1% Of America Has 40% Of America's Wealth~ (Magna Carta? Robin Hood?)

[AntiParty]

The instant you get on topic, you will learn politics KIDDO.

Tell you what bucko. I'm off to get some work done but any time you want to debate a subject step right up.

Funny how I directly forced a debate with you and you used "Flight" instead of "Fight". Your Avatar makes sense now. My debate could not have been more direct.

You have NEVER won a debate against me, you have never even anywhere near it in ANY of the Forums we've been on. Never one topic, ever. I challenged you to a debate on this topic and you RAN directly after.

You have NEVER been good at politics, only one liner insults like a 7 year old. "You are stupid" isn't a good political debate kiddo. If you can't focus on topics and only rely on insults, this isn't the place for you.

Your arguments are one dimensional. You're no better than culty claiming victory whenever you get backed into a corner. All of you are delusional silly people who think you're so smart but then can't deliver.

Typical.

I'll agree that my arguments are one dimensional because I dumb down my politics to speak to people like you. Funny thing is, you still have no debate. I'm obviously always fishing for you to learn, yet YOU never do. Lot's do, not you. The fact that you can't debate my one dimensional posts makes me angry because my brain has 3D topics and some will say beyond.

Just debate me on grade school topics and I'll teach you............baby steps.

 

[westwall]

The instant you get on topic, you will learn politics KIDDO.

Tell you what bucko. I'm off to get some work done but any time you want to debate a subject step right up.

Funny how I directly forced a debate with you and you used "Flight" instead of "Fight". Your Avatar makes sense now. My debate could not have been more direct.

You have NEVER won a debate against me, you have never even anywhere near it in ANY of the Forums we've been on. Never one topic, ever. I challenged you to a debate on this topic and you RAN directly after.

You have NEVER been good at politics, only one liner insults like a 7 year old. "You are stupid" isn't a good political debate kiddo. If you can't focus on topics and only rely on insults, this isn't the place for you.

Your arguments are one dimensional. You're no better than culty claiming victory whenever you get backed into a corner. All of you are delusional silly people who think you're so smart but then can't deliver.

Typical.

I'll agree that my arguments are one dimensional because I dumb down my politics to speak to people like you. Funny thing is, you still have no debate. I'm obviously always fishing for you to learn, yet YOU never do. Lot's do, not you. The fact that you can't debate my one dimensional posts makes me angry because my brain has 3D topics and some will say beyond.

Just debate me on grade school topics and I'll teach you............baby steps.

No lets debate something real. You claim to be so smart pick a subject.

 

[AntiParty]

And your progressives plan takes the money away from the rich and gives it to the government to squander on pet projects supported by the political party who happens to be in power. The 99 percenters are still screwed, but now they're double screwed because now they can't even get a good paying job to get off the public teat.

You guys are all the same, big, overpowering government ad destroy the middle class while creating it.

No, you guys are all the same. If in a few years the extremely wealthy have 80% of the wealth instead of 40%, you'll think it's ok, and will defend to death their march towards having 90%. In the meantime, the problem with the country is poor people on food stamps. Let them dumpster dive.

In 1932 2% of this country's population controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Democrats took control of both Houses for 40 continuous years. They also held the Presidency for the majority of that time as well. What was the result of all of that power? 1% now controls 90% (according to an economic report commissioned by Bill Clinton). So, who were the progressives working for? Because it certainly doesn't look like they were working for the 99 percenters. Does it.

Facts bitch slap you every time junior. You all think your so smart, so with it. My grandfather was a high ranker in the American Communist Party and was a real bastard. I learned the progressive playbook from him. You guys are nothing, and know so very little it is embarrassing. You're like the occupiers who were reduced to shitting in the street because you were too stupid to go find a toilet.

" Democrats took control of both Houses for 40 continuous years" So you are stating that 2014's problems are because of a time gap that ended in 1970? Do you understand that when someone is granted too much power they begin to be the target for corrupt organizations that want to use it for themselves? I won't do your homework but 40 years in power post Depression! You do realize history repeats itself correct? No party should have power for that long, it can never be good.

