Recommended New York Times Op-Ed Column

[Guest]

I don't know whether the Opinion page and columnists of the Times can be read without subscribing, so I won't post the actual link to this column here. But this Sunday's edition has a thoughtfully written piece by Robert Reich entitled, "The Limping Middle Class".

Reich is often much too flaming a liberal for me, but I read the first few lines of this piece and felt compelled to finish it. Reich defines the problem of the middle class which is shrinking and growing less prosperous, but isn't too specific on solutions. The answer is pretty obvious though--somehow encourage policy which slows the flow of wealth to the top 2-3% of Americans and begin to get more wealth into the hands if the middle class.

Some here will call that "income redistribution" and rail against the idea as an offshoot of socialism. I might observe that the policies of our government actually has re-distributed wealth--increasingly from the middle class to the wealthiest. The effects are as described by Reich in his thoughtful column.

This is one of those pieces of information that folks should read, as background before blindly accepting less thoughtful and often self-serving statements, often by partisan politicians. Reich describes a problem that can't be refuted. Now the question becomes. What can be done to correct it?

Try to search for "The Limping Middle Class" by Robert Reich in the September 4, edition of the New York Times or maybe on Reich's personal website. You'll find it thought-provoking

[Guest]

I haven't read it yet. Just found it though. No subscription necessary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html

[Guest]

I will read it, but as of now the premise seems fatally flawed. Money has to be slowed to the rich and put in the reach of the middle class? This purports that the "economic pie" is a stagnant size and doesn't grow, and so we have to divide it up more evenly.

That's patently ludicrous on the face of it. The "pie" is not finite. The pie can grow as each person creates more and more "economic filling". We can make our own "pie" in this country. We don't have to wait on line at someone else's and hope for a sliver.

I've got to see how Mr. Reich puts it , but really?

[Guest]

What Mr. Reich says has more than a little truth. There is a string correlation between education and income. However, it is an incomplete analysis. We need to look at what causes people to drop out of the educational process. Single parent households, race and peer groups are strong factors here. More emphasis on education is not the answer to this part of the problem. Addressing the underlying factors such as single parent households - encouraged by the Aid to Dependent Children Act - is a critical starting point.

We also need to look at why good paying jobs are not more available in the United States. Having both the highest corporate income tax and the highest tax on repatriated profits in the entire world is certainly a major contributor.

[Guest]

I don't know whether the Opinion page and columnists of the Times can be read without subscribing, so I won't post the actual link to this column here. But this Sunday's edition has a thoughtfully written piece by Robert Reich entitled, "The Limping Middle Class".

Reich is often much too flaming a liberal for me, but I read the first few lines of this piece and felt compelled to finish it. Reich defines the problem of the middle class which is shrinking and growing less prosperous, but isn't too specific on solutions. The answer is pretty obvious though--somehow encourage policy which slows the flow of wealth to the top 2-3% of Americans and begin to get more wealth into the hands if the middle class.

Some here will call that "income redistribution" and rail against the idea as an offshoot of socialism. I might observe that the policies of our government actually has re-distributed wealth--increasingly from the middle class to the wealthiest. The effects are as described by Reich in his thoughtful column.

This is one of those pieces of information that folks should read, as background before blindly accepting less thoughtful and often self-serving statements, often by partisan politicians. Reich describes a problem that can't be refuted. Now the question becomes. What can be done to correct it?

Try to search for "The Limping Middle Class" by Robert Reich in the September 4, edition of the New York Times or maybe on Reich's personal website. You'll find it thought-provoking

This is pretty much a rehash of what Reich has been saying for years. However, it doesn't make it less true.

Kahuna, thanks for your objectivity. Pat Buchanan said it the best: A man with a political philosophy can adjust that philosophy when new facts come to light. An ideologue cannot.

[Guest]

I will read it, but as of now the premise seems fatally flawed. Money has to be slowed to the rich and put in the reach of the middle class? This purports that the "economic pie" is a stagnant size and doesn't grow, and so we have to divide it up more evenly.

That's patently ludicrous on the face of it. The "pie" is not finite. The pie can grow as each person creates more and more "economic filling". We can make our own "pie" in this country. We don't have to wait on line at someone else's and hope for a sliver.

