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 party is interested in "helping" anyone but the people who pay to keep them in power.
Lefties are told that their side are against the "rich" and for the "poor", but their only goal is to create the illusion of unfairness, and about creating equal opportunities for all......without ever letting people know that the power is within you to make the changes that will improve your life. That allows them to keep power over you.
Righties are told that their side will stop government wasteful spending, government overreach and obscene regulations, but again, these things have continued to grow. It's all about power.
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
"Top 1% owns 40% of the nation's wealth?"
Huh?
Someone isn't aware that "wealth" isn't a big ol' static pie that gets divided into portions and doled out like a budget would. It's ever-changing, depending on what's produced or...[gasp!] earned.
The article claims that the "share of the national income pool" of the richest 1% of Americans has trippled since 1976 to almost one quarter of this "pool"
Questions: What is this "national income pool?" Where does it come from? How is it created?
The article claims that the top 1% of Americans own half the country's stock, bonds and mutual funds.
Question: Since they make these investments with their own money, which they earned, why is this a problem?
The article says that the top 1% have only 5% of the nation's personal debt.
Questions: Is this not a result of wise money management? Should they be slaves to debt? Or isn't it smarter to stay out of debt?
What constitutes "the national income?"
It would seem that the writer is clueless about wealth creation and good money management, and also clueless as to what it means to invest.
Clearly, this person sees some giant pool of money (somewhere) which is somehow, magically gathered up by devious means, by those "at the top."
Ask yourself: Who creates this "pool of income?"
I can anticipate the answer: "The 'workers.'"
This is "collectivist" nonsense. How many times must communism be defeated? Elizabeth Warren must love this blog.
A lot of the decisions companies make are based on the stock market and what the large shareholders want. So if if the top 1 percent control most of the stock market then any decision made is going to be more for their benefit than anything, not the people that are actually working for the company. This is what Michael Moore is referring to when he's talking about wanting more democracy within companies. If 2,000 people get laid off just so a few fat cats can get fatter that is damaging to the country.
A lot of the decisions companies make are based on the stock market and what the large shareholders want. So if if the top 1 percent control most of the stock market then any decision made is going to be more for their benefit than anything, not the people that are actually working for the company. This is what Michael Moore is referring to when he's talking about wanting more democracy within companies.
Maybe you should ask Michael Moore about why he is part of the 1%. Moore just wants more of your money.
Tough. Your attempt to rationalize your preference using the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle won't fly. People aren't stupid. Reducing the negative effects of poverty has value, even if it doesn't eliminate poverty itself.
Furthermore, yes, the poor are better off now than they were when Republicans ran government. And now that Republican hold Congress, they are invariably going to make things worse for the poor, because the right-wing perspective is intent on placing the comfort and luxury of some over the basic needs of those less fortunate. Just look at the first month of the GOP-controlled Congress. A tax credit for those seeking to educate themselves to better compete in the cut-throat labor marketplace that right-wingers have cultivated over the last thirty five years? Kill it! Giving the FCC the power it needs to reign in unchecked rapacious business by Comcast? Kill it! And right-wingers grabbed at the opportunity to pit pensioners against the disabled, so that they'd hold each other responsible for the regression that the GOP wants to bring about instead of blaming the real culprits, the right-wing.
Now self-motivated right-wingers apparently going to try to repeal ACA sending poor people back to the streets to live sickly, miserable lives. Most right-wingers support that because they are simply uncaring people and show a callous disregard for those less fortunate, but from some of the rhetoric I've seen posted by right-wingers online there are quite a few right-wingers who support this because they want to see poor people miserable - because they want lack of financial success to result in physical harm.
STOP making up ridiculous dodges for the righteous condemnation of the turpitude underlying right-wing perspective.
The poor are not better off know. We have more people unemployed and on welfare , so how can you say they are better off now?
You seem willing to post anything just to defend a corrupt perspective that you prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hannaranch
We have more people unemployed and on welfare , so how can you say they are better off now?
Unemployment is the lowest it has been since President Obama took office - even lower than it was prior to the fiscal crisis precipitated by the previous administration. The most recent reported monthly unemployment rate was 5.6 percent for December 2014. The last time it was that low was in June 2008. This administration took office in January 2009. You are simply ill-informed, or politically motivated to post information you know is false.
You seem willing to post anything just to defend a corrupt perspective that you prefer.
Unemployment is the lowest it has been since President Obama took office - even lower than it was prior to the fiscal crisis precipitated by the previous administration. The most recent reported monthly unemployment rate was 5.6 percent for December 2014. The last time it was that low was in June 2008. This administration took office in January 2009. You are simply ill-informed, or politically motivated to post information you know is false.
Are you clicking your Ruby slippers together when you're posting this BS?
Ah... the ol' "information is bad" approach to supporting your political perspective. How's that kind of denial been working out for you?
Talk to your friends and neighbors. That's where the real information about the economy lies.
BTW....please post when the government rolls back welfare, unemployment and food stamp benefits.
Leftie have posts every day about the evil GOP governors trying to be fiscally responsible by kicking some off, but then they'll scream how great the economy is on another post.
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.
. 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
