Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Link? Proof?It does increase wealth for the 1% which is who runs the republican party,who pays for the republican party to exist so the republican party members can make sure the fed gov stays off their backs to pay a fair share of taxes,pay livable wages,and to keep jobs here. Granted the fed gov isn't doing a very good job of any of those either but its better to have them do SOMETHING than allow the 1% free reign over things.Yet, the right believes that Capitalism is what increases wealth for the People and not socialism.
There are more 1%ers that are Democrats than are Republicans.
first, do you even have a clue what year it is? and what is it that I specifically said about 1929 that is not true.Dude, what you believe was not even true in 1929. Why do you believe it could be more true now? It doesn't take hark work; merely a willingness to accomplish something that may be considered of value to others.Oh, I think you have it wrong.Thank you; but it is just the clueless and Causeless Right proving how lazy they are while complaining the least wealthy don't work hard enough.Why does the clueless and Causeless Right believe we even have Any socialism in public policies, if Capitalism did what is claimed by Capitalists who lie to their stockholders and cry Nanny(-State), please bail us wealthy Capitalists out with means tested corporate welfare and let us keep our multimillion dollar bonuses--oh, and by the way, it is a hard work ethic that is really important (for propaganda and rhetoric) for the least wealthy.
How much cognitive dissonance does the Right believe the left can handle before reallizing the Right is just full of fallacy and needs to get bailed out by logic and reason, like usual.
Congratulations!!!!!!
You have won today's - "Smoke and Mirror post of the day"
It takes a lot of imagination and willingness to post 50 plus words that doesn't address anything in the post...but looks like it does!!!
True, I say the least wealthy, the least wealthy of the working community, not the lazy welfare scum doing nothing, are guilty of not working hard enough.
The not hard enough part is a reference to personal growth, the did not work hard enough to give themselves a marketable advantage in the work force. (think education) Lord knows that because of this, they just may well be some of the hardest working people as far as physical labor goes that are out there. The do get the jobs that nobody wants, garbage men, digging ditches etc... not for the physically lazy.
Had they worked a bit harder in school, or even continued school while doing shit jobs (like I did) they would eventually find themselves on the upper end of the income bracket.
The lease wealthy work plenty hard to be poor. and I would agree that helping them with education costs would be a great way to spend my tax dollar.
the problem that the right/we speak of are those that do nothing, attempt nothing but stand at the mailbox each month waiting for their unearned check.
hope that clears it up a bit for you.
It is attitudes like that of the Right; that was maybe not even appropriate in the Iron Age that simply hinders progress while demonstrating the Right's lack of a clue and a Cause.
We could have solved simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment, yesterday; but for the cognitive dissonance of the Right and their willingness to blame the least wealthy for allegedly not working hard enough.
TY!!!!Link? Proof?It does increase wealth for the 1% which is who runs the republican party,who pays for the republican party to exist so the republican party members can make sure the fed gov stays off their backs to pay a fair share of taxes,pay livable wages,and to keep jobs here. Granted the fed gov isn't doing a very good job of any of those either but its better to have them do SOMETHING than allow the 1% free reign over things.Yet, the right believes that Capitalism is what increases wealth for the People and not socialism.
There are more 1%ers that are Democrats than are Republicans.
Happy to oblige.
"A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the riches families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent."
Economic Demographics of Democrats Liberals Politics Debt
sortaThat's the practical definition of class envy....I couldn't keep reading, all that whiny crybaby bullshit that someone else cookie is bigger
You're ignorance and stewpuddy is shocking.You mean like how the right envies the least wealthy and their low tax burden while not even having to lobby Congress for tax loopholes large enough to drive a yacht through. Whiners.That's the practical definition of class envy....I couldn't keep reading, all that whiny crybaby bullshit that someone else cookie is bigger
Socially lazy means just making stuff up for your stockholders instead of learning more about the issues and having a rational argument that does not include fallacies since they are errors in reasoning.
Only the Right claims they are not mere cronies under our form of capitalism; but gainsay their propaganda and rhetoric by being too lazy to work hard to acquire and possess valid arguments.
I guess the Right likes to socialize their work ethic by telling the least wealthy they are too lazy.
Why do you have nothing but the laziness of fallacy instead of better arguments? Is it easier to tell the least wealthy to work harder than to work harder yourself for a better argument.Why are you such a whiner?The expression, "Income Inequality" is a vacuous catch-phrase masquerading as an insight (like "social justice").
Just like fair tax under any form of Capitalism but not Socialism.
