400 Americans

[orogenicman]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

Hey Mr. Lyndon Johnson, since your war on poverty was designed to rid us of hunger and alleviate suffering, when are those trillions spent in the last 50 years going to do the job? Why do we still have the same percentage in poverty today as we had before that money was spent to "defeat" it?

Where would all those people be today had that money not been spent? Would you have rather that it had been spent killing Arabs in Iraq, or feeding and housing our own people?

Actually, I would have preferred the money be used to create a viable work force, an educated work force. Instead, it was used to buy votes ("those ni&&ers will vote Democrat for the next 200 years). We didn't help the poor - we created a permanent under-class, unarmed to compete in the world today, and unwilling to try to break the bonds that hold them down.

Compete against who? With what? The rich have taken all the money invested it overseas. What resources do you suppose the poor have in order to "break the bonds"?

 

[The Rabbi]

OK....
What does that have to do with anything -I- said?

Walmart is one of the largest employers in the country, and it makes a crapload of money off the backs of its workers while they languish at the low end of the wage scale. It is a disgrace.

Walmart provides more jobs to low-skilled workers than any other company. They languish at the low end of the wage scale, because that's where their abilities lie. Walmart has simply figured out a way to employ them, and make money doing it.

You're just jealous.

Bullshit. That simply isn't true. Walmart employees have a wide range of technical skills. But many have had to settle for the jobs they can get because that is what (barely) puts food on the table.

I went through the check out line the other day and heard them discussing medieval French literature and nuclear power patents.

Gee, how obtuse you are. And how many jobs in medieval French literature and nuclear power would you say there are?

Clearly none. No one in this country works in nuclear power or in teaching French. Those jobs were all outsourced to China years ago.

 

[Spare_change]

No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.

People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability

It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages. It's bullshit. If you are an employer paying minimum wage to the bulk of your work force, and have a 15% profit margin, then it is clear that those employees have value in the company. The company, in fact, would not exist without them. The fact that so many high paying jobs have been lost means that many people are now relying utterly on these lower paying jobs, a huge proportion of the work force, in fact. And so, what has happened is that the corporations have pulled the rug from underneath the middle class in this country. Ordinary people are working hard than ever for less pay, and factoring in inflation, it means they are riding a sinking boat. Thank you Ronnie Raygun.

Know any company paying minimum wage to the 'bulk of its work force'?

Me either.

Yes I do. I've already said. Keep up.

No, actually, you haven't - you've launched ad hominem attacks, but you haven't produced any facts.

Yes, I actually have. And excuse me but what is this forum but one giant ad hominem attack?

I would hope that most members can produce facts that back up their suppositions - though, frankly, in my limited experience, I haven't seen much of that from our liberal/leftist participants. It's easy to throw up an emotional argument, and then supposedly cite examples - all without provide justification or facts. Actually, now that I think about it - that makes me want to throw up, too.

 

[Conservative65]

Hey Mssrs. Clinton and Obama...

Your insipid post implies that these "400 Americans" have somehow stolen their wealth from half the population of the United States. Do you include Bill Gates in those 400? If so, please explain how his accumulation of wealth has deprived others of wealth. You may wait until Recess to respond.

That’s the mindset of the Liberals. They assume we operate under a zero sum game where one person gaining wealth means someone else had to lose for them to do it.

Are you saying that the filthy rich are all honest men and woman who have never lied or cheated their fellow humans and always stay within the bounds of ethical conduct? Ever? Really?

I bet you would say that the Liberal ones have but the rest have not.

Are you saying that all the social welfare recipients are upstanding and honorable people who have never cheated the system? Really?

 

[The Rabbi]

Not any 5 yr old can do that.
Hell, lots of 20 something year olds can't do that. Dont believe me?

And it's not my responsibility to make them do it is it?

Sorry but you
re barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for sympathy from me for people who have so little drive and common sense as not to know you have to get to work on time and not be drunk.

We usually see eye to eye. I dont know why this is so hard for you though.
What I outlined are basic job skills Very basic. But lots of people just don't have them. Especially starting off. That's why they get paid min wage.

Sorry but waking up in the morning is not a job skill, neither is showing up on time and sober.

The only "skill" needed to show up on time is the ability to read a clock and most people learn that in grade school.

This is just like the obesity thread. Just as people know that eating better and exercising will result in weight loss they all know that showing up to work late and drunk will get them fired.

