Politics Democratic Socialism

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I speak for all the Sly Dogs of the world.

And would just like to say, Fuck you humans!

Let me preface this by saying I know not all Sly Dogs are like this, but I have to say what I think about when I think about Sly Dogs.


Sly Dogs lick their own junk and smell other's butts. They eat feces and they go through bitch after bitch having bastard mutts that they don't support.

Outside of a rare forum mod (easiest job EVER) none of them have jobs or contribute to society. They shed hair everywhere, they smell and drink from toilets. They bark for no apparent reason except for the night a guy breaks into your car.

Basically Sly Dogs are all lazy bums and I hope they get CIV and then full blown AIDS.

Wait, did I mention I was only talking about Korean dogs?

 

[riverman]

This guy likes dogs more than he likes his own uncle

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

He was too pussy to eat his uncle so he fed his uncle to the dogs and ate the dogs instead.

 

[jlprk]

Washington times is a liberal paper! LOL this is fresh... Liberals bashing on the liberal press.

Every God-fearing Christian should despise the conservative Moonie paper, founded by Koreans who worship the Rev. Moon.

Crazy newspaper.

 

[magnifier661]

Trump is on CNN right now talking about how there is 2.5 trillion overseas that he wants to bring back by charging a lower amount of tax on it. What's he talking about Denny and mags? He's talking about the money I was just talking about previously...

Corporate and personal are two entirely different things dviss. We've tried explaining this to you many times.

If I make money in China, I won't have to pay tax in the U.S. until I bring that money into the U.S. The money isn't being made in the United States. It's being made overseas.

 

[magnifier661]

Do I need to go get the post where you said that Koreans are all racist? Or do you need to go get it? I'll let you look up your own hypocrisy.

LMAO! That was a fucking joke though! You are being dead serious

 

[MarAzul]

I don't know what you're talking about

Well I did not know of you then, but I have no doubt you whined like hell. It follows.

 

[MarAzul]

He's talking about taxing the top 1% at 90%. I'm all for that.

The income tax that was ratified as a constitutional amendment called for a maximum 7% tax on income. Now look what you would support!!!
Hell, I am strongly in favor of starting a revolution and purging the country of people that would support this shit.

 

[riverman]

He was too pussy to eat his uncle so he fed his uncle to the dogs and ate the dogs instead.

I was going to go with Korean Dog market theme but mags lost his puppy yesterday and I'm trying to be sensitive...also the images on that search were all really gross

 

[magnifier661]

I was going to go with Korean Dog market theme but mags lost his puppy yesterday and I'm trying to be sensitive...also the images on that search were all really gross

Thanks man...

 

[riverman]

Thanks man...

no prob

 

[donkiez]

 

[donkiez]

 

[Denny Crane]

Why does income inequality matter?

And doesn't it matter how it is measured?

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/07/06/just-how-stagnant-are-wages-anyway/

But Mr. Rose argues that one more change is important: using the right inflation index. The personal consumption expenditures price index has generally shown inflation to be lower than the CPI. And many economists believe the PCE is the more accurate index, since it better accounts for the ways that consumers’ consumption behavior changesover time. The Federal Reserve, for example, prefers the PCE price index.

When Mr. Rose looked at real compensation, adjusted for the PCE price index, the median worker has seen a gain of 38%. The median woman has gained 73% and the median male 13%.

The period since 2007 has still been rough, by this metric, but the notion of a decades’ long stagnation is no longer supported.

 

[donkiez]

Why does income inequality matter?

And doesn't it matter how it is measured?

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/07/06/just-how-stagnant-are-wages-anyway/

But Mr. Rose argues that one more change is important: using the right inflation index. The personal consumption expenditures price index has generally shown inflation to be lower than the CPI. And many economists believe the PCE is the more accurate index, since it better accounts for the ways that consumers’ consumption behavior changesover time. The Federal Reserve, for example, prefers the PCE price index.

When Mr. Rose looked at real compensation, adjusted for the PCE price index, the median worker has seen a gain of 38%. The median woman has gained 73% and the median male 13%.