But this is why I fight for basic principles and not parties. If BASIC PRINCIPLES were fought for back then, the Democrats wouldn't have got 40 years of power...........(R)ight?

 

[Spare_change]

1% Of America Has 40% Of America's Wealth~ Discuss



There was a reason we made laws against Monopolies (The Anti-Trust Laws) that aren't working today....

There is a reason Magna Carta became a law (this was LONG before the USA and we still struggle with the concept?)

Robin Hood? Take from the greedy rich and give to the needy........Uh oh. Seems History repeats itself.

Last year some CEO's made 331 times more money than the AVERAGE worker. Is that CEO working 331 times as hard?

Corporate profits just hit ANOTHER all time high while workers wages hit ANOTHER all time low
Profits At High Wages At Low - Business Insider

It's the same debate that has been had since at least 1215..........So it's clear some will not learn

Let me help you ---- there are two inherent flaws in your logic.

"CEO's made 331 times more money than the AVERAGE worker. Is that CEO working 331 times as hard?"

Compensation has nothing - zilch-nada-zero - to do with how hard you work. It has EVERYTHING to do with what you produce. CEOs produce 331 times more than the average worker.

The second flaw?

"Corporate profits just hit ANOTHER all time high while workers wages hit ANOTHER all time low"

Where do 'corporate profits' go? Most companies are publicly owned - your 401(k) owns part of those companies. Shareholders, mutual funds, investors, schools, communities - all of those get those horrid 'corporate profits'. Are you proposing they give that up so that you can get a higher wage?

 

[AntiParty]

And your progressives plan takes the money away from the rich and gives it to the government to squander on pet projects supported by the political party who happens to be in power. The 99 percenters are still screwed, but now they're double screwed because now they can't even get a good paying job to get off the public teat.

You guys are all the same, big, overpowering government ad destroy the middle class while creating it.

No, you guys are all the same. If in a few years the extremely wealthy have 80% of the wealth instead of 40%, you'll think it's ok, and will defend to death their march towards having 90%. In the meantime, the problem with the country is poor people on food stamps. Let them dumpster dive.

In 1932 2% of this country's population controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Democrats took control of both Houses for 40 continuous years. They also held the Presidency for the majority of that time as well. What was the result of all of that power? 1% now controls 90% (according to an economic report commissioned by Bill Clinton). So, who were the progressives working for? Because it certainly doesn't look like they were working for the 99 percenters. Does it.

Facts bitch slap you every time junior. You all think your so smart, so with it. My grandfather was a high ranker in the American Communist Party and was a real bastard. I learned the progressive playbook from him. You guys are nothing, and know so very little it is embarrassing. You're like the occupiers who were reduced to shitting in the street because you were too stupid to go find a toilet.

"My grandfather was a high ranker in the American Communist Party and was a real bastard. I learned the progressive playbook from him"

Awesome post kid. You see a direct line between the Progressive Party and Communism and want to hate Progressives because your grandfather was a "real bastard".

There is basically no relation in politics kid. Thanks for exposing your flaw.

You don't know the difference between Democrat, Green, Progressive, Socialist or Communist do you? LOL! You just know you hated your grandpa well guess what........

I have a family full of bigots. I was raised Christian and didn't understand their hatred. My Family stated they were Christians but were and still are openly bigots who hate blacks and gays.

They are all Republicans. But I won't profile Republicans as the way my family believes. Again the term AMERICA needs to learn is PROFILING!

Republicans have the best core structure in my opinion but they are so out of touch today even a blind man can SEE it.

You note that I believe in Progress, YEP. Do you? This doesn't mean I'm a progressive kid. Welcome to politics...

 

[AntiParty]

And your progressives plan takes the money away from the rich and gives it to the government to squander on pet projects supported by the political party who happens to be in power. The 99 percenters are still screwed, but now they're double screwed because now they can't even get a good paying job to get off the public teat.

You guys are all the same, big, overpowering government ad destroy the middle class while creating it.

No, you guys are all the same. If in a few years the extremely wealthy have 80% of the wealth instead of 40%, you'll think it's ok, and will defend to death their march towards having 90%. In the meantime, the problem with the country is poor people on food stamps. Let them dumpster dive.