That's stunningly incorrect.
You have to budget time. You have to dress appropriately. I realize this seems pretty elemental. And it is. But it is surprising how many people actually cannot do this.
Have you ever hired for an entry level position?

Yes and if people couldn't show up on time and sober they didn't get the job.

And it's not that people can't it's that they won't. Big difference in my book.

I have yet to meet anyone who was completely incapable of getting somewhere on time. If Joe Blow can make it to a movie on time then he can get to work on time.

OK, so you admit these are basic job skills and until someone has mastered them he really isnt worth very much at all.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey Mssrs. Clinton and Obama...

Your insipid post implies that these "400 Americans" have somehow stolen their wealth from half the population of the United States. Do you include Bill Gates in those 400? If so, please explain how his accumulation of wealth has deprived others of wealth. You may wait until Recess to respond.

That’s the mindset of the Liberals. They assume we operate under a zero sum game where one person gaining wealth means someone else had to lose for them to do it.

Are you saying that the filthy rich are all honest men and woman who have never lied or cheated their fellow humans and always stay within the bounds of ethical conduct? Ever? Really?

N, of course not. They exploited their workers and paid them peanuts so they could live in big houses and offshore jobs.

 

[Londoner]

In 1980 we were sold the theory of Supply Side Economics or Trickle Down Economics. Specifically, if we make more money available to the investment class, than they'll use that money to grow the economy, which will brings jobs, material gain and opportunities to the lower classes.

In practice this theory had uneven success. Much of the extra wealth on top went into buying politicians so that our capitalists could create the trade and regulatory environment to ship production to dirt cheap labor markets in freedom hating nations. Another problem was that Supply Side Economics advocated for lower American wages (so that our suppliers would have lower operating costs and hence more incentive to invest). Taken together these things destroyed consumer purchasing power, which is why starting with Reagan The American family started to take on massive amounts of debt (to compensate for lost jobs and lower wages/benefits).

As a result, Reaganomics has left us with an upper class that has more concentrated wealth than any such class in history, coupled with a middle class that is too indebted to consume. This isn't a temporary crisis, it's a structural flaw that we keep trying to fix with more credit and a toxic cycle of asset bubbles.

But it gets worse. You know how republicans hate concentrated political power - well, take a guess what our singularly massive amount of concentrated wealth amounts to? Reaganomics, by concentrating wealth in the hands of the suppliers (which is spread across the entire investment class), has created exactly the kind of concentrated power that they claim to be against. This is why wealthy individuals on both sides of the political aisle own politicians. This is why lobbyists and not voters determine legislation.

Republicans don't get it.

We swallowed poison in 1980.

Turn off talk radio.

The money never trickled down you fucking fools.

It trickled into the pockets of politicians. This was predicted when Reagan announced that he was bringing the wealthy American back.

 

[Conservative65]

I didn't say it cannot be done. But each person's situation is different. The right wing elitist cry "what one man can do, another can do" is based on ignorance of the human condition. Not everyone is capable of "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps". Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant. It is a simple fact. There is no mold you can pour people into and have them all come out the same. It is a fantasy, a dangerous, costly one. And unnecessary.

Bzzzzt wrong. See? You don't even understand the right. We say it isn't up to government (or you) to decide who rises up. We know people are different, some are go getters, some, not so much. Taking money from the go getter and giving it to Mr. Notsomuch doesn't help the economy and when the economy suffers, Mr. Notsomuch suffers right along with it like most everyone else.

No the only manner in which the right thinks that people are different is in how many forks are used at the dinner table. Otherwise, you people wouldn't be having national conventions attended by only about 25 people who are not white. You people have skirted minorities for decades. You call Democrats elitist, when the fact of the matter is that the right in this country is the ultimate form of elitism. White, evangelical, sellfish, and stupid. We gave the money to your 'go getter", from the 1980s all the way until today. They kept it, invested it overseas, made a pretty penny, and left the rest of us sittting high and dry. Thanks Ronnie Raygun.

25 minorities? You better take your shoes off and count again. Minorities are people and should be treated as such, not underlings that need special assistance. Successful conservative minorities somehow manage without a special feeding table for them. We invite them to sit with us, libs place them at the kiddie table and brag to each other about their noble deed. And many are filthy rich, hate to break it to you.

