It's a Class War, Stupid

[OokiiNeko]

According to a recent report by the GAO, the Department of Defense has already "marked for disposal" hundreds of millions of dollars worth of spare parts ? and not old spare parts, but new ones that are still on order! In fact, the GAO report claims that over half of the spare parts currently on order for the Air Force ? some $235 million worth, or about the same amount Sanders unsuccessfully tried to get for the community health care program last year ? are already marked for disposal! Our government is buying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Defense Department crap just to throw it away!

That`s a drop in the bucket and diverts attention from real absurd congressional spending.

How`s that alternative energy coming Big Oil?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Fmr12B
The Air-Force and other branches are stuck with parts they placed on order years back under minimum parts buys.

Many of these contracts were entered into for the life of a specific piece of equipment. So a helicopter which has a useful life of 20yrs and the Govt. plan on using them for 35yrs would need an expected parts supply of X.

Well they entered into this agreement and are fulfilling the contract. The Air-Force just did not realize that 24 yrs later they would not be needing as many spare blades beacuase the amount of missions being ran was lower than expected.

The excess inventory because it is not expected to be consumed within XX number of months is therefore placed into the scrap or excess & obsolete category.

These types of bad contracts are entered into by all corporations as well.

Should the Air-Force work to better budget, oh hell yes, but I wonder if its not much better than it was in the 80's when Govt. waste was at an all time high.

its probably worse.

it looks like the military's shopping/contract strategy is retarded

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah, and Gates' net worth has gone down a little too. He's closer to bankruptcy! Thats about close we are to a third world country.

Please read the OP before replying in threads. These hit-and-runs of yours are kind of annoying and really only make you look bad.


I don't think it's a matter of debate anymore that the middle class in America is shrinking and losing political power. Who even speaks for the middle class anymore even?

Yes it is still a matter of debate.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/...e_middle_june9_08.html

It's in this forum and some others around the web like HuffPo, DailyKOS, and Democratic Underground where the "decline of the middle class" chestnut has now been accepted as absolute, undeniable fact and thou shall not argue the point.

did you even read that article? The guy basically sidesteps the whole issue.

 

[miketheidiot]

there is plenty of class warfare going on, only its being waged from the top down and has been for at least since reagan took office

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It's a simple question, will you answer it or dodge with Rush and Hannity style Republican bullshit?

This, coming from a person who hasn't once answered any question asked of him in a debate.

Am I in the running for President?

If so, that is news to me.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah, and Gates' net worth has gone down a little too. He's closer to bankruptcy! Thats about close we are to a third world country.

Please read the OP before replying in threads. These hit-and-runs of yours are kind of annoying and really only make you look bad.


I don't think it's a matter of debate anymore that the middle class in America is shrinking and losing political power. Who even speaks for the middle class anymore even?

Yes it is still a matter of debate.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/...e_middle_june9_08.html

It's in this forum and some others around the web like HuffPo, DailyKOS, and Democratic Underground where the "decline of the middle class" chestnut has now been accepted as absolute, undeniable fact and thou shall not argue the point.

did you even read that article? The guy basically sidesteps the whole issue.

Do you mean the part where he sidesteps the issue by claiming...:

Let's start with a back-of-the-envelope calculation to estimate where the gains in income have gone. From 1979 to 2007, the real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per person has grown by 63 percent (note 1 ). This means that the 1979 GDP was 61 percent of the current GDP (1/1.63 = .61).

In 1979, 30 percent of all U.S. income went to the ten percent of the population who earned the highest incomes. That left 70 percent of all income for the remaining 90 percent of the population. If all the growth since then went to that top ten percent, the other 90 percent would now have only 43 percent of current US income (.70*.61=.43). Conversely, the remaining 57 percent of total income would now go to the richest ten percent of the population.

In other words, the top ten percent's share of total U.S. income today would be 57 percent. This figure is considerably out of the range of percentage estimates for growth (all in the mid thirties) from many other data sources (the Current Population Survey, the March Supplement, the Panel on Income Dynamics, and the Survey of Income and Program Participation), and in the case of Bartels claim that 80 percent of growth went to richest one percent, it would mean that virtually no other Americans experienced increases in their standards of living over the last 25 years.

...and dispels the hyperbolic myth of all or even most of the income gains have gone to the rich.

Or are you talking about where he sidesteps the issue by stating:

Since the late 1970s there has been a substantial decline in the number of adults living in husband-wife couples. At the same time, there was a small rise in the share of single adults with children and a large rise in the number of single adults living alone (primarily adults in their twenties and those over the age of 70). Thus, while GDP per capita was up by 63 percent, personal income per household rose by just 48 percent. This reflects the fact that newer households were small and tended to have relatively low incomes; fewer people per household means that household income is not going to increase as much as per capita income.

