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.
It amazes me people think the minimum wage has no effect on those who don't make minimum wage.
Ask me if I care. It amazes me that people actually thought they could live a good life on minimum wage. Instead of using their brains take the easy road and expect the same results as others who did get educated.
The Iraq war is projected to cost 6 Trillion for the war itself and veterans benefits over the next 40 years and we are nowhere near having the Iraq we wanted.
All it proves is that any endeavor that has an opposition trying to overturn any progress one way is going to eat up resources.
And certainly, Republicans have spent the same energy over that 50 years resisting and overturning democratic legislation designed to help Americans as Al Qaeda and ISIL have spent trying to destroy and thwart progress in Iraq.
Democratic legislation is designed to help Democrats.
Republicans oppose many of these initiatives because they are not beneficial to Republicans.
What ISIL and Al Qaeda have in common with Democrats and the corporate ***** wing of the Republican Party is that they are not destroying lives simply for the sake of doing so, but rather they are attempting to overturn what better men have instituted so they can rule without being held accountable by the people for their self-dealing.
In the Oxfam study, the top 1 % is defined as anyone who has an accumulated wealth of ~ $750,000 U.S. dollars.
By any standards that is quite wealthy. It does not do the global or U.S. economy any good for so much wealth to be in the hands of the top 1 %. There are only so many expensive cars, yachts, and homes that any one wealthy person can buy. It is far better for the economy and more growth occurs when wealth is more widely distributed. The bottom 99 %, i.e. everybody else, still purchases and consumes more than the wealthiest 1 %.
To achieve a growing and dynamic economy, and not a stagnating one, it is beneficial to get more wealth distributed to the 99 %.
And with the 80 richest people in the world having the same wealth as the poorest 50%, there is absolutely no benefit to have so much extreme wealth accumulated in the hands of a handful of people. Things are clearly out of balance.
In the Oxfam study, the top 1 % is defined as anyone who has an accumulated wealth of ~ $750,000 U.S. dollars.
By any standards that is quite wealthy. It does not do the global or U.S. economy any good for so much wealth to be in the hands of the top 1 %. There are only so many expensive cars, yachts, and homes that any one wealthy person can buy. It is far better for the economy and more growth occurs when wealth is more widely distributed. The bottom 99 %, i.e. everybody else, still purchases and consumes more than the wealthiest 1 %.
To achieve a growing and dynamic economy, and not a stagnating one, it is beneficial to get more wealth distributed to the 99 %.
And with the 80 richest people in the world having the same wealth as the poorest 50%, there is absolutely no benefit to have so much extreme wealth accumulated in the hands of a handful of people. Things are clearly out of balance.
Capitalism and a monetary system is the only reason the Government collects taxes. Most of the money government collects is only going to go back to private business because, whether the money stays with the taxpayer or goes to the government, things still need to be payed for in a monetary system no matter who's spending. That's because government looks to private industry for resources and supplies.
For those saying people are jealous no people just want to be paid fairly and when you see the rich continue to make more and more money while everyone else does not that is not fair. The employees are the main reason they even are making that much money without them they would be barely getting by. If you continue to help a company to make more money and yet do not see anything their is nothing just or moral about that.
People kill me with this whole "not fair" argument. So if I bust my butt my whole life starting from nothing, get myself in a good position, and start compounding my earnings until I become rich, I should just give my money away to people that lacked the same talent and drive as me? How is that "fair"? People have control over their own fates. People need to stop blaming the rich because they failed at life.
When someone else is getting rich by stepping all over you, why wouldn't you loathe them?
Yeah, they're stepping all over them as they VOLUNTARILY buy iPhones, iPads, the latest greatest this, that, and the other thing, homes, cars, clothes, and dining out they can't afford and never should have been given access to the credit to be able to buy.
In the Oxfam study, the top 1 % is defined as anyone who has an accumulated wealth of ~ $750,000 U.S. dollars.
By any standards that is quite wealthy. It does not do the global or U.S. economy any good for so much wealth to be in the hands of the top 1 %. There are only so many expensive cars, yachts, and homes that any one wealthy person can buy. It is far better for the economy and more growth occurs when wealth is more widely distributed. The bottom 99 %, i.e. everybody else, still purchases and consumes more than the wealthiest 1 %.
To achieve a growing and dynamic economy, and not a stagnating one, it is beneficial to get more wealth distributed to the 99 %.
And with the 80 richest people in the world having the same wealth as the poorest 50%, there is absolutely no benefit to have so much extreme wealth accumulated in the hands of a handful of people. Things are clearly out of balance.
Ba ha ha ha lol how many expensive cars, yachts, and homes? ba ha ha ha. Do you people ever think of this thing called planning for the future? Do you ever think about wanting to take care of yourself?
So many posters here are middle class, and they clearly hate -- loathe -- those who are in the upper income class and upper wealth class.
Why can't middle class people just get along with those who earn more/are worth more? I
Is it just jealousy, or is there more to it?
I have much better questions:
"Why do the 1% hate the middle class?"
After all, they've used their resources and influence over the past couple of decades to tilt the table even further in their favor at the expense of America's workers. Why do they feel they need so much more when they already have more than they can ever need to support their opulent lifestyles? Why are they dissatisfied with excess and feel compelled to accumulate even more? When is too much not enough?
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.
Why do middle class people hate the 1% ???