Take my Senator Tim Scott. He's a black CONSERVATIVE Republican and didn't get elected because he was black.
What I find interesting is that he is only one of two blacks in the U.S. Senate, the first black from the South since 1881, and the first black elected to both the House and Senate. What I find sad is that the party that claims to be so much about diversity hasn’t elected more blacks or is it that they only want their votes not their participation.

Hmm. As I recall, our president is -erm - black. Next.

Wrong. He had a white trash mother. Also, his half black part is why many voted for him. Tim Scott was elected because of his beliefs. It has to be because you idiots on the left claim we Conservatives are racist and don't like black people.

 

[The Rabbi]

You said "Most Wal-Mart employees don't make as much as you think they should because the work they do does not warrant it." I addressed most of that in several posts.

No, you described the effects of inflation, the moving of high-paying jobs overseas...
You haven't said anything with regard to the fact that the work they do does not warrant more pay -- that is, a minimum wage job pays minimum wage because the work done doesn't wararnt more.

People earn what they job they have is worth paying.
Want more pay? Develop skills that an employer will pay you more to use.
Its up to YOU to get a better job; it's not the government's job to force companies to subsidize your lack of motivation, education, training or ability

It's an artificial standard set up to justify paying slave wages. It's bullshit. If you are an employer paying minimum wage to the bulk of your work force, and have a 15% profit margin, then it is clear that those employees have value in the company. The company, in fact, would not exist without them. The fact that so many high paying jobs have been lost means that many people are now relying utterly on these lower paying jobs, a huge proportion of the work force, in fact. And so, what has happened is that the corporations have pulled the rug from underneath the middle class in this country. Ordinary people are working hard than ever for less pay, and factoring in inflation, it means they are riding a sinking boat. Thank you Ronnie Raygun.

Know any company paying minimum wage to the 'bulk of its work force'?

Me either.

Yes I do. I've already said. Keep up.

No, actually, you haven't - you've launched ad hominem attacks, but you haven't produced any facts.

Nonsense. He;s produced lots of facts. All of them wrong.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And it's not my responsibility to make them do it is it?

Sorry but you
re barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for sympathy from me for people who have so little drive and common sense as not to know you have to get to work on time and not be drunk.

We usually see eye to eye. I dont know why this is so hard for you though.
What I outlined are basic job skills Very basic. But lots of people just don't have them. Especially starting off. That's why they get paid min wage.

Sorry but waking up in the morning is not a job skill, neither is showing up on time and sober.

The only "skill" needed to show up on time is the ability to read a clock and most people learn that in grade school.

This is just like the obesity thread. Just as people know that eating better and exercising will result in weight loss they all know that showing up to work late and drunk will get them fired.

That's stunningly incorrect.
You have to budget time. You have to dress appropriately. I realize this seems pretty elemental. And it is. But it is surprising how many people actually cannot do this.
Have you ever hired for an entry level position?

Yes and if people couldn't show up on time and sober they didn't get the job.

And it's not that people can't it's that they won't. Big difference in my book.

I have yet to meet anyone who was completely incapable of getting somewhere on time. If Joe Blow can make it to a movie on time then he can get to work on time.

OK, so you admit these are basic job skills and until someone has mastered them he really isnt worth very much at all.

They are not skills.

You don't have to master showing up on time you either do it or you don't there are no levels of mastery there.
If you are never on time it's not because you can't be on time it's because you choose not to be on time therefore you are choosing to be passed over for work.

 

[The Rabbi]

We usually see eye to eye. I dont know why this is so hard for you though.
What I outlined are basic job skills Very basic. But lots of people just don't have them. Especially starting off. That's why they get paid min wage.

Sorry but waking up in the morning is not a job skill, neither is showing up on time and sober.

The only "skill" needed to show up on time is the ability to read a clock and most people learn that in grade school.

This is just like the obesity thread. Just as people know that eating better and exercising will result in weight loss they all know that showing up to work late and drunk will get them fired.

That's stunningly incorrect.
You have to budget time. You have to dress appropriately. I realize this seems pretty elemental. And it is. But it is surprising how many people actually cannot do this.
Have you ever hired for an entry level position?

Yes and if people couldn't show up on time and sober they didn't get the job.

And it's not that people can't it's that they won't. Big difference in my book.

I have yet to meet anyone who was completely incapable of getting somewhere on time. If Joe Blow can make it to a movie on time then he can get to work on time.