After adjusting for demographic changes and for rising employee benefits (counted in GDP accounts but not by the Census Bureau), median household incomes rose by 33 percent rather than 13 percent over these 26 years. If the median (the number where half of households earn more and half earn less) was the same as the mean (the average household), then the median household income would have increased 48 percent. Thus households above the median (the richer half) did rise faster than 48 percent ? but it is also clear that not all the growth went to the top decile. A substantial part of the growth dividend was shared by the masses of the middle class.

It is, perhaps, no surprise that for all its popularity with the pundits, the "vanishing middle class" meme doesn't quite have a purchase on the public: According to a 2008 Pew Research Center survey on intergenerational mobility, two out of three Americans who describe themselves as middle class rate their standard of living as better than that of their parents.

 

[Auric]

people who have been reduced to eating "cereal and toast" for dinner

Not to be flippant but they must change their mentality before they can hope to change their situation. Cereal and toast are neither economically nor nutritionally viable -even worse if the typical high-margin branded product that most Americans are partial to. Surely rice (bulk) and vegetables could be had at no greater cost.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


...and dispels the hyperbolic myth of all or even most of the income gains have gone to the rich.

Before clicking this chart:

Note where the wage lies just before Reagan, and today. Virtually the same amount.

Note the consistent increase in GDP. Hm, where could all that money be going?

Already answered, from another thread:

From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000...

Or:

The average income for the top 0.1 percent was $3 million in 2002, the latest year for which averages are available. That number is two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.

The share of the nation's income earned by those in this uppermost category has more than doubled since 1980, to 7.4 percent in 2002. The share of income earned by the rest of the top 10 percent rose far less, and the share earned by the bottom 90 percent fell.

- Note the remarkable correlation between wages increasing where the long increases are under democrats (1961-1969, 1993-2001), the long declines under Republicans.

Go ahead and click the link and reach your own conclusion about whether all the GDP increases went somewhere other than to wages.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
there is plenty of class warfare going on, only its being waged from the top down and has been for at least since reagan took office

I think a very appropriate (if not quite as marketable) motto for the Reagan campaign would have been "It's OK To Be a Douche". Because at the end of the day, that was his political philosophy, and the reason he had (and has) such widespread appeal.

 

[babylon5]

USA is in a slow decline in many ways. And there is nothing that can stop or change it.

 

[jackace]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
there is plenty of class warfare going on, only its being waged from the top down and has been for at least since reagan took office

I like this statement.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ayabe

"But for five billion a year," Sanders insists, "we could provide basic primary health care for every American. That?s how much it would cost, five billion."

Basic math tells me this woman is a moron and not to be listened to.

$5 billion / 300 million Americans = $16.67 per person. Rep. Sanders must know some doctors who work for awfully cheap to be able to provide per capita to provide "basic primary health care for every American" at that rate per head.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah, and Gates' net worth has gone down a little too. He's closer to bankruptcy! Thats about close we are to a third world country.

Please read the OP before replying in threads. These hit-and-runs of yours are kind of annoying and really only make you look bad.


I don't think it's a matter of debate anymore that the middle class in America is shrinking and losing political power. Who even speaks for the middle class anymore even?

Yes it is still a matter of debate.

http://stats.org/stories/2008/...e_middle_june9_08.html

It's in this forum and some others around the web like HuffPo, DailyKOS, and Democratic Underground where the "decline of the middle class" chestnut has now been accepted as absolute, undeniable fact and thou shall not argue the point.

did you even read that article? The guy basically sidesteps the whole issue.

Do you mean the part where he sidesteps the issue by claiming...:

Let's start with a back-of-the-envelope calculation to estimate where the gains in income have gone. From 1979 to 2007, the real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per person has grown by 63 percent (note 1 ). This means that the 1979 GDP was 61 percent of the current GDP (1/1.63 = .61).

In 1979, 30 percent of all U.S. income went to the ten percent of the population who earned the highest incomes. That left 70 percent of all income for the remaining 90 percent of the population. If all the growth since then went to that top ten percent, the other 90 percent would now have only 43 percent of current US income (.70*.61=.43). Conversely, the remaining 57 percent of total income would now go to the richest ten percent of the population.

In other words, the top ten percent's share of total U.S. income today would be 57 percent. This figure is considerably out of the range of percentage estimates for growth (all in the mid thirties) from many other data sources (the Current Population Survey, the March Supplement, the Panel on Income Dynamics, and the Survey of Income and Program Participation), and in the case of Bartels claim that 80 percent of growth went to richest one percent, it would mean that virtually no other Americans experienced increases in their standards of living over the last 25 years.