I've got to see how Mr. Reich puts it , but really?

As usual you have made your statement with a lack of thought which is characteristically yours. One only has to look at the trade deficit published each week on the last page of The Economist to know that the amount of money circulating in the United States is shrinking to the tune of a half a trillion a year.

[Guest]

CEO running a company in to the ground, then retiring with a 400 Million Golded Retirement package might be some of the problem. Why would a company give the person who ran it into the ground such a great retirment package. If a lowly worker is not performing, he is fired without compensation. Same should be for the CEO, COO, CFO or any of the alphabet soup leaders. That might solve some of the problem.

[Guest]

As usual you have made your statement with a lack of thought which is characteristically yours. One only has to look at the trade deficit published each week on the last page of The Economist to know that the amount of money circulating in the United States is shrinking to the tune of a half a billion a year.


:confused:

[Guest]

This is pretty much a rehash of what Reich has been saying for years. However, it doesn't make it less true.

Kahuna, thanks for your objectivity. Pat Buchanan said it the best: A man with a political philosophy can adjust that philosophy when new facts come to light. An ideologue cannot.

And you have to be OPEN to new facts and be able to identify them as new facts in order to use them to adjust your philosophy. Now which modern president had problem with that?

[Guest]

As usual you have made your statement with a lack of thought which is characteristically yours. One only has to look at the trade deficit published each week on the last page of The Economist to know that the amount of money circulating in the United States is shrinking to the tune of a half a trillion a year.

You start off with insulting me for "lack of thought characteristically mine". You're a peach, you know it. Until today, I didn't know you existed, and this is your introduction?

__________________________________________________ _______________

Actually I have read it now and stick with my original hypothesis. The "economic pie" of the United States is not a finite size. The size can be increased, it ludicrous to think you have to give everyone a smaller piece so that it goes around further.

The economic climate has to be eased so that more growth is possible. If growth is possible, there will be growth. It's human nature. As they say, "Rising tide lifts all boats".

[Guest]

:confused:

To make a statement that the pie is not finite is the statement of someone who firmly believes that we as a great country must be immune from history. Of course the pie is finite, and it is shrinking. There is less opportunity in the United States because there is a net outflow of cash in the approximate amount of half a trillion a year.

If I am harsh on RichieLion it is because he dismisses economic reality in favor of his Ideology.

[Guest]

To make a statement that the pie is not finite is the statement of someone who firmly believes that we as a great country must be immune from history. Of course the pie is finite, and it is shrinking. There is less opportunity in the United States because there is a net outflow of cash in the approximate amount of half a trillion a year.

If I am harsh on RichieLion it is because he dismisses economic reality in favor of his Ideology.

OK, I hear you. Can you support these statements?

[Guest]

To make a statement that the pie is not finite is the statement of someone who firmly believes that we as a great country must be immune from history. Of course the pie is finite, and it is shrinking. There is less opportunity in the United States because there is a net outflow of cash in the approximate amount of half a trillion a year.

If I am harsh on RichieLion it is because he dismisses economic reality in favor of his Ideology.

You're are so wrong. The economy is not finite. There's isn't a finite amount of money in the country that just moves around. That idea is totally ludicrous.

Also, it's possible to just put forth your ideas without being "harsh", as you judiciously call it.

[Guest]

I will read it, but as of now the premise seems fatally flawed. Money has to be slowed to the rich and put in the reach of the middle class? This purports that the "economic pie" is a stagnant size and doesn't grow, and so we have to divide it up more evenly.

That's patently ludicrous on the face of it. The "pie" is not finite. The pie can grow as each person creates more and more "economic filling". We can make our own "pie" in this country. We don't have to wait on line at someone else's and hope for a sliver.

I've got to see how Mr. Reich puts it , but really?You're right Richie, the pie has grown over the years, pretty slowly recently but still growing. Whatever is causing it, more and more of the ever-growing pie is still finding it's way into the pockets of the wealthy, with less and less being kept by those we call the middle class. There are probably a number of reasons for that, but the Bush tax cuts appear to be a pretty big component of the shift.

So basically, if you accept the premise that a strong and vibrant middle class which earns and spends a sizable proportion of its income is key to a stable and growing economy, then government can play a role to encourage or incent that. Tax policy is probably part of the answer, but there are other things that can be done, as well.

