Occupy Atlanta (ref: Wall Street protests here) (living, moving)

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by tigers84

Life ain't fair and the govt does not exist to make it so. It's so sad how many Americans are dependent on uncle Sam for their basic needs because they can't take care of themselves. Must be a terrible feeling.

I've been on unemployment twice in my career, and it IS a terrible feeling.

[AcidSnake]

I dare you to identify any part of my post or any other post that I've written on this very thread where I said specifically said "Neocons". Remember now: I said specifically.

Please take your time in perusing my past commentary on this thread. Don't rush. I want you to get this response right.

After that, then we can talk about who is credible and who isn't.

Originally Posted by muxBuppie

The fact that you lumped Libertarians in with Neocons ruins the credibility of this post. I haven't seen a Libertarian aside from myself make post in this thread yet.

[tigers84]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

I've been on unemployment twice in my career, and it IS a terrible feeling.

It sure is. Been there myself. I've never received unemployment or accepted any other kind of govt. help/assistance. Friends, family, professional relationships, personal savings, all those things helped me get through. It never occurred to me, ever, to seek or expect help from the govt. Getting a new job and surviving until that time financially, I ALWAYS considered my problem and no one else's - certainly not the governments!

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

I've been on unemployment twice in my career, and it IS a terrible feeling.

It's an even worse feeling to be unemployed and not be able to get any benefits. That's what happens if you're among the millions who are self-employed or independent contractors. If you're a business owner you get the double whammy, because even though you're the one who paid for everybody else's unemployment benefits, you can't get them yourself.

[ShakenJohnson]

Originally Posted by arjay57

It's an even worse feeling to be unemployed and not be able to get any benefits. That's what happens if you're among the millions who are self-employed or independent contractors. If you're a business owner you get the double whammy, because even though you're the one who paid for everybody else's unemployment benefits, you can't get them yourself.

I second that, I really wish we had some system in place for small business owners.

[arjay57]

By the way, somebody mentioned the Uline company in the thread about moving boxes. They're an outstanding family owned business, and on their website there's an excellent example from the company president about how Wall Street can utterly destroy a successful business. It's worth reading all the way through:

21st CENTURY LOOTERS

This past spring, gourmet gift purveyor Harry & David filed for bankruptcy protection. The 77-year-old mail order company is an American business icon famous for its premium fruits, exquisite gift baskets and extraordinary service.

So what brought the high-end gift giant to its knees? The slide began in 2004, when a New York private equity firm purchased the Oregon-based company for $230 million in a highly leveraged buyout, only paying $82 million in cash. One year later, the private equity firm sold $245 million worth of bonds to pay off the debt and recoup its original investment. Later in 2005 they took out another $19 million. In one short year, the firm recovered 125% of its original investment and left Harry & David saddled with an insurmountable mountain of debt.

People who knew little about running a successful direct marketing business, let alone fruit baskets, were now calling the shots. Add an economic downturn and you have a recipe for disaster. Sales plummeted from $566 million in 2005 to $426 million in 2010 with only $6 million in operating profits and nearly $11 million in debt service.

When a leveraged buyout occurs, everyone loses except the private equity firms responsible for the destruction, in my opinion.

Wall Street vs. Main Street. For a long time, too many of our brightest and best graduates have been going to Wall Street. It is a new economic era where the U.S. is becoming poorer. Is there any chance that some of the folks will be accepting the challenges that Main Street has? Let's cheer for bright Americans who want to work for Ford, 3M, or Uline over Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Again, just an opinion.

About Uline - From The President

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I say....SO FREAKING WHAT if the "income gap is widening" and why is that a bad thing?

There are plenty of reasons why it's in both conservatives' AND liberals' interest to discourage widening income inequality, as overall it turns out to be bad for macroeconomies:

Income Inequality, and Its Cost - New York Times

Start with recent findings in the field of public health. Some scientists believe that growing inequality leads to more health problems in the overall population — a situation that can reduce workers' efficiency and increase national spending on health, diverting resources away from productive endeavors like saving and investment.

Other researchers have focused on how income inequality can breed corruption. That may be especially true in democracies, where wealth and political power can be more easily exchanged, according to a study of 129 countries by Jong-Sung You, a graduate student at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and Sanjeev Khagram, a professor of public affairs at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Corruption, of course, can hurt growth by reducing the efficient allocation of public and private resources and by distorting investment. That may end up creating asset price bubbles.

Unchecked inequality may also tend to create still more inequality. Edward L. Glaeser, a professor of economics at Harvard, argues that as the rich become richer and acquire greater political influence, they may support policies that make themselves even wealthier at the expense of others. In a paper published last July, he said, "If the rich can influence political outcomes through lobbying activities or membership in special interest groups, then more inequality could lead to less redistribution rather than more."

Professor Pressman relates those results to economic behavior in corporate America. "If a C.E.O.'s salary is going through the roof and workers are getting pay cuts, what will happen?" he said. "Workers can't outright reject the offer — they need to work — but they can reject it by working less hard and not caring about the quality of what they are producing. Then the whole efficiency of the firm is affected."

Of course, there are different ways to address the problem. Conservatives will likely take different approaches than liberals. But it's important to recognize that extreme income inequality is a problem in the first place.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by muxBuppie

The fact that you lumped Libertarians in with Neocons ruins the credibility of this post. I haven't seen a Libertarian aside from myself make post in this thread yet.

That because I talking to conservatives not libertarians, conservative philosophy has principles but it's very flawed. On the other hand Libertarians are nearly anarchist to me, and posting something conspicuous doesn't help. You haven't once told me your views ok you don't believe the free market should run wild like conservatives I applauded that, but you don't believe the government should regulate more what do you believe?

Originally Posted by K-SawDude

There are plenty of reasons why it's in both conservatives' AND liberals' interest to discourage widening income inequality, as overall it turns out to be bad for macroeconomies:

Income Inequality, and Its Cost - New York Times




Of course, there are different ways to address the problem. Conservatives will likely take different approaches than liberals. But it's important to recognize that extreme income inequality is a problem in the first place.

Conservatives don't have a approach. And as you can see they don't give a darn that the income gap is wending, I also note to you the middle class shrinking. They generally don't care about the middle class. I say it again at what point does it become too many people are failing "in there words" to it becomes destructive to the country. They depend on the wealthy to flow wealth down, jobs and etc but they don't believe in corporate responsibly either.

Originally Posted by muxBuppie

conservative = neocon. But I am sure you will pretend you did not know this.

Not all conservatives are neocons some are paleocons and etc.

[muxBuppie]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

I dare you to identify any part of my post or any other post that I've written on this very thread where I said specifically said "Neocons". Remember now: I said specifically.

Please take your time in perusing my past commentary on this thread. Don't rush. I want you to get this response right.

After that, then we can talk about who is credible and who isn't.

conservative = neocon. But I am sure you will pretend you did not know this.

[muxBuppie]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

That because I talking to conservatives not libertarians, conservative philosophy has principles but it's very flawed. On the other hand Libertarians are nearly anarchist to me, and posting something conspicuous doesn't help. You haven't once told me your views ok you don't believe the free market should run wild like conservatives I applauded that, but you don't believe the government should regulate more what do you believe?

I believe that your definition of "running" wild and it's premise is wrong. Regulation and government should only come into play to protect rights and property. If this were being done then we wouldn't be having this discussion and the crisis wouldn't be happening . The premise that the free market is "running wild with no regulations or not enough" when we make money out of dust is false at best and lie at worst.


How much should Peter Pay?