What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[IrezumiKiss]

Corporate Profits Hit Record High While Worker Wages Hit Record Low

By Pat Garofalo on Dec 3, 2012 at 9:25 am

A constant conservative charge against President Obama is that he is inherently anti-business. However, businesses keep defying the storyline by making larger and larger profits, rebounding nicely out of the Great Recession.

In the third quarter of this year, “corporate earnings were $1.75 trillion, up 18.6% from a year ago.” Corporations are currently making more as a percentage of the economy than they ever have since such records were kept. But at the same time, wages as a percentage of the economy are at an all-time low, as this chart shows. (The red line is corporate profits; the blue line is private sector wages.):

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/corporateprofitsvswages1.png

Corporations made a record $824 billion in profits last year as well, while the stock market has had one of its best performances since 1900 while Obama has been in office.

Meanwhile, workers are getting the short end of the stick. As CNN Money explained, “a separate government reading shows that total wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP. Until 1975, wages almost always accounted for at least half of GDP, and had been as high as 49% as recently as early 2001.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Corporate Profits Hit Record High While Worker Wages Hit Record Low

By Pat Garofalo on Dec 3, 2012 at 9:25 am

A constant conservative charge against President Obama is that he is inherently anti-business. However, businesses keep defying the storyline by making larger and larger profits, rebounding nicely out of the Great Recession.

In the third quarter of this year, “corporate earnings were $1.75 trillion, up 18.6% from a year ago.” Corporations are currently making more as a percentage of the economy than they ever have since such records were kept. But at the same time, wages as a percentage of the economy are at an all-time low, as this chart shows. (The red line is corporate profits; the blue line is private sector wages.):

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/corporateprofitsvswages1.png

Corporations made a record $824 billion in profits last year as well, while the stock market has had one of its best performances since 1900 while Obama has been in office.

Meanwhile, workers are getting the short end of the stick. As CNN Money explained, “a separate government reading shows that total wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP. Until 1975, wages almost always accounted for at least half of GDP, and had been as high as 49% as recently as early 2001.”

The RWCJ crowd will see nothing wrong with this at all.

 

[mercury14]

Here's some truth about the Obama deficit reduction plan:

Reid blocks Senate vote on Obama's deficit-reduction plan
By Ramsey Cox - 12/05/12 04:03 PM ET

Most people know that the truth cannot be found in the bowels of political theater. Why haven't you figured that out yet?

 

[mercury14]

The RWCJ crowd will see nothing wrong with this at all.

They'll even see it as positive.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

Hey yo, Curry

You love to blae the unemployment numers on

Sandy

Haha

Tee

Hee

Under the broken windows theory..................employment there should be booming

 

[Busybody]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/

Hey yo, NIGGER UD and NIGGER KUZINREEMER......you TURD Graders are funny

Haha, Tee Hee

STINK "PROGRESS", really

STINK REGRESS aint no legit source

 

[mercury14]

Truth is, Obama is full of shit and not serious about avoiding the fiscal cliff.

Sure he is. He just has a way of doing it that he prefers. He ran on doing it his way and the American people reelected him for it. But you refuse to acknowledge that elections have consequences.

 

[imalickin]

Has your government check ever been late, Gomer?

Edited to add: The Social Security Administration addresses the Vetteblather.

All Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits are paid out of the general fund, dumbass. That $1.2 trillion deficit they have been running in Washatonia is what has been paying your fraudulent government disability check and those SNAP benefits you depend so heavily on.

Dickhead.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

All Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits are paid out of the general fund, dumbass. That $1.2 trillion deficit they have been running in Washatonia is what has been paying your fraudulent government disability check and those SNAP benefits you depend so heavily on.

Dickhead.

Wrong again, assclown. The SSA addresses your pathetic spin on their FAQ page:

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Better luck next smear, assclown.

Edited to add: See for yourself: The Social Security Administration debunks internet myths

 

[Adre]

Jobless claims are down. Now where is Vettes furry little friend to report this?

 

[imalickin]

Wrong again, smarterthanROB. The SSA addresses your pathetic spin on their FAQ page:

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.


Better luck next smear, smarterthanRDS.

Edited to add: See for yourself: The Social Security Administration debunks internet myths

And dickheads like you believe this shit...take about who's the assclowns.

 

[JohnnySavage]

And dickheads like you believe this shit...take about who's the assclowns.

You know, of course, that there's not enough physical cash in circulation to cover the value of the SS trust fund, don't you? How could that fund be held in cash, if there's not that much cash in existence???

I'll wait while you and your buddies down at the Stop-n-shop noodle that one out.

 

[Busybody]

Jobless claims are down. Now where is Vettes furry little friend to report this?

WOW

Just WOW

The NIGGERZ are now rejoicing that ONLY 375,000 LOST THEIR jobs

HI 5 To NIGGER OM ICKS

BTW, Oct and Nov is PRIME hiring for Christmas and New Years....so the NUMBERS being what they are

ARE HORRIFIC


I BLAME BUSH!

 

[RobDownSouth]

And dickheads like you believe this shit...take about who's the assclowns.

We speak English here in America, assclown.

Learn it.

Use it.

 

[imalickin]

For ReallDumb&Stupid's edification, if he knows what that word means.

Embezzled Funds?

When in 1939 the Roosevelt administration proposed various amendments to Social Security, congressional hearings and debate on the proposals saw extensive airing of the reserve fund controversy. Critics accused the administration of “embezzlement” and repeated the charges that the reserve was merely IOUs, and that Americans would be taxed twice. No embezzlement was occurring, defenders retorted; there wouldn’t be any double taxation, and the much-maligned IOUs were the safest investment around—U.S. government bonds. They raised a valid point: holding the surplus as cash was silly, and buying private securities was not allowed. So where else could the Reserve Fund money go but into Treasuries?10 By now three years old, the reserve-fund controversy had become a serious blow to Social Security’s prestige.
On the recommendation of Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, the Social Security Amendments of 1939 created an Old Age and Survivors’ Insurance Trust Fund at the Treasury. This was done for the express purpose of ending the controversy. Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee during the hearings on the amendments, Social Security Board Chairman Arthur Altmeyer stated that the purpose of the trust fund was “to allay the unwarranted fears of some people who thought Uncle Sam was embezzling the money.”11

Creation of Social Security’s trust fund, then, was a public-relations ploy.
What happened exactly? Section 201 of the Social Security Act, “Old-Age Reserve Account,” was replaced by a new Section 201, “Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund.” The only substantial change was elimination of the transfer of revenues from the Treasury’s general fund via specific annual appropriation to the Reserve Account. Instead, a sum equivalent to the Social Security taxes received and put into the Treasury “is hereby appropriated” to the Trust Fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, “and for each fiscal year thereafter”—that is, automatically. The only other new features were a Board of Trustees (the secretaries of the treasury and labor and the chairman of the Social Security Board) to manage the fund, replacement of the 3 percent interest rate with the average rate on interest-bearing federal debt, and a provision for paying money from the fund into the Treasury to defray Social Security’s administrative expenses.

Otherwise, the Trust Fund operated just like the old Reserve Account. Indeed, it was the Reserve Account; its assets as of January 1, 1940, were transferred to the Trust Fund. Since the Reserve Account was, according to the Act, “an account in the Treasury” and the Trust Fund was “on the books of the Treasury,” the transfer was a formality. It was as if a shoebox full of bonds labeled “Reserve Account” was relabeled “Trust Fund.” Moreover, the key paragraphs of the new Section 201, for example, regarding the duties of the Trust Fund’s “Managing Trustee” (the treasury secretary) to invest the fund’s surplus in only certain types of U.S. government debt, correspond almost verbatim to paragraphs in the old one.

Social Security’s Trust Fund, then, is really a Treasury account, nothing more.


Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/#ixzz2EHNb0e3R

Hey dickhead, just thought you should know the truth.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You know, of course, that there's not enough physical cash in circulation to cover the value of the SS trust fund, don't you? How could that fund be held in cash, if there's not that much cash in existence???

I'll wait while you and your buddies down at the Stop-n-shop noodle that one out.

I'm sure the assclown's head would "a-splode" if he learned there wasn't enough cash on hand at his local savings and loan to cover their loans....the concept of fractional reserve banking seems foreign to him.

 

[imalickin]

We speak English here in America, assclown.

Learn it.

Use it.

Not for long dickhead. How's you Chinese?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I'm sure the assclown's head would "a-splode" if he learned there wasn't enough cash on hand at his local savings and loan to cover their loans....the concept of fractional reserve banking seems foreign to him.

It always amazes me how uninformed/uneducated most people are about how money works. I guess it shouldn't though because it's been part of what I do for a long time, but not something most people ever have to think about.

I would imagine a plumber would be astounded that not everyone knows how to fix a pipe.

 

[imalickin]

I'm sure the assclown's head would "a-splode" if he learned there wasn't enough cash on hand at his local savings and loan to cover their loans....the concept of fractional reserve banking seems foreign to him.

Fractional Reserve Banking. Such big words for a useless piece of shit. Did mommy read that from the dictionary last night before she tucked you in?

 

[Busybody]

I barely even have the energy to joke about how unexpected! it all is.

U.S. private-sector employers added fewer jobs than expected in November as superstorm Sandy hit companies in the northeast, a report by a payrolls processor showed on Wednesday.

The ADP National Employment Report showed the private sector added 118,000 jobs during the month. Economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast a gain of 125,000 jobs.

“Superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc on the job market in November, slicing an estimated 86,000 jobs from payrolls,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics in a statement. Zandi helps compile the report.

Hurricane Obama has been wreaking havoc on the jobs market for years now.

 

[Busybody]

US headed towards 9% and maybe 10% unemployment......

 

[JohnnySavage]

I barely even have the energy to joke about how unexpected! it all is.

U.S. private-sector employers added fewer jobs than expected in November as superstorm Sandy hit companies in the northeast, a report by a payrolls processor showed on Wednesday.

The ADP National Employment Report showed the private sector added 118,000 jobs during the month. Economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast a gain of 125,000 jobs.

“Superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc on the job market in November, slicing an estimated 86,000 jobs from payrolls,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics in a statement. Zandi helps compile the report.

Hurricane Obama has been wreaking havoc on the jobs market for years now.

Pfftttt.... Uncle Sugar is getting ready to stroke some checks to pay people smart enough to not have insurance.

$80 billion in the Northeast economy just in time for Christmas.