OK, so you admit these are basic job skills and until someone has mastered them he really isnt worth very much at all.

They are not skills.

You don't have to master showing up on time you either do it or you don't there are no levels of mastery there.
If you are never on time it's not because you can't be on time it's because you choose not to be on time therefore you are choosing to be passed over for work.

Yeah actually you do. It's called time budgeting. And some people cant do it and some people need to learn how to do it.

 

[Conservative65]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

Hey Mr. Lyndon Johnson, since your war on poverty was designed to rid us of hunger and alleviate suffering, when are those trillions spent in the last 50 years going to do the job? Why do we still have the same percentage in poverty today as we had before that money was spent to "defeat" it?

Where would all those people be today had that money not been spent? Would you have rather that it had been spent killing Arabs in Iraq, or feeding and housing our own people?

Actually, I would have preferred the money be used to create a viable work force, an educated work force. Instead, it was used to buy votes ("those ni&&ers will vote Democrat for the next 200 years). We didn't help the poor - we created a permanent under-class, unarmed to compete in the world today, and unwilling to try to break the bonds that hold them down.

Compete against who? With what? The rich have taken all the money invested it overseas. What resources do you suppose the poor have in order to "break the bonds"?

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has an opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. Are you saying that's not a resource? Where I live, there is a technical college that has many Associate degree programs. Most are 60 - 70 semester hours. With lottery money, the overall costs is a minimal investment.

There are plenty of resources available if people want them and plenty of excuses that e made if they don't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Have more wealth than half the population of the United States.


Hey Mr. Reagan, when exactly is this trickle down thing going to kick in?

Hey Mr. Bush, since the "job creators" still have the Tax Cut you gave them in 2002 and 2004, why aren't they, you know, creating more jobs?

Hey Mr. Lyndon Johnson, since your war on poverty was designed to rid us of hunger and alleviate suffering, when are those trillions spent in the last 50 years going to do the job? Why do we still have the same percentage in poverty today as we had before that money was spent to "defeat" it?

Where would all those people be today had that money not been spent? Would you have rather that it had been spent killing Arabs in Iraq, or feeding and housing our own people?

Actually, I would have preferred the money be used to create a viable work force, an educated work force. Instead, it was used to buy votes ("those ni&&ers will vote Democrat for the next 200 years). We didn't help the poor - we created a permanent under-class, unarmed to compete in the world today, and unwilling to try to break the bonds that hold them down.

Compete against who? With what? The rich have taken all the money invested it overseas. What resources do you suppose the poor have in order to "break the bonds"?

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has an opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. Are you saying that's not a resource? Where I live, there is a technical college that has many Associate degree programs. Most are 60 - 70 semester hours. With lottery money, the overall costs is a minimal investment.

There are plenty of resources available if people want them and plenty of excuses that e made if they don't.

Oh yeah? What do you tell the inner city black kid whose mom is strung out on drugs and whose dad is in jail and doesnt have a telephone or shoes or mail service? How do you proposing providing resources so he can become an astronaut?

 

[Conservative65]

Hey Mr. Lyndon Johnson, since your war on poverty was designed to rid us of hunger and alleviate suffering, when are those trillions spent in the last 50 years going to do the job? Why do we still have the same percentage in poverty today as we had before that money was spent to "defeat" it?

Where would all those people be today had that money not been spent? Would you have rather that it had been spent killing Arabs in Iraq, or feeding and housing our own people?

Actually, I would have preferred the money be used to create a viable work force, an educated work force. Instead, it was used to buy votes ("those ni&&ers will vote Democrat for the next 200 years). We didn't help the poor - we created a permanent under-class, unarmed to compete in the world today, and unwilling to try to break the bonds that hold them down.

Compete against who? With what? The rich have taken all the money invested it overseas. What resources do you suppose the poor have in order to "break the bonds"?

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has an opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. Are you saying that's not a resource? Where I live, there is a technical college that has many Associate degree programs. Most are 60 - 70 semester hours. With lottery money, the overall costs is a minimal investment.

There are plenty of resources available if people want them and plenty of excuses that e made if they don't.

Oh yeah? What do you tell the inner city black kid whose mom is strung out on drugs and whose dad is in jail and doesnt have a telephone or shoes or mail service? How do you proposing providing resources so he can become an astronaut?

Tell him there is some bleeding heart Liberal somewhere that claims he/she has compassion but don't waste your time asking them because their compassion comes from seeing who else they can get the resources from.