In 1932 2% of this country's population controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Democrats took control of both Houses for 40 continuous years. They also held the Presidency for the majority of that time as well. What was the result of all of that power? 1% now controls 90% (according to an economic report commissioned by Bill Clinton). So, who were the progressives working for? Because it certainly doesn't look like they were working for the 99 percenters. Does it.

Facts bitch slap you every time junior. You all think your so smart, so with it. My grandfather was a high ranker in the American Communist Party and was a real bastard. I learned the progressive playbook from him. You guys are nothing, and know so very little it is embarrassing. You're like the occupiers who were reduced to shitting in the street because you were too stupid to go find a toilet.

I think people have bastardized the saying ... "The rich keep getting richer".

Somewhere down the line someone thought that idea was up for discussion. The simple idea that people with resources and investment capital won't continue to increase their wealth is stupid.

Now I understand that doesn't mean that everyone gains from wealth at the same level ... And the more you have the more you gain (compounded by overall asset and resource investment). What I think others are trying to express is that it is reasonable for people who have nothing (or little), save nothing (or little), invest nothing (or little) ... Are somehow expected to achieve wealth beyond their means, ability and activities.

The poor aren't getting poorer ... They earn more than they ever have before albeit not as much more as their counterparts at the top. But they never invested the same capital in the same system in the same manner as the people they would like to compare their gains to.

You will never win the lottery if you never buy a ticket.

.

And you are just another tool that says this all the way to the Depression then says............"Wait a minute................."

The poor got poorer when we cut food stamps kiddo.

The reason is a different debate, but your debate is flawed.

 

[AntiParty]

[.

Unions today are at about 6%. The last time Unions were that low, we had a Great Depression.
.

typical brainless liberal! Union wages raise prices, no net gain is possible, and union wages shipped about 30 million jobs off shore.

Do you understand?

The cost of unnecessary war is greater than the cost of unnecessary food stamps.

probably not since there is no end to the crippling welfare liberals will dole out to buy votes

So you admit you have never looked into how many people actually commit welfare fraud.....you just assume it costs less than Unnecessary war........

Even if you have a day 1 perspective you can look at the numbers kiddo. Welfare IS MUCH lower than Unnecessary war. Unless you are an extremeist who thinks Education and Social Security is Welfare like this last generation. Not only misunderstanding what welfare is but what "Entitlement" programs are is how prehistoric some of our society is these days.

there is no end to the crippling welfare entitlements liberals will dole out to buy votes.

Do you understand? Obama took over when govt was bigger than ever and yet he had only one idea, namely, to make it far biogger still bigger. This is the libcommie way?

NOw do you understand?

^Holy crap this kid thinks Unions outsourced.......Never even attempted to read NAFTA did you kid?

The reason America, the college educated , the laborers aren't working is because we shipped FACTORIES oversea's via NAFTA.

Factories held positions for all levels.

It's your turn to think and stop repeating.

 

[AntiParty]

More than 50% of the land in the western U.S. is owned by the Federal Government. That's a bigger problem than people earning and keeping their own money.

Weird. When we took the land from the Indians it was 100%. In fact I have a book from 1900 that states the Government owns all the land.

Do you call this Progress? Or do you call this lack of History education on your part?

 

[Jackinthebox]

 

[AntiParty]

The instant you get on topic, you will learn politics KIDDO.

Tell you what bucko. I'm off to get some work done but any time you want to debate a subject step right up.

Funny how I directly forced a debate with you and you used "Flight" instead of "Fight". Your Avatar makes sense now. My debate could not have been more direct.

You have NEVER won a debate against me, you have never even anywhere near it in ANY of the Forums we've been on. Never one topic, ever. I challenged you to a debate on this topic and you RAN directly after.

You have NEVER been good at politics, only one liner insults like a 7 year old. "You are stupid" isn't a good political debate kiddo. If you can't focus on topics and only rely on insults, this isn't the place for you.

Your arguments are one dimensional. You're no better than culty claiming victory whenever you get backed into a corner. All of you are delusional silly people who think you're so smart but then can't deliver.

Typical.