...and dispels the hyperbolic myth of all or even most of the income gains have gone to the rich.

Or are you talking about where he sidesteps the issue by stating:

Since the late 1970s there has been a substantial decline in the number of adults living in husband-wife couples. At the same time, there was a small rise in the share of single adults with children and a large rise in the number of single adults living alone (primarily adults in their twenties and those over the age of 70). Thus, while GDP per capita was up by 63 percent, personal income per household rose by just 48 percent. This reflects the fact that newer households were small and tended to have relatively low incomes; fewer people per household means that household income is not going to increase as much as per capita income.

After adjusting for demographic changes and for rising employee benefits (counted in GDP accounts but not by the Census Bureau), median household incomes rose by 33 percent rather than 13 percent over these 26 years. If the median (the number where half of households earn more and half earn less) was the same as the mean (the average household), then the median household income would have increased 48 percent. Thus households above the median (the richer half) did rise faster than 48 percent ? but it is also clear that not all the growth went to the top decile. A substantial part of the growth dividend was shared by the masses of the middle class.

It is, perhaps, no surprise that for all its popularity with the pundits, the "vanishing middle class" meme doesn't quite have a purchase on the public: According to a 2008 Pew Research Center survey on intergenerational mobility, two out of three Americans who describe themselves as middle class rate their standard of living as better than that of their parents.

you realize that the math he says lays out shows that the wealthy have had a disproportionate increase in income relative to the rest of the country, right?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ayabe

"But for five billion a year," Sanders insists, "we could provide basic primary health care for every American. That?s how much it would cost, five billion."

Basic math tells me this woman is a moron and not to be listened to.

$5 billion / 300 million Americans = $16.67 per person. Rep. Sanders must know some doctors who work for awfully cheap to be able to provide per capita to provide "basic primary health care for every American" at that rate per head.

He's talking about $5 billion more for those who have no healthcare.

Say it's 50 million - that's $5 billion / 50 million = $100 per person.

Not that much, but when you say 'basic', and you take the high-profit overhead out - how much does the VA spend on 'basic' healthcare? The European nations with UHC?

If you assume his $5 billion is part of a *subsidized* plan where some patients pay a share (more affordable than now), it's even more feasible. I haven't seen his plan, though.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Yeah, and Gates' net worth has gone down a little too. He's closer to bankruptcy! Thats about close we are to a third world country.

Please read the OP before replying in threads. These hit-and-runs of yours are kind of annoying and really only make you look bad.


I don't think it's a matter of debate anymore that the middle class in America is shrinking and losing political power. Who even speaks for the middle class anymore even?

My apologies for not including the quote I was replying to right above mine:

Originally posted by: JS80
lol the poorest of the poor in this country live like kings compared to the average third world citizen.


Originally posted by: Dave
Ah, but that is changing on a daily basis.

America and specifically middle class Americans are going down but elitists like yourself don't give a damn.

That's what you want for the "average" American, to be just like Third World country citizens?

 

[RichardE]

America, where the poor people are fat.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: spidey07
People are a product of their decisions and actions. If they are below the poverty line it is their own damn fault. If their wages are "declining" it is their own damn fault. Not the gubment.

But by all means wallow around in your self hate, pity and doom and gloom.

Sorry, personal responsibility doesn't exist any more.

The far left has succeeded in brainwashing an entire generation that government should provide for their every need in excess and that they should be able to get by doing (far) less work than the generation before them.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: spidey07
People are a product of their decisions and actions. If they are below the poverty line it is their own damn fault. If their wages are "declining" it is their own damn fault. Not the gubment.

But by all means wallow around in your self hate, pity and doom and gloom.

Sorry, personal responsibility doesn't exist any more.

The far left has succeeded in brainwashing an entire generation that government should provide for their every need in excess and that they should be able to get by doing (far) less work than the generation before them.

I know. That's what should be the real depressing fact.


But then again, not really. Because with personal responsibility comes great success in this great land of opportunity.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: spidey07
People are a product of their decisions and actions. If they are below the poverty line it is their own damn fault. If their wages are "declining" it is their own damn fault. Not the gubment.

But by all means wallow around in your self hate, pity and doom and gloom.

Sorry, personal responsibility doesn't exist any more.

The far left has succeeded in brainwashing an entire generation that government should provide for their every need in excess and that they should be able to get by doing (far) less work than the generation before them.

