THE GEOERGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY

[Partial]

You mean all those laid off GM workers are gonna fail their piss tests? P, if they have to pass a test to collect their wages, why do you think they'll be drug addicts the instant they're laid off?

They will get back on their feet just fine. I'm talking about the thugs and people who waste all of our tax dollars.

[bobblehead]

Incidentally the only flaw with the shamelessly stolen post is that in our tax system when the bar owner cut the bill, the four would have instantly started screaming, and split the 20 between them, thuse getting paid $5 to sit and drink....its called the earned income drinking credit....er I mean the earned income tax credit. The remaining 6 would have continued to drink for the exact same price.

[MJZiggy]

You mean all those laid off GM workers are gonna fail their piss tests? P, if they have to pass a test to collect their wages, why do you think they'll be drug addicts the instant they're laid off?

They will get back on their feet just fine. I'm talking about the thugs and people who waste all of our tax dollars.

Thugs as a general rule don't get unemployment. You have to work to earn it and there is a time and dollar limit as to how much you get when you lose your job. It's intent is to tide you over until you find something else.

[Partial]

You mean all those laid off GM workers are gonna fail their piss tests? P, if they have to pass a test to collect their wages, why do you think they'll be drug addicts the instant they're laid off?

They will get back on their feet just fine. I'm talking about the thugs and people who waste all of our tax dollars.

Thugs as a general rule don't get unemployment. You have to work to earn it and there is a time and dollar limit as to how much you get when you lose your job. It's intent is to tide you over until you find something else.

No shit. Fine, lets talk about Welfare then.

[GBRulz]

How many people wouldn't be able to collect an unemployment check if they did a weekly piss test? I'd guess that number cuts in half at least.

How many working people would be out of a job if all companies required weekly drug testing? While I see what you're having the problem with, which is welfare recipients collecting a check as a way of life, it's not right to lump in only the non-working in this category.

[MJZiggy]

You mean all those laid off GM workers are gonna fail their piss tests? P, if they have to pass a test to collect their wages, why do you think they'll be drug addicts the instant they're laid off?

They will get back on their feet just fine. I'm talking about the thugs and people who waste all of our tax dollars.

Thugs as a general rule don't get unemployment. You have to work to earn it and there is a time and dollar limit as to how much you get when you lose your job. It's intent is to tide you over until you find something else.

No shit. Fine, lets talk about Welfare then.

Exactly how much straight "give me a check" welfare do you think is out there? And yes, since you're the one who brought it up with a strong opinion attached to it, you're the one to go look it up before complaining about it more...

[bobblehead]

26 million people a month get food stamps which by any name is gimme a check welfare. I think a healthy share of them get that year after year. I don't think a drug test would be outta line.

[hoosier]

There are many ways of measuring income and wealth disparity, and I'm not aware of ANY metric that would refute the claim that income disparity has GROWN under Dubya instead of declining. In other words, the very rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or have grown in numbers.

Your logic is faulty. Even if the income disparity between rich and poor has grown, that does NOT mean the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, or more numerous.

Let's take an example. Say a poor person makes $20K per year, and a rich person makes $100K per year. If BOTH incomes increase by the same percentage, let's say 10%, then the poor person is now earning $22K and the rich person $110K.

HOLY SHIT... the DISPARITY between rich and poor is growing! It was a difference of $80K before, and now it's $88K! And yet both the "rich" and "poor" got richer.

"Poor" wages have to increase at a much higher rate than "rich" wages in order for the disparity to even stay the same, much less narrow. Since this is unlikely to happen, the gap will continue to widen in positive economic times no matter what we do. The only cure would be to avoid positive economic times. And, of course, the gap will narrow in poor times, since a decrease will drop higher earners more than lower earners, who have less room for adjustment, and also have minimum wage serving as a wage floor.

And my bottom line all along has been, so what if this happens?

I've not heard an argument yet why the income gap even matters. If we want to focus on things like unemployment numbers or amount of people using social services like food stamps and food pantries, then we're looking at indicators of poverty. The income gap between highest and lowest earners does not measure poverty. Poverty is not defined as how much I have versus how much you have---it's whether I have enough to meet my basic needs. What you have is irrelevant.

