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.
I'll throw the Republicans a bone on this one. The Democrats and Republicans may get another 1, maybe 2 elections so why not. I just want a better Economy.
If you want to gain votes, why not advocate that some of the resources be diverted from those who don't work, to those who do work. That way there's more incentive for the working class.
No. Democrats don't help people succeed. They help herd more into poverty. That's exactly what has happened under Obama's presidency.
Additionally, those receiving public assistance have a birth rate 3 times higher than those who don't. Guess which demographic all those extra children will be joining as adults after they've grown up in poverty.
It's why the liberal politicians keep expanding these social welfare programs by lowering the bar to qualify, to herd more people into the programs, and then these politicians set themselves up as the the sole arbitrators, "vote for us to keep the goody-train rolling along."
I can give you an explanation in a bit why its better for the overall Economy if there are more spenders (Middle Income and Lower Income brackets with disposable income).
That's what investors do, they promote spending by the companies they invest in. By investing their money, buying company stock, or even depositing it in a bank, they are actually putting that money to work, because other people will borrow that money to spend, invest, ect...
When a bunch of folks invest in a company, that company expands their assets, hires new employees, purchases new equipment or constructs new offices.
I wish I could remember it, but there is an industry term for the flow of money, and there is very little energy and flow of money in this Obama economy.
Your assertion is that fewer people are getting means-tested social welfare program benefits under Obama's presidency? Prove it.
Quote:
Still, you said that Democrats keep people poor because otherwise they wouldn't get their votes. That translates to: if those people become successful under our watch, then they won't vote for us. We need to keep them poor.
Um... yeah... look at any demographic study, poll, whatever. Here, I'll help you:
If he is in his 30's then why does he care? Anyone that young will be more than OK in the long term. Also, you can rebound very easily if you re balance correctly. Did he? He should have made more than he lost in the 3 years after the crash, if he re balanced correctly.
So now your blaming him and millions of other Americans for something that they weren't aware of until it was too late?
I'm sorry. In the real world, some people get screwed. He got screwed. Not saying exactly who's fault it is, but if intelligent outsiders could predict what was going on, those committing the crimes had to have known.
Weren't you just an intern for a few months? You never exactly worked on wall street.
Your 24. I was hired by Wall Street because I was a top salesman in the city in my respective field. I could rap your ass off. Started my sales career on the Southside.
But very grown up of you to say.
You are hypocritical enough that you have admitted that you hire part time employees so that you don't have to pay for insurance, but you go on to complain about other people who do the same thing.
So now you attack the credibility of my business.
Actually, do to our hours, we cater to workers looking for part time hours. Why pay employees to work when we're not open? I'm an "active" worker in my business. As in I do most of the labor involved. It's like that in most of my businesses. I do brag on what I do however. I'm fighting for the poor and your calling them lazy and stupid.
And again, you post that article like it is the bible and you don't even understand what it says. It says that banks refused to re-negotiate mortgages for people who were going to lose them and then people blamed banks. That isn't exactly a bank's fault.
You can lie to other people, even lie to yourself, but you can't lie to me about the issue. The banks fraudelently foreclosed on people. Later employees of some of the banks even blew the whistle on the operations.
Devil's a lie.
If you buy a $2,000 TV with a credit card and can't afford it, is that Best Buy's fault?
How out of touch are you if you think working people are spending up all their paychecks on stupid electronic upgrades.
Maybe in the burbs. Not in the country or the city.
Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth This Needs ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300
Do you find it difficult to type out that load of whiny, infantile pablum with Cherrios stuck to your fingers?
I think it's cut and paste. I've googled some of the phrases posted here and the exact same stuff pops up on other discussion forums. Verbatim. I haven't googled his yet, but I might.
This needs to change and some people do not see this as a problem . This right here is why republicans should never have a majority of any every again if they do they will own 60% to 70% of the wealth and US will be a third world country
Here is the reality for you:
Government policies effectively redistributed more than $2 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American society to the bottom 60 percent in 2012, according to a new study from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
The study tracked the beneficiaries of government spending programs largely paid for by taxpayers who are not very big beneficiaries of those programs.
Families in the top 1 percent shouldered nearly half of the more than$2 trillion that was redistributed last year.
Okay, so let me make sure I have this straight. The "vast majority" of wages have increased, but if you look at the average, they have remained stagnant. And this is because we are creating more and more low-wage jobs instead of paying better for these jobs. So essentially, an engineer now might be making a little more than he did in 1960. A secretary might be making a little more than she did in 1960. But the millions and millions of low-wage jobs and the majority of jobs being added today are very low wage, thus keeping the average down. HOW DOES THIS FIX ANYTHING??? It doesn't, and only a moron would believe that it does.
And to say this is "the best way" is not only supporting the problem, but advocating for it.
None of this explains why a mechanic in 1960 could probably support a family, yet a couple these days working in IT and medical writing can just afford rent and a little fun. Yeah, they have a shiny plastic phone that didn't exist in 1960, but a couple of toys doesn't replace what people could do in the 60s with a "normal" job. All of their gadgets added together these days probably costs the same as a TV of those days. Just think that the original Macintosh computer in 1984 in todays dollars cost half as much as a basic car. Having a cell phone nowadays is not some major increase in quality of life. Do you disagree? And by suggesting that it is, does that mean you support low wages since it's easier nowadays to buy a phone?
Keep in mind that a house in 1960 cost $12,700, or $95,000 in today's dollars. Where can you get a house in an average city not in the ghetto for $95,000? I think people would value that a lot more than a new iPhone.
No offense, but you are either slow or pulling an Obama by not being able to understand this simple concept.
Millions of low skill immigrants since the 1960s have entered the workforce. Millions of low skill women have entered the workforce since the 1960s. Low skill people means low wage jobs...as they cannot become doctors etc with low skills.
This has forced the average wage to remain stagnant...millions of low skill people flooding the economy for decades.
When you look at individuals...the vast majority of people including low skill people have seen their compensation BEAT inflation over the time period.
You are ridiculous to compare a 1960s home, which resembled a mass produced Levittown house and then compare it to a more expensive and more elaborate with more construction code McMansion of today. You are using dishonest comparisons...as per the typical liberal talking points in this regard.
Another FACT you chose to ignore: People are spending a smaller percentage of their income today on necessities, which includes housing and food than before...meaning they have more money for fringe things like iPhones.
Please read the link and questions if you do not understand. Then respond. READ and THINK.
huh...those posts aren't nearly as interesting when you remove the cut/paste pasta.
OK heres the reality that should disturb you then. that top 1 percent shouldered 1 trillion dollars in taxes.....at a effective rate of 20.6% (and the top 400 of that 1%? Their effective rate was 16.6%)
In other words the top 1% pull in approx 5 trillion dollars.....
That is the repulicans they want to cut regulations on everythinh and get rid of Medicare Medicare Social Security now that would make this country a third world country if they were to achieve all that
I haven't heard any Republicans argue for getting rid of Medicare or Social Security. Regardless of what one thinks of those programs, no one, let me repeat, NO ONE, is arguing for there elimination.
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.
By investing their money, buying company stock, or even depositing it in a bank, they are actually putting that money to work, because other people will borrow that money to spend, invest, ect...
Top 1 Percent Of Americans Owns 40 Percent Of The Nation’s Wealth This Needs ...
. This right here is why republicans should never have a majority of any every again if they do they will own 60% to 70% of the wealth and US will be a third world country