If you accept that construction workers were a significant part of the middle class, then Obama's infrastructure re-building idea to be announced on Thursday might be something else government can do to "pump up" the middle class. Further, a solid infrastructure of transportation facilities will have a long-term positive effect on our economy, as well. (If Obama proposes further extensions of unemployment benefits or more benefits for the lower class, to me that's not the kind of thing that will have the effect of jump-starting the economy. I'd be against those kinds of government expenditures.)

[Guest]

You start off with insulting me for "lack of thought characteristically mine". You're a peach, you know it. Until today, I didn't know you existed, and this is your introduction?

__________________________________________________ _______________

Actually I have read it now and stick with my original hypothesis. The "economic pie" of the United States is not a finite size. The size can be increased, it ludicrous to think you have to give everyone a smaller piece so that it goes around further.

The economic climate has to be eased so that more growth is possible. If growth is possible, there will be growth. It's human nature. As they say, "Rising tide lifts all boats".

Now that I have your attention.
You passed judgement before you read it. That is why I faulted you.
I submit to you that the growth is taking place overseas.

[Guest]

OK, I hear you. Can you support these statements?

There is a net outflow of cash. The net outflow is called the current account. This is money that ceases to circulate in the United States. Hence less opportunity. Purchases of T-bills by the Chinese and others can't compete with our massive purchases of Saudi Oil and foreign cars.

The current account is published weekly in the Economist on the last page.

I invite your questions. I would be glad to research this further.

[Guest]

Now that I have your attention.
You passed judgement before you read it. That is why I faulted you.
I submit to you that the growth is taking place overseas.

First; you tossed an insult at me that implies more venom on your part than in relation to this particular thread, and that was uncalled for and a rather classless move on your part. No matter how you want to try to wiggle out of it, you tossed an gratuitous and personal insult my way.

Second, there was enough information proffered by VK about the article to give me a good synopsis of what the subject was about, and after reading the complete article I was proved correct in what I expected was the erroneous and partisan conclusion of Mr. Reich.

I don't know what your thinking is on about where the "growth" is taking place. Growth can happen anywhere. It can and will happen here if the Federal Government would get out of the way of business. Because "I" have money doesn't mean there is less for "you". That's just plain ridiculous.

[Guest]

First; you tossed an insult at me that implies more venom on your part than in relation to this particular thread, and that was uncalled for and a rather classless move on your part. No matter how you want to try to wiggle out of it, you tossed an gratuitous and personal insult my way.

Second, there was enough information proffered by VK about the article to give me a good synopsis of what the subject was about, and after reading the complete article I was proved correct in what I expected was the erroneous and partisan conclusion of Mr. Reich.

I don't know what your thinking is on about where the "growth" is taking place. Growth can happen anywhere. It can and will happen here if the Federal Government would get out of the way of business. Because "I" have money doesn't mean there is less for "you". That's just plain ridiculous.

So you are right and Robert Reich a professor of economics at Brandeis, Harvard and UCLA is wrong. You've got to be kidding.

This growth that I am talking about is taking place in China, India, Malaysia, and other Asian nations at the expense of the American middle class. There is a finite amount of demand for goods and services and those are decreasingly being provided by Americans. It's not government regulation, it's the fact that Indians will work for a fifth of what Americans will work for.

You want to solve complex economic problems with FOX News bytes. That just doesn't cut it.

I got you angry. I have your attention. Give me solid economic reasons why I should accept your arguments as realistic.

[Guest]

So you are right and Robert Reich a professor of economics at Brandeis, Harvard and UCLA is wrong. You've got to be kidding.

This growth that I am talking about is taking place in China, India, Malaysia, and other Asian nations at the expense of the American middle class. There is a finite amount of demand for goods and services and those are decreasingly being provided by Americans. It's not government regulation, it's the fact that Indians will work for a fifth of what Americans will work for.

You want to solve complex economic problems with FOX News bytes. That just doesn't cut it.

I got you angry. I have your attention. Give me solid economic reasons why I should accept your arguments as realistic.
Oh, so you think that someone who has spent his whole life in an Ivy Tower should know how to solve world's financial problems? Did you know that 8% of Obama cabinet has private sector experience? How is that working out?

