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.
That's Obama's plan. That's what he intended when he threatened America's senior citizens with not sending their SS checks.
Oh, "Blame the President" thingy that you (and others like you) can't live without! Don't worry, I don't think it is the President that would like to kill SS. He's a socialist, no? Do socialists kill such ideas?
Quote:
It really is shocking that Obama so blatantly wants to pull benefits from people who've already paid for them, but continue welfare entitlements to those who have not paid.
And I thought it was the right wingers who were complaining about SS being in the red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
Why do liberals think we have to keep subsidizing the poverty class, even when it keeps growing by leaps and bounds every couple of years? When the US goes bankrupt, what are you liberals going to do then when everyone is poor?
Yeah, we do NOT ever subsidize ANYBODY but the poor. People like you need to be shipped to a remote island where you get a fresh start, to live in the Utopia that has never existed and will never exist otherwise.
So, how do you define poverty? Let me start there (and an opportunity for you to at least talk about something that would be on-topic).
The OP said 95% Of Americans Are Getting Poorer Every Year, so I assume that is on topic.
My definition of poor would be off topic. The OP did not include a discussion of "poor". The OP used a relative term; "poorer", meaning that regardless of how rich or poor they are, 95% are getting poorer. So if a billionaire became less rich, he would fit into the "95% are getting poorer" category.
I think the OP statement is intuitively incorrect, but don't have the stats.
The OP said 95% Of Americans Are Getting Poorer Every Year, so I assume that is on topic.
My definition of poor would be off topic. The OP did not include a discussion of "poor". The OP used a relative term; "poorer", meaning that regardless of how rich or poor they are, 95% are getting poorer. So if a billionaire became less rich, he would fit into the "95% are getting poorer" category.
I think the OP statement is intuitively incorrect, but don't have the stats.
95% of Americans... I provided numbers (95% of American tax payers in 1980 versus 95% of American tax payers in 2008). The best that is easily available, but, I'm sure you can do the math? Still no response anywhere close to the topic. Perhaps provide more accurate numbers, if you've got issues with mine?
So, how do you define poverty? Let me start there (and an opportunity for you to at least talk about something that would be on-topic).
Well first of all the notion that "95% of Americans are getting poorer every year" implies that 95% of American's net worth is decreasing every year. This is simply ridiculous.
Most people's retirement accounts increase from their 20's to retirement. So their net worths should be increasing.
Also their savings should also be increasing as they get older. Thus their net worth should be increasing.
Also, the more home payments they make increases the equity in their home which also increases their net worth.
I'd wager it is impossible for 95% of American's net worths to be decreasing consistently every year from 1980 to today.
Income and net worth are very different. Net worth implies wealth, income does not imply wealth.
The OP probably should have phrased it "95% of American's incomes are remaining constant, while the wealthiest incomes are increasing"
95% of Americans... I provided numbers (95% of American tax payers in 1980 versus 95% of American tax payers in 2008). The best that is easily available, but, I'm sure you can do the math? Still no response anywhere close to the topic. Perhaps provide more accurate numbers, if you've got issues with mine?
Your numbers did not address in any way the percent of Americans who are getting poorer.
Well first of all the notion that "95% of Americans are getting poorer every year" implies that 95% of American's net worth is decreasing every year. This is simply ridiculous.
Most people's retirement accounts increase from their 20's to retirement. So their net worths should be increasing.
Also their savings should also be increasing as they get older. Thus their net worth should be increasing.
Also, the more home payments they make increases the equity in their home which also increases their net worth.
I'd wager it is impossible for 95% of American's net worths to be decreasing consistently every year from 1980 to today.
Perhaps we should start with wealth of such people, that neither the OP nor the supporters have provided. I went for income.
Oh, "Blame the President" thingy that you (and others like you) can't live without! Don't worry, I don't think it is the President that would like to kill SS. He's a socialist, no? Do socialists kill such ideas?
And I thought it was the right wingers who were complaining about SS being in the red.
Yeah, we do NOT ever subsidize ANYBODY but the poor. People like you need to be shipped to a remote island where you get a fresh start, to live in the Utopia that has never existed and will never exist otherwise.
You haven't answered my question. Instead, you just deflected and made a bigoted response. How are we going to help the poor, when you, me and everyone else except the rich bankers are poor?
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.