I'll agree that my arguments are one dimensional because I dumb down my politics to speak to people like you. Funny thing is, you still have no debate. I'm obviously always fishing for you to learn, yet YOU never do. Lot's do, not you. The fact that you can't debate my one dimensional posts makes me angry because my brain has 3D topics and some will say beyond.

Just debate me on grade school topics and I'll teach you............baby steps.

No lets debate something real. You claim to be so smart pick a subject.

So again you favor the concept of "You are stupid" instead of talking about the actual OP and use Political Debate..........

Funny thing is you just ignore all politics until it's about guns and I STILL own you on the debate because you STILL have the very same argument, "you are dumb".

 

[Jackinthebox]

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker. -Source

Based on consumption growth since 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be $25.05 to represent the same share of the country's total consumption. Based on national income growth, the minimum wage should be $22.08. Based on personal income growth, it should be $21.16. -Source

After adjusting for inflation, minimum wage workers today are paid about 26 percent less than they were in 1974.

At the top 1 percent of the American income distribution, average incomes rose 194 percent between 1974 and 2011. Had U.S. minimum wages risen at the same pace as U.S. maximum wages, the minimum wage would now be $26.96 an hour. -Source

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

 

[AntiParty]

The instant you get on topic, you will learn politics KIDDO.

Tell you what bucko. I'm off to get some work done but any time you want to debate a subject step right up.

Funny how I directly forced a debate with you and you used "Flight" instead of "Fight". Your Avatar makes sense now. My debate could not have been more direct.

You have NEVER won a debate against me, you have never even anywhere near it in ANY of the Forums we've been on. Never one topic, ever. I challenged you to a debate on this topic and you RAN directly after.

You have NEVER been good at politics, only one liner insults like a 7 year old. "You are stupid" isn't a good political debate kiddo. If you can't focus on topics and only rely on insults, this isn't the place for you.

THE SUBJECT WAS THE OP KID!




Your arguments are one dimensional. You're no better than culty claiming victory whenever you get backed into a corner. All of you are delusional silly people who think you're so smart but then can't deliver.

Typical.

I'll agree that my arguments are one dimensional because I dumb down my politics to speak to people like you. Funny thing is, you still have no debate. I'm obviously always fishing for you to learn, yet YOU never do. Lot's do, not you. The fact that you can't debate my one dimensional posts makes me angry because my brain has 3D topics and some will say beyond.

Just debate me on grade school topics and I'll teach you............baby steps.

No lets debate something real. You claim to be so smart pick a subject.

 

[AntiParty]

The instant you get on topic, you will learn politics KIDDO.

Tell you what bucko. I'm off to get some work done but any time you want to debate a subject step right up.

Funny how I directly forced a debate with you and you used "Flight" instead of "Fight". Your Avatar makes sense now. My debate could not have been more direct.

You have NEVER won a debate against me, you have never even anywhere near it in ANY of the Forums we've been on. Never one topic, ever. I challenged you to a debate on this topic and you RAN directly after.

You have NEVER been good at politics, only one liner insults like a 7 year old. "You are stupid" isn't a good political debate kiddo. If you can't focus on topics and only rely on insults, this isn't the place for you.

Your arguments are one dimensional. You're no better than culty claiming victory whenever you get backed into a corner. All of you are delusional silly people who think you're so smart but then can't deliver.

Typical.

I'll agree that my arguments are one dimensional because I dumb down my politics to speak to people like you. Funny thing is, you still have no debate. I'm obviously always fishing for you to learn, yet YOU never do. Lot's do, not you. The fact that you can't debate my one dimensional posts makes me angry because my brain has 3D topics and some will say beyond.

Just debate me on grade school topics and I'll teach you............baby steps.

No lets debate something real. You claim to be so smart pick a subject.

THE SUBJECT IS THE OP KID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WELCOME!.............73 POSTS LATER.

 

[AntiParty]

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker. -Source

Based on consumption growth since 1968, the minimum wage today would have to be $25.05 to represent the same share of the country's total consumption. Based on national income growth, the minimum wage should be $22.08. Based on personal income growth, it should be $21.16. -Source

After adjusting for inflation, minimum wage workers today are paid about 26 percent less than they were in 1974.

