. A gang of thugs committing crimes is NOT a company.

        there RALLY is nothing in your argument that either holds water nor alludes to your having enough education to even be IN this conversation.

      • Matthew Reece

        Corporations do not exist in reality. They have no concrete particular form, which is required for existence. Any company can operate outside the jurisdiction of the state; it is called the black market.

        There is really nothing in your comments that suggests you have any understanding of how to properly argue a point.

      • Stephen Barlow

        They have the EXACT FROM described in the Articles of Incorporation, and THAT FROM makes them a very real reality.

        NO companies exist in the “BLack Market”. That’s why it is BLACK jackass!!! Each deal is a separate and unique transactions. Ther SI not organization in the Black Market. it’s like Craig’s list. the value of what you buy or sell is only what you SAY it is. Snuff one husband for $5K, another for $25K.

        I apologize for the crack about you smoking pot. No ONE EVER got your kind of stupid on weed!!! SOrry all you reeferholics!!!! you have GOT to be copmpletely out of your antipsychotics to hallucinate up this drivel!!!

        “company [kuhm-puh-nee] Spell Syllables

        noun, plural companies.

        1.

        a number of individuals assembled or associated together; group ofpeople.

        2.

        a guest or guests:

        We’re having company for dinner.

        3.

        an assemblage of persons for social purposes.

        4.

        companionship; fellowship; association:

        I always enjoy her company.

        5.

        one’s usual companions:

        I don’t like the company he keeps.

        6.

        society collectively.

        7.

        a number of persons united or incorporated for joint action, especiallyfor business:

        a publishing company; a dance company.”

        I HATE giving English lessons to knowitall punks who wasted 10 years of tax dollars being too lazy to do their homework. Let alone LEARN ANYTHING!!! Jesus H. W. Christ!!

      • Matthew Reece

        Since you cannot seem to argue without going ad hominem, I will ignore and flag you rather than bother with responding.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Is FUCK YOU UP THE ASS simple enough for thee?

        SO sorry you are THAT stupid!

      • Stephen Barlow

        I agree about some corporations letting the state assume responsibility for the undersupplied needs of their employees. The only way to change that is legislation.

        We need to tax ALL business with an Alternative Minimum Tax that ALSO takes into account that businesses share of public assistance expenses. that and juts END the loophole that let’s American Corporations go offshore to escape taxes.

        We just need to tariff the crap out of those companies.A fedral suit, asset seizure as evidence and withing a few months, their stock tanks and they will reapply for American Incorporation.

        I think a massive tariff against ALL of a country’s goods and services exports to the United Stateswold be justified if that country supports the relocation of American Businesses.

        That way, as ireland suffers en masse, the government that stole from us can be more easily replaced.

        as far as “logically impossible”, single mothers by the millions do it EVERY DAY because they just have to to feed their kids.

        You need to put the Bong, Red Bull and Playstation down before you try thinking up solutions for the real world.

      • Matthew Reece

        What you are recommending is robbery and slavery on a massive scale.

        Those single mothers are not working for less than what will keep them alive in the absence of any assistance. Otherwise, those children and their mothers would be dying en masse, which is not what is observed.

        Ad hominem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Your existence is a defeat and that existence it ONLY ignorance. The FREE MARKET won’t SOLVE any problem.

        OK geniusboy. WHAT is YOUR plan and HOW would you implement it Matthew? Put up or shut up!

        EXPLAIN in detail how the ‘free market’ managed to solve the wage stagnation of the last 35 years? (Hint geniusboy: IT CAUSED the stagnation!)

        EXPLAIN how the ‘free market’ solves the over militarization of the police? Free market DOD contracts for 98,000 EXTRA SURPLUS Machine Guns, all distributed without restrictions on use, to small town police departments all over America…

        The “free market’ as YOU pretend it is, doesn’t exist. The’Free market’ that does exist CAUSES police aggression against unarmed citizens and the perpetual racially motivated murder of minority civilians by WHITE COPS. Tell us all how YOUR ‘free market’ solves all the problems the REAL ‘free Market’ has caused.

        “Remember that the free market is just the sum of all transactions in which no coercion or fraud is present.”

        SO Bush’s COLLAPSE and his TARP solution were NOT part of the free market BECAUSE they were fraud? But they used Free market TAX DOLLARS!!!

        EXPLAIN HOW those single mothers and their children would actually “DIE EN MASSE`”???

        BEcause you see, if you DO what i suggest, you have FEDERAL TAX REVENUE and THAT will feed a lot of hungry children if managed with a social conscience.

        the floor is your’s boss. Elaborate and share your vast wisdom of social structure and economic theory. Make your Momma PROUD Matthew!

      • Matthew Reece

        You are committing a contradiction by simultaneously being a statist and asking how the world will work without the state. Contradictions equal falsehood, so your question does not merit a response.

      • Stephen Barlow

        JACK
        OFF!

        Your ‘political socialogy” lab has neither walls or floors.

        SMASHING your bullshit kinda comes with the territory.

        Got FRAUD? Shoved up your ASS?

        RESPOND!

      • Stephen Barlow

        You can’t do the math for that.

      • Nice to see there are a few people here who do get it. You right on about the gold standard.

      • Sandy Greer

        You both agree:

        1) NO money has ANY intrinsic value.
        2) There is no such thing as intrinsic value.

        Just thought I’d point that out.

      • Stephen Barlow

        There IS such a thing as intrinsic value. But it’s NOT monetary, nor is it measurable.

        You have a love for stray cats and wounded birds. Your affection for Chucky proves that character flaw. But it is an intrinsic quality in you and it is immeasurable. If I am wrong, describe to me how?

        Gold has intrinsic value as a malleable metal. A corrosive resistant metal, a pretty metal. But the dollar VALUE of it is assigned by speculation and is NOT intrinsic in it’s existence. or that value would be a constant, as the protein value of an EGG is the basis of comparison for every other dietary form of protein on a chart. THAT is an intrinsic value that is RELATIVE to other things as it is a constant.

        The DOLLAR value of GOLD to Rhodium, Platinum or Lead are all subjective to whim and manipulation and thus, by definition are NOT intrinsic.

        It is a shame how many yuppie age folks were educated beyond their intelligence.

      • Sandy Greer

        Stray cats and wounded birds. Ha ha. Are we on the same wavelength? Because I thought the exact same thing just the other day – when I thought of you. Not that I think it a character flaw, of course.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I fly just fine and you are mad because I can handle the alley life. I never thought of YOu as an Alias for “The Carbuncle”.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Kinda like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
        or <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< + ^^^^^^^^?

  • FD Brian

    When Reagan dropped the top tax rate, it gave the rich the incentive to get richer without having to give most of those earnings back to the government once they hit a certain threshold. Reagan once said he didn’t take certain acting jobs because the pay would put him over a certain amount and the majority of it would just go to taxes and in turn by doing that, somebody else got the job and that’s one of the reasons the income gap was so much smaller back in those days.

    • Stephen Barlow

      When he dropped the top tax rate and raised taxes on working people, he ALSO created the self funded pensions known as 401K’s. this took the expense of financing retirements away from the Employers. Reagan ASLO allowed Corporations to A) sell off pension investments upon a leveraged takeover or buyout, which FLEECED the workers, B) allowed employers to force employees to pay for health insurance they had ZERO choice in purchasing. In other words, Reagan implemented CORPORATE TAXATION OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.