[Guest]

So you are right and Robert Reich a professor of economics at Brandeis, Harvard and UCLA is wrong. You've got to be kidding.

This growth that I am talking about is taking place in China, India, Malaysia, and other Asian nations at the expense of the American middle class. There is a finite amount of demand for goods and services and those are decreasingly being provided by Americans. It's not government regulation, it's the fact that Indians will work for a fifth of what Americans will work for.

You want to solve complex economic problems with FOX News bytes. That just doesn't cut it.

I got you angry. I have your attention. Give me solid economic reasons why I should accept your arguments as realistic.

I'm through with any meaningful discussion with you until you apologize for your boorishness. End of story.

[Guest]

I haven't laughed this much on this forum since...EVER!

[Guest]

I haven't laughed this much on this forum since...EVER!


I know, it is a hoot tonight, huh? My face is hurting from laughing so much.:laugh:

[Guest]

I know, it is a hoot tonight, huh? My face is hurting from laughing so much.:laugh:

What the difference between a liberal and the rear end of a horse?
I don't know either.

[Guest]

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?

A: One is filled with blackmailers, tax-evaders, and threats to society. The other's for housing prisoners.

[Guest]

Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary?

A: One is filled with blackmailers, tax-evaders, and threats to society. The other's for housing prisoners.

Oh, that's so hateful! :1rotfl: but funny as heck!

[Guest]

Oh, so you think that someone who has spent his whole life in an Ivy Tower should know how to solve world's financial problems? Did you know that 8% of Obama cabinet has private sector experience? How is that working out?

He certainly knows more than his critics on this thread. Does anyone know that Karl Rove was calling some of the economic shots in the Bush administration? It's in Paul O'Niel's book. Really.

[Guest]

I'm through with any meaningful discussion with you until you apologize for your boorishness. End of story.

Good.

By the way did Morse screw you for the 355 million yet?

[Guest]

He certainly knows more than his critics on this thread. Does anyone know that Karl Rove was calling some of the economic shots in the Bush administration? It's in Paul O'Niel's book. Really.

So who is Paul O'neil? Do you believe everything you read?

[Guest]

Good.

By the way did Morse screw you for the 355 million yet?

???????????

[Guest]

So who is Paul O'neil? Do you believe everything you read?

OK, One question at a time. No I don't believe everything that I read. Karl Rove had a tremendous amount of influence in the Bush White House. O'Neil's words ring true.

Paul O'Neil was Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury. He was CEO of Alcoa, and turned that company around. I think that he was CEO of Scott paper for a while. Paul O'Neil and Alan Greenspan recommended putting triggers into the "Tax Cut for the Rich". These triggers would protect the budget surplus from getting frittered away. They were ignored. This was corroborated in Greenspan's book "Age of Turbulence". O'Neil's book was "The Price of Loyalty".

It really is worth a read.

[Guest]

???????????

Copy and paste the heading into google.

The very rich guy isn't going down, a lot of little guys will.

I apologize for dissing you. I didn't know that you were a fellow union member.

[Guest]

Copy and paste the heading into google.

The very rich guy isn't going down, a lot of little guys will.

I apologize for dissing you. I didn't know that you were a fellow union member.

Accepted.

I'm not up on the Morse/IRS situation, and I know I should be. Me, I love the Morse's. For no other reason than that they built and maintain this wonderful and gorgeous place I've retired to. I want them to stay and keep doing what they're doing. So I hope the Morse's are making tons of money and keep doing so and stay happy and keep on keeping on.

I was a member of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters since 1970. I've worked household moving, driven oil tankers, driven chemical tankers, driven for a garment carrier, and spent the final 35 years hauling general freight for various common carriers. It was a hard but good life, and because of the union benefits and protections, I was able to live with dignity and provide a stable middle class lifestyle for my beloved family.

Now, I've retired comfortably in this awesome picture postcard Villages, where I have so many great new friends, and am tackling this frustrating great game of golf.

My only problem with my union is their battle with "big business". Every time I hear Jimmy Hoffa Jr. rail against Republicans because they're for "big business" it drives me crazy. "Big business" has employed me my entire career. The union had demanded I get an equitable share of the company's profits, but the company put the food on my family's table.

A better climate for big business is a better climate for the American Teamster.