Simply learning and working at one's ease and convenience and not working hard, can accomplish similar results in modern times. How many Americans work as hard as third worlders in the US, yet are not poorer than those that work harder.first, do you even have a clue what year it is? and what is it that I specifically said about 1929 that is not true.Dude, what you believe was not even true in 1929. Why do you believe it could be more true now? It doesn't take hark work; merely a willingness to accomplish something that may be considered of value to others.Oh, I think you have it wrong.Thank you; but it is just the clueless and Causeless Right proving how lazy they are while complaining the least wealthy don't work hard enough.Why does the clueless and Causeless Right believe we even have Any socialism in public policies, if Capitalism did what is claimed by Capitalists who lie to their stockholders and cry Nanny(-State), please bail us wealthy Capitalists out with means tested corporate welfare and let us keep our multimillion dollar bonuses--oh, and by the way, it is a hard work ethic that is really important (for propaganda and rhetoric) for the least wealthy.
How much cognitive dissonance does the Right believe the left can handle before reallizing the Right is just full of fallacy and needs to get bailed out by logic and reason, like usual.
Congratulations!!!!!!
You have won today's - "Smoke and Mirror post of the day"
It takes a lot of imagination and willingness to post 50 plus words that doesn't address anything in the post...but looks like it does!!!
True, I say the least wealthy, the least wealthy of the working community, not the lazy welfare scum doing nothing, are guilty of not working hard enough.
The not hard enough part is a reference to personal growth, the did not work hard enough to give themselves a marketable advantage in the work force. (think education) Lord knows that because of this, they just may well be some of the hardest working people as far as physical labor goes that are out there. The do get the jobs that nobody wants, garbage men, digging ditches etc... not for the physically lazy.
Had they worked a bit harder in school, or even continued school while doing shit jobs (like I did) they would eventually find themselves on the upper end of the income bracket.
The lease wealthy work plenty hard to be poor. and I would agree that helping them with education costs would be a great way to spend my tax dollar.
the problem that the right/we speak of are those that do nothing, attempt nothing but stand at the mailbox each month waiting for their unearned check.
hope that clears it up a bit for you.
It is attitudes like that of the Right; that was maybe not even appropriate in the Iron Age that simply hinders progress while demonstrating the Right's lack of a clue and a Cause.
We could have solved simple poverty and a natural rate of unemployment, yesterday; but for the cognitive dissonance of the Right and their willingness to blame the least wealthy for allegedly not working hard enough.
as far as today, yes what I said is true. You go nowhere without an education.
so tell me, how could we end poverty right now, without educating the poor.
Of course, the last thing the left wants is an educated voter base, the shif from democrat to conservative (did not say republican) would be too great for them to ever win another election.
Not at all; what I said is true. You mean like how the right envies the least wealthy and their low tax burden while not even having to lobby Congress for tax loopholes large enough to drive a yacht through. Whiners.You're ignorance and stewpuddy is shocking.You mean like how the right envies the least wealthy and their low tax burden while not even having to lobby Congress for tax loopholes large enough to drive a yacht through. Whiners.That's the practical definition of class envy....I couldn't keep reading, all that whiny crybaby bullshit that someone else cookie is bigger
You can't see the difference?
I work for more and get punished with more taxes
I work less and get rewarded with free stuff
YOU are what is wrong with leftism
You are confused about what I feel a sense of entitlement about. It is this:Why do you have nothing but the laziness of fallacy instead of better arguments? Is it easier to tell the least wealthy to work harder than to work harder yourself for a better argument.Why are you such a whiner?The expression, "Income Inequality" is a vacuous catch-phrase masquerading as an insight (like "social justice").
Just like fair tax under any form of Capitalism but not Socialism.
Why do you have such an entitlement attitude?
Have your parents cut you off from your allowance?
You are confused about what I feel a sense of entitlement about. It is this:Why do you have nothing but the laziness of fallacy instead of better arguments? Is it easier to tell the least wealthy to work harder than to work harder yourself for a better argument.Why are you such a whiner?The expression, "Income Inequality" is a vacuous catch-phrase masquerading as an insight (like "social justice").
Just like fair tax under any form of Capitalism but not Socialism.
Why do you have such an entitlement attitude?
Have your parents cut you off from your allowance?
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
You mean like FDR's brand of socialism or alleged conservatives (whom the right mistakes as progressive).Soul-crushing fact on income inequality:
it's grown to record levels under Progressive governance
Soul-crushing fact on income inequality:
it's grown to record levels under Progressive governance
I am not sure why you believe that. The lowest unemployment rate in around a generation and wages outpacing inflation means we didn't have to listen to the clueless and Causeless right complain about social spending.Soul-crushing fact on income inequality:
it's grown to record levels under Progressive governance
I will go one step further, there is no President more personally responsible for the rise of income inequality than Bill Clinton.