At the top 1 percent of the American income distribution, average incomes rose 194 percent between 1974 and 2011. Had U.S. minimum wages risen at the same pace as U.S. maximum wages, the minimum wage would now be $26.96 an hour. -Source

Read more: Analyzing a Practical Minimum Wage Minimum Wage Workers Union of America

Some people can't read past a Title dude..........'Merica....

All that information.....better dumb it down........I had to........still isn't working

 

[Jackinthebox]

I actually started a thread quoting that info. Uphill battle for sure, lol.

EDIT to add: Analyzing a Practical Min Wage the thread is titled.

 

[Jackinthebox]

I really like that video too, BTW, OP. I have seen it many times, but I often share it in discussions. Mind boggling how screwed the American people are economically. Even more mind boggling is the number of people who actually come out to argue against their own interests and support getting screwed.

 

[AntiParty]

I STILL can't get ove rW

I actually started a thread quoting that info. Uphill battle for sure, lol.

EDIT to add: Analyzing a Practical Min Wage the thread is titled.

Well Libertarians and Tea Party want NO minimum wage so you excluded them right away. They will call you a Liberal and stupid before they even read the thread based on title alone. (Yes, they want to turn back time because they don't know History)

 

[AntiParty]

I really like that video too, BTW, OP. I have seen it many times, but I often share it in discussions. Mind boggling how screwed the American people are economically. Even more mind boggling is the number of people who actually come out to argue against their own interests and support getting screwed.

MOST of the people that argue with that video are poor. They are still ignorant about Reagonomics. They think they are poor because Industry has to make more so they make more. They don't understand Industry is keeping the profit and not paying the team.

 

[Spare_change]

Tell you what bucko. I'm off to get some work done but any time you want to debate a subject step right up.

Funny how I directly forced a debate with you and you used "Flight" instead of "Fight". Your Avatar makes sense now. My debate could not have been more direct.

You have NEVER won a debate against me, you have never even anywhere near it in ANY of the Forums we've been on. Never one topic, ever. I challenged you to a debate on this topic and you RAN directly after.

You have NEVER been good at politics, only one liner insults like a 7 year old. "You are stupid" isn't a good political debate kiddo. If you can't focus on topics and only rely on insults, this isn't the place for you.

Your arguments are one dimensional. You're no better than culty claiming victory whenever you get backed into a corner. All of you are delusional silly people who think you're so smart but then can't deliver.

Typical.

I'll agree that my arguments are one dimensional because I dumb down my politics to speak to people like you. Funny thing is, you still have no debate. I'm obviously always fishing for you to learn, yet YOU never do. Lot's do, not you. The fact that you can't debate my one dimensional posts makes me angry because my brain has 3D topics and some will say beyond.

Just debate me on grade school topics and I'll teach you............baby steps.

No lets debate something real. You claim to be so smart pick a subject.

THE SUBJECT IS THE OP KID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WELCOME!.............73 POSTS LATER.

I've noticed that you don't debate - you harangue, you abuse, and you overwhelm - not with logic, but with arrogance.

I also notice that the flaws in your position were pointed out in Post #64, and you have studiously avoided responding. Perhaps, you have no answer?

Tell you what - I am everything you detest. Why don't you and I debate? No name calling, no attacks, just honest debate. I would truly welcome the opportunity to show you how wrong you are.

 

[Jackinthebox]

I STILL can't get ove rW

I actually started a thread quoting that info. Uphill battle for sure, lol.

EDIT to add: Analyzing a Practical Min Wage the thread is titled.

Well Libertarians and Tea Party want NO minimum wage so you excluded them right away. They will call you a Liberal and stupid before they even read the thread based on title alone. (Yes, they want to turn back time because they don't know History)

Yup. And my primary reason for supporting a min wage is actually the OPPOSITE of liberalism. I don't believe we should be using socialized labor for private industry. It is unsound economics. Bad for the economy, and bad for small business. The only winners when wages are low are the one percent crowd.

Any small business owner worth his salt knows that putting more money in the pockets of workers, across the board, will mean more customers and more spending. I would gladly take the hit to double my payroll in order to get more customers in the door. More customers, more spending, would easily cover the increased labor cost. Not to mention it would also eliminate welfare.