Oh FFS... and this isn't an extremist attitude in itself? Do you tell the mentally handicapped to buck up and make something of themselves? Do you blame children for their parents?

In case you're not paying attention, you're arguing the old "nature vs. nurture," claiming 100% the side of nurture, and presenting a pretty straw man that the only other alternative is the other extreme. The real world doesn't work that way. People are more than just the product of their decisions and actions. It's not called society because you're in it all by yourself.

pfft... spidey's personal 'great land of opportunity' is a country where a black man should never be President. Try walking your talk for once, eh?

 

[spidey07]

Gimme Colin Powell or Larry Elder. I'd vote for them in a heart beat. But obama should never even made it to the senate, let alone the white house that piece of crap scumbag.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Gimme Colin Powell or Larry Elder. I'd vote for them in a heart beat. But obama should never even made it to the senate, let alone the white house that piece of crap scumbag.

Hmm... why those 2, I wonder, and why do you call Obama a 'piece of crap scumbag?'

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spidey07
Gimme Colin Powell or Larry Elder. I'd vote for them in a heart beat. But obama should never even made it to the senate, let alone the white house that piece of crap scumbag.

Hmm... why those 2, I wonder, and why do you call Obama a 'piece of crap scumbag?'

You think Spidey is just projecting his own self loathing? Obama seems ok to me..at least for a Politico. Sure better that the assholes we have ion the White House now and he seems like he'd do better than old Methusuleh..err..McCain.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: spidey07
Gimme Colin Powell or Larry Elder. I'd vote for them in a heart beat. But obama should never even made it to the senate, let alone the white house that piece of crap scumbag.

Hmm... why those 2, I wonder, and why do you call Obama a 'piece of crap scumbag?'

You think Spidey is just projecting his own self loathing? Obama seems ok to me..at least for a Politico. Sure better that the assholes we have ion the White House now and he seems like he'd do better than old Methusuleh..err..McCain.

Obama is certainly far more politically talented and qualified than McCain, and is far less of a 'scumbag' than the member of the Keating 5 who abandoned his crippled wife for the wealthy heiress (among many other acts of scumbaggery that McCain has committed).
Plus, the tenuous circumstances under which Obama will become President will require that he make a lot of compromises. While with McCain OTOH it would demonstrate that the neocons are so blinded by their ideology that they could elect a mangy dog as President. Can't have that, as it would essentially give them carte blanche to continue their corrupt ways (which the blind faithful seem to confuse with equal opportunity, etc).

I wonder how Spidey would feel about Bill Cosby? His contention seems to be that Obama would further some kind of welfare queen entitlement society. Never minding the fact that it was Bill Clinton who reformed welfare, or that Jesse Jackson wants to cut Obama's nuts off for getting a standing ovation at the NAACP for speaking like Bill Cosby, we supposed to fear that the Dems are gonna bring about the welfare state. In the meantime, our current Republican President (with the help of the prior Republican Congress) increased federal spending by 40% and implemented the largest piece of socialized medicine legislation in American history.
It's all so backasswards that I sometimes wonder if it all isn't a big ruse. 'Anything but the briar patch, Brer Fox!' or something like that...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Obama is certainly far more politically talented and qualified than McCain, and is far less of a 'scumbag' than the member of the Keating 5 who abandoned his crippled wife for the wealthy heiress (among many other acts of scumbaggery that McCain has committed).
Plus, the tenuous circumstances under which Obama will become President will require that he make a lot of compromises. While with McCain OTOH it would demonstrate that the neocons are so blinded by their ideology that they could elect a mangy dog as President. Can't have that, as it would essentially give them carte blanche to continue their corrupt ways (which the blind faithful seem to confuse with equal opportunity, etc).

I wonder how Spidey would feel about Bill Cosby? His contention seems to be that Obama would further some kind of welfare queen entitlement society. Never minding the fact that it was Bill Clinton who reformed welfare, or that Jesse Jackson wants to cut Obama's nuts off for getting a standing ovation at the NAACP for speaking like Bill Cosby, we supposed to fear that the Dems are gonna bring about the welfare state. In the meantime, our current Republican President (with the help of the prior Republican Congress) increased federal spending by 40% and implemented the largest piece of socialized medicine legislation in American history.
It's all so backasswards that I sometimes wonder if it all isn't a big ruse. 'Anything but the briar patch, Brer Fox!' or something like that...

Lets be honest here. If Colin Powell or Larry Elder were running as Democrats he would just have picked a different example to want to vote for instead of 'that piece of crap scumbag'. The only thing interesting to me about his post was that he made some sort of halfhearted effort to sound reasonable. Usually he doesn't even bother with the illusion that he's not crazy.