We can point the finger at the other side all we want but in the end we have to make decisions that actually address the issue and are not just about scoring political points. Everyone knows that our trade relationship with China is broken. Lets talk about it. Everyone knows income inequality is growing due to macro economic trends like the trade deficit. So why do we still have Presidential candidates running on platforms that blame the poor and ask that we funnel more money towards "job creators?"
I am not sure why you believe that. The lowest unemployment rate in around a generation and wages outpacing inflation means we didn't have to listen to the clueless and Causeless right complain about social spending.Soul-crushing fact on income inequality:
it's grown to record levels under Progressive governance
I will go one step further, there is no President more personally responsible for the rise of income inequality than Bill Clinton.
We can point the finger at the other side all we want but in the end we have to make decisions that actually address the issue and are not just about scoring political points. Everyone knows that our trade relationship with China is broken. Lets talk about it. Everyone knows income inequality is growing due to macro economic trends like the trade deficit. So why do we still have Presidential candidates running on platforms that blame the poor and ask that we funnel more money towards "job creators?"
We had massive budget surpluses under that democrat administration but not either republican administration , before or long after; even with an Ivy League, MBA with plenty surpluses to work with on the Capital Right, as that "initial capitalization".I am not sure why you believe that. The lowest unemployment rate in around a generation and wages outpacing inflation means we didn't have to listen to the clueless and Causeless right complain about social spending.Soul-crushing fact on income inequality:
it's grown to record levels under Progressive governance
I will go one step further, there is no President more personally responsible for the rise of income inequality than Bill Clinton.
We can point the finger at the other side all we want but in the end we have to make decisions that actually address the issue and are not just about scoring political points. Everyone knows that our trade relationship with China is broken. Lets talk about it. Everyone knows income inequality is growing due to macro economic trends like the trade deficit. So why do we still have Presidential candidates running on platforms that blame the poor and ask that we funnel more money towards "job creators?"
Economic impact is tied to decisions not time in office. The biggest single factor impacting our wage issues today and into the future is trade with China.
My point wasn't about calling Clinton a bad President or even question the decision to normalize trade with China. That was the correct decision but it had a major consequence and now we have to adapt. Adaptation starts with talking about the right things and not hiding from the decisions that were made.
We had massive budget surpluses under that democrat administration but not either republican administration , before or long after; even with an Ivy League, MBA with plenty surpluses to work with on the Capital Right, as that "initial capitalization".I am not sure why you believe that. The lowest unemployment rate in around a generation and wages outpacing inflation means we didn't have to listen to the clueless and Causeless right complain about social spending.Soul-crushing fact on income inequality:
it's grown to record levels under Progressive governance
I will go one step further, there is no President more personally responsible for the rise of income inequality than Bill Clinton.
We can point the finger at the other side all we want but in the end we have to make decisions that actually address the issue and are not just about scoring political points. Everyone knows that our trade relationship with China is broken. Lets talk about it. Everyone knows income inequality is growing due to macro economic trends like the trade deficit. So why do we still have Presidential candidates running on platforms that blame the poor and ask that we funnel more money towards "job creators?"
Economic impact is tied to decisions not time in office. The biggest single factor impacting our wage issues today and into the future is trade with China.
My point wasn't about calling Clinton a bad President or even question the decision to normalize trade with China. That was the correct decision but it had a major consequence and now we have to adapt. Adaptation starts with talking about the right things and not hiding from the decisions that were made.
Doesn't that mean those economic decisions and impact were valid for that office holder at that time?
Moral examples?Not at all; what I said is true. You mean like how the right envies the least wealthy and their low tax burden while not even having to lobby Congress for tax loopholes large enough to drive a yacht through. Whiners.You're ignorance and stewpuddy is shocking.You mean like how the right envies the least wealthy and their low tax burden while not even having to lobby Congress for tax loopholes large enough to drive a yacht through. Whiners.That's the practical definition of class envy....I couldn't keep reading, all that whiny crybaby bullshit that someone else cookie is bigger
You can't see the difference?
I work for more and get punished with more taxes
I work less and get rewarded with free stuff
YOU are what is wrong with leftism
The one percent is wealthy from unearned income.
The right is just clueless and Causeless and has nothing but fallacy to work with.
Only the hypocritical, lazy, clueless, and Causeless Right has a problem with paying taxes for others, the way Jesus the Christ socialized your sins and paid them for you.
The Right can't even follow moral examples in modern times; how lazy is that.