The period since 2007 has still been rough, by this metric, but the notion of a decades’ long stagnation is no longer supported.

Seems like the main argument of the PCE is that overall compensation is up during this period and overall compensation should be looked at instead of just income. The issue I see here though is that overall compensation is largely tied to health care costs put out by employers. Health care costs have gone up during that period so of course their compensation expenses have gone up, but for the average person their overall benefits of the health care have not changed or have even been reduced, only the amount their employer contributes to it has increased. That also only holds true for people who get health care as part of their employment, which as you go down the pay scale it becomes a much smaller number. Obamacare changes the dynamics of this some but that has only been in effect a few years.

 

[Denny Crane]

Seems like the main argument of the PCE is that overall compensation is up during this period and overall compensation should be looked at instead of just income. The issue I see here though is that overall compensation is largely tied to health care costs put out by employers. Health care costs have gone up during that period so of course their compensation expenses have gone up, but for the average person their overall benefits of the health care have not changed or have even been reduced, only the amount their employer contributes to it has increased. That also only holds true for people who get health care as part of their employment, which as you go down the pay scale it becomes a much smaller number. Obamacare changes the dynamics of this some but that has only been in effect a few years.

You didn't really answer my main question. Why does income inequality matter?

The rich aren't getting richer at anyone's actual expense. The economy would have to be static for that to happen. But the economy isn't static. GDP grows almost every year (a recession or is a period of negative GDP growth).

The "stagnant wages" argument doesn't seem to fly, either.

 

[donkiez]

Inequality matters because when a disproportionate amount of income continually goes to people who do not need to spend it, then it systemically decays the economy from the ground up. Immediate inequality has to do with ability to pay bills and long term inequality has to do with ability to uplift ones self to another economic bracket. There will always be inequality and a certain amount is healthy, but when immediate or long term inequality becomes greater than the ability ability to "work hard and over come it" then its a problem.

 

[Denny Crane]

Inequality matters because when a disproportionate amount of income continually goes to people who do not need to spend it, then it systemically decays the economy from the ground up. Immediate inequality has to do with ability to pay bills and long term inequality has to do with ability to uplift ones self to another economic bracket. There will always be inequality and a certain amount is healthy, but when immediate or long term inequality becomes greater than the ability ability to "work hard and over come it" then its a problem.

Where do the rich keep their money they don't spend, in a mattress? Where does that money really go and end up doing?

The answer is it goes into banks or stocks or bonds. In any of those, the money ends up invested in the economy in the form of business loans or mortgages (banks), government infrastructure (bonds), or business capital (stocks, bonds).

Adjusted for inflation, median income has steadily gone up. This means that everyone's buying power has gone up. Except for the Obamanomics years, so far. From 1967 to 2009, the real (inflation adjusted) median household income of the lower 20% of earners increased by 25%. So our "poor" have a better standard of living.

I think you are mistaken in your thinking that people in the lower economic "brackets" are somehow stuck in those.

This treasury.gov report suggests otherwise.



The very last sentence of the last bullet point is hugely significant.

 

[magnifier661]

You didn't really answer my main question. Why does income inequality matter?

The rich aren't getting richer at anyone's actual expense. The economy would have to be static for that to happen. But the economy isn't static. GDP grows almost every year (a recession or is a period of negative GDP growth).


View attachment 5852

The "stagnant wages" argument doesn't seem to fly, either.

See this is the bullshit that really bothers me. Also, I've seen conflicting reports on the actual distribution of wealth. Some numbers show the top 15% get 40% of the nations wealth, which is much less than what Bernie claims on his video

 

[Denny Crane]

See this is the bullshit that really bothers me. Also, I've seen conflicting reports on the actual distribution of wealth. Some numbers show the top 15% get 40% of the nations wealth, which is much less than what Bernie claims on his video

There's a difference between "wealth" and "income."

 

[donkiez]

Where do the rich keep their money they don't spend, in a mattress? Where does that money really go and end up doing?

The answer is it goes into banks or stocks or bonds. In any of those, the money ends up invested in the economy in the form of business loans or mortgages (banks), government infrastructure (bonds), or business capital (stocks, bonds).