The resources you propose providing them would likely come from taxpayers and involve those who didn't do drugs or weren't put in jail having taken from them resources that otherwise would go to THEIR KIDS. I would tell him to not get strung out on drug or do something to get thrown in jail so your kids, if you have any, won't have to rely on taxpayers.

 

[francoHFW]

Reaganist pander to the rich tax rates and lack of investment in the country are ruinous, ding bats.

Blah blah blah.
Now, show causation.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg image
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[The Rabbi]

Where would all those people be today had that money not been spent? Would you have rather that it had been spent killing Arabs in Iraq, or feeding and housing our own people?

Actually, I would have preferred the money be used to create a viable work force, an educated work force. Instead, it was used to buy votes ("those ni&&ers will vote Democrat for the next 200 years). We didn't help the poor - we created a permanent under-class, unarmed to compete in the world today, and unwilling to try to break the bonds that hold them down.

Compete against who? With what? The rich have taken all the money invested it overseas. What resources do you suppose the poor have in order to "break the bonds"?

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has an opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. Are you saying that's not a resource? Where I live, there is a technical college that has many Associate degree programs. Most are 60 - 70 semester hours. With lottery money, the overall costs is a minimal investment.

There are plenty of resources available if people want them and plenty of excuses that e made if they don't.

Oh yeah? What do you tell the inner city black kid whose mom is strung out on drugs and whose dad is in jail and doesnt have a telephone or shoes or mail service? How do you proposing providing resources so he can become an astronaut?

Tell him there is some bleeding heart Liberal somewhere that claims he/she has compassion but don't waste your time asking them because their compassion comes from seeing who else they can get the resources from.

The resources you propose providing them would likely come from taxpayers and involve those who didn't do drugs or weren't put in jail having taken from them resources that otherwise would go to THEIR KIDS. I would tell him to not get strung out on drug or do something to get thrown in jail so your kids, if you have any, won't have to rely on taxpayers.

Yeah, see. No answers, you heartless racist bastard. If you don't have a plan to help kids like that you're just in favor of the rich How many jobs did you outsource today?

 

[francoHFW]

Where would all those people be today had that money not been spent? Would you have rather that it had been spent killing Arabs in Iraq, or feeding and housing our own people?

Actually, I would have preferred the money be used to create a viable work force, an educated work force. Instead, it was used to buy votes ("those ni&&ers will vote Democrat for the next 200 years). We didn't help the poor - we created a permanent under-class, unarmed to compete in the world today, and unwilling to try to break the bonds that hold them down.

Compete against who? With what? The rich have taken all the money invested it overseas. What resources do you suppose the poor have in order to "break the bonds"?

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has an opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. Are you saying that's not a resource? Where I live, there is a technical college that has many Associate degree programs. Most are 60 - 70 semester hours. With lottery money, the overall costs is a minimal investment.

There are plenty of resources available if people want them and plenty of excuses that e made if they don't.

Oh yeah? What do you tell the inner city black kid whose mom is strung out on drugs and whose dad is in jail and doesnt have a telephone or shoes or mail service? How do you proposing providing resources so he can become an astronaut?

Tell him there is some bleeding heart Liberal somewhere that claims he/she has compassion but don't waste your time asking them because their compassion comes from seeing who else they can get the resources from.

The resources you propose providing them would likely come from taxpayers and involve those who didn't do drugs or weren't put in jail having taken from them resources that otherwise would go to THEIR KIDS. I would tell him to not get strung out on drug or do something to get thrown in jail so your kids, if you have any, won't have to rely on taxpayers.

We need cheap loans for that tech school, and many more. Gotta protect the bloated 1% and the greedy idiot billionaires who brainwash you though... You're clueless as to what Pub policies have done. Right up on racist code though...

 

[Conservative65]

Actually, I would have preferred the money be used to create a viable work force, an educated work force. Instead, it was used to buy votes ("those ni&&ers will vote Democrat for the next 200 years). We didn't help the poor - we created a permanent under-class, unarmed to compete in the world today, and unwilling to try to break the bonds that hold them down.

Compete against who? With what? The rich have taken all the money invested it overseas. What resources do you suppose the poor have in order to "break the bonds"?

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has an opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. Are you saying that's not a resource? Where I live, there is a technical college that has many Associate degree programs. Most are 60 - 70 semester hours. With lottery money, