Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Neither Bush or Clinton or Bush Sr or Reagan had the kind of politicians we have in Congress now who refuse to work with anyone.
Clinton SHUT DOWN GOVERNMENT because they wouldnt work together. Stop standing here acting like this is something new. The only thing new is the inability of the person in the White House to take blame for his inability to get things done
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
I assume you remember the "1 dollar in tax increases for 10 dollars of spending cuts." The Republicans said no, how is that not a good idea? That is an 11 dollar cut to the deficit that would benefit the country, but I know you know what is best for our country so Obama is just a bum who can't lead, which is why I am voting for a proven leader, which is Romney.
More lies. There was no proposed $1 in tax increases per $10 deficit cuts.. Moving ones mouth doesnt equate to policies. Or maybe you can prove me wrong and link to this plan
Wages have been stagnant or declining since 1970. The majority of profits from productivity increases over this same period of time has gone to corporate employers and then shareholders. Most folk have not noticed because our credit cards create the illusion that we are better off than we were prior to 1970 and frankly most of us either were not yet born or were too young to notice.
Polititions generally don't want to talk about why family income has been stagnant or in decline for 4 decades. Instead, they blame the other guy/party.
Clinton SHUT DOWN GOVERNMENT because they wouldnt work together. Stop standing here acting like this is something new. The only thing new is the inability of the person in the White House to take blame for his inability to get things done
More lies. There was no proposed $1 in tax increases per $10 deficit cuts.. Moving ones mouth doesnt equate to policies. Or maybe you can prove me wrong and link to this plan
You are right, those Democrats are all so full of lies, I can't believe they would make up such garbage that I almost believed what they were saying, thanks for setting me straight.
Wages have been stagnant or declining since 1970. The majority of profits from productivity increases over this same period of time has gone to corporate employers and then shareholders. Most folk have not noticed because our credit cards create the illusion that we are better off than we were prior to 1970 and frankly most of us either were not yet born or were too young to notice.
Polititions generally don't want to talk about why family income has been stagnant or in decline for 4 decades. Instead, they blame the other guy/party.
In that year (2003), he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.
According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years.
jt800, I don't think you know what the word "median" means. If the top 1% see their incomes skyrocket, while the 99% stay stagnant, then the median income will of increased, even though there was no increase in incomes among the 99%.
But what do I know, clearly everyone has seen their incomes skyrocket until Obama came in and ruined it for everyone.
jt800, I don't think you know what the word "median" means. If the top 1% see their incomes skyrocket, while the 99% stay stagnant, then the median income will of increased, even though there was no increase in incomes among the 99%.
But what do I know, clearly everyone has seen their incomes skyrocket until Obama came in and ruined it for everyone.
LOL......
Those numbers come from the Fed using the SAME measuring stick.
So now when it says the median income has DROPPED by $5,000 since Obama took office, it's a DROP.
And...you ignore that it went UP while the person I responded to said it's stayed stagnant.
Plus, my OP states that the LOWER CLASS is growing....meaning people who used to be middle-middle class are now lower middle class and the lower middle class is now at the poverty level.
How's that even possible if their incomes have been stagnant or rising?
Face it....Obama is a LOSER and you'll do and say ANYTHING to cover his arse.
Those numbers come from the Fed using the SAME measuring stick.
So now when it says the median income has DROPPED by $5,000 since Obama took office, it's a DROP.
And...you ignore that it went UP while the person I responded to said it's stayed stagnant.
Plus, my OP states that the LOWER CLASS is growing....meaning people who used to be middle-middle class are now lower middle class and the lower middle class is now at the poverty level.
How's that even possible if their incomes have been stagnant or rising?
Face it....Obama is a LOSER and you'll do and say ANYTHING to cover his arse.
So what you are saying is when the rich get richer, I get richer.
Why does Obama not want everyone in America to be rich?
If that is REALLY your theory, what policies has Obama passed that further that objective?
The minimum wage increases middle class income. Obama is for raising it. The GOP is for not raising it or eliminating it entirely.
A company get x amount of revenue from that revenue they pay expenses. Employees are an expense. Raise the cost of that expense in order to keep "the budget balanced" they will reduce expenses elsewhere. Because the demand is low but the
Cost to employ people increase pay rates
+ Obamacare
= less people employed
High unemployment
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
People with health care are less likely to go bankrupt due to medical bills. Obama passed HC over GOP objections.
Business will reduce employment or opt out. Government will pay the bill with tax dollars paid by only 50% of Americans.
No sense in explaining anymore. Democrats have a very different mindset, a poor mans, victims mindset, a it's everyone else's fault mindset which makes them powerless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