Adjusted for inflation, median income has steadily gone up. This means that everyone's buying power has gone up. Except for the Obamanomics years, so far. From 1967 to 2009, the real (inflation adjusted) median household income of the lower 20% of earners increased by 25%. So our "poor" have a better standard of living.

I think you are mistaken in your thinking that people in the lower economic "brackets" are somehow stuck in those.

This treasury.gov report suggests otherwise.

View attachment 5853

The very last sentence of the last bullet point is hugely significant.

So "the rich people" only do good with their money? They are going to keep building businesses until they have no one to buy their products.

 

[magnifier661]

There's a difference between "wealth" and "income."

But Bernie is saying wealth and the report I saw, I'll try and find it, also used wealth. I would suspect "taxable income" would be much much less.

 

[donkiez]

See this is the bullshit that really bothers me. Also, I've seen conflicting reports on the actual distribution of wealth. Some numbers show the top 15% get 40% of the nations wealth, which is much less than what Bernie claims on his video

Statistics bro, you can literally say anything you want then find a way to back it up with stats.

 

[donkiez]

You didn't really answer my main question. Why does income inequality matter?

The rich aren't getting richer at anyone's actual expense. The economy would have to be static for that to happen. But the economy isn't static. GDP grows almost every year (a recession or is a period of negative GDP growth).


View attachment 5852

The "stagnant wages" argument doesn't seem to fly, either.

I realized something here........ why do you think there was a big jump in family income in the '60s? Thats when women entered the work force in large numbers. Also from there on out I think I would attribute the increase in family income to the increase of educated women in the work force increase their families dual income. Your chart is unintentionally a advertisement for more attainable education and the results it has on income.

 

[magnifier661]

Statistics bro, you can literally say anything you want then find a way to back it up with stats.

Or like this!

 

[magnifier661]

I realized something here........ why do you think there was a big jump in family income in the '60s? Thats when women entered the work force in large numbers. Also from there on out I think I would attribute the increase in family income to the increase of educated women in the work force increase their families dual income. Your chart is unintentionally a advertisement for more attainable education and the results it has on income.

But I thought education is a state funded system? I don't see "the university of the USA"

 

[donkiez]

But I thought education is a state funded system? I don't see "the university of the USA"

Cost of education has changed. In the 60s you could get a degree and pay for it mostly with your summer job. Now our education payment system looks more like the housing bubble or health care system, we are guaranteeing huge payments to institutions and separating the person from the actual immediate cost, which has caused a exponential increase in cost of education and removes most price checks that would normally be in a free market system.

Edit to add: education is vital for social economic status mobility. You either pay, get lucky, or get left behind.

 

[Denny Crane]

So "the rich people" only do good with their money? They are going to keep building businesses until they have no one to buy their products.

I didn't say that rich people only do good with their money. Some rich people are drug kingpins and what not.

I just think it's wrong to say the rich sit on some giant portion of their income or wealth as if it doesn't end up in the economy.

EDIT: "cost of living" is accounted for in the "(2012 dollars)" inflation adjustment.

 

[Denny Crane]

I realized something here........ why do you think there was a big jump in family income in the '60s? Thats when women entered the work force in large numbers. Also from there on out I think I would attribute the increase in family income to the increase of educated women in the work force increase their families dual income. Your chart is unintentionally a advertisement for more attainable education and the results it has on income.

Women entered the workforce in big numbers in the 1980s.

But women always worked. Women were writers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, etc. There were even women congresspersons going back to the 1920s.

Explain this away:

EDIT: to clarify

 

[Denny Crane]

Cost of education has changed. In the 60s you could get a degree and pay for it mostly with your summer job. Now our education payment system looks more like the housing bubble or health care system, we are guaranteeing huge payments to institutions and separating the person from the actual immediate cost, which has caused a exponential increase in cost of education and removes most price checks that would normally be in a free market system.

Edit to add: education is vital for social economic status mobility. You either pay, get lucky, or get left behind.

Cost of ______ (fill in the blank) has gotten more expensive if government subsidizes it.