I agree that income disparity by itself isn't necessarily the best measure of how a given society deals with social and economic differences. But your hypothetical example doesn't come close to reflecting what has been going on in the US. The middle and lower middle classes have not been growing wealthier by the same percentage as the upper classes (as they do in your scenario); on the contrary, these classes have been getting poorer (as measured by the fact that inflation is outpacing wage increases, and thus buy power is dimiishing) whereas the upper classes have seen their wealth and buying power grow tremendously.

I think both issues--income disparity and poverty--are interrelated, but it might be necessary (at least in this forum) to discuss them separately.

[oregonpackfan]

One example of income disparity is reflected by the income of CEO's and the entry level workers of the companies they manage.

In the 1950's, the average CEO earned 7 times the amount the entry level worked earned for his(her) company.

Today, the average CEO earned 430 times the amount of money the entry level earned for his(her) company.(Figures from Thom Hartmann)

[mraynrand]

One example of income disparity is reflected by the income of CEO's and the entry level workers of the companies they manage.

In the 1950's, the average CEO earned 7 times the amount the entry level worked earned for his(her) company.

Today, the average CEO earned 430 times the amount of money the entry level earned for his(her) company.(Figures from Thom Hartmann)

NBA players, NFL players, Singers and entertainers all earn a hell of a lot more than they ever did too. One of the reasons CEOs earn so damn much is that there is an intense competition for CEOs who can increase the value of a company. What is a CEO who can increase the value of a company by several billion dollars worth? Keep in mind that the increase in the company value translates into stocks and mutual funds owned by millions of people who have invested in the hopes of using such growth to fund their retirements and school for their children/grandchildren. What is that worth?

[mraynrand]

Exactly how much straight "give me a check" welfare do you think is out there? And yes, since you're the one who brought it up with a strong opinion attached to it, you're the one to go look it up before complaining about it more...

foodstamps alone are at over 30 billion/year and are estimated to go over 40 billion in the next several years, in part due to successful advertisement by the government for the availability of such programs.

[bobblehead]

One example of income disparity is reflected by the income of CEO's and the entry level workers of the companies they manage.

In the 1950's, the average CEO earned 7 times the amount the entry level worked earned for his(her) company.

Today, the average CEO earned 430 times the amount of money the entry level earned for his(her) company.(Figures from Thom Hartmann)

How much net sales, employees, regulatory laws, ect did a CEO in the 50's oversee compared to today. The job is not the same, and if not for the rise of the corporation (due to overregulation) small business owners would still be more common and prevalent and making about 7 times the amount of the employees.

Another point, what is the solution. Should we take the money away from all the rich and redistribute it evenly throughout the USA, why not the third world countries, those people are much worse off. You think if we took 30 trillion from the billionaires of the country it would solve all the ills? It would have an inflationary effect on most middle income luxury items, I'll grant you that.

And I reject Hoosier saying the poor are getting poorer. Inflation is measured against a lot of things that aren't necesseties. We also keep redefining poor. By your definition there will always be poor.

Again, even if I accept your premise, the ONLY solution reasonable is to stress the labor force (supply) so that those in demand will pay more for it. A good place to start would be removing undocumented workers from the workforce......Boy I almost can't wait for the response to that statement. A better way would be to furhter reduce capital gains taxes and corporate income taxes stimulating investment in growht and jobs.

[GrnBay007]

Exactly how much straight "give me a check" welfare do you think is out there? And yes, since you're the one who brought it up with a strong opinion attached to it, you're the one to go look it up before complaining about it more...

foodstamps alone are at over 30 billion/year and are estimated to go over 40 billion in the next several years, in part due to successful advertisement by the government for the availability of such programs.

If foodstamps alone are over 30 billion, I'd hate to see the numbers for what is handed out in housing.

When I think of the "give me a check" welfare recipients I think of those that get either free or greatly reduced housing, a check (for the bills) and food stamps. ...all without having to work.

I do believe there are those out there that meet the guidelines for food stamps that are working, but low end jobs. I wouldn't call those people the "give me a check" people.

[bobblehead]

For the purpose of getting drug tested to get your "welfare" food stamps are gimme a check welfare. It is a handout and asking one to pass a piss test to get it isn't unreasonable in my book.

[MJZiggy]

I wonder how much that would cost the taxpayers...not unreasonable in idea at all, I just wonder in practice as it means that somehow every month, every recipient would have to be scheduled, tested and have the samples analyzed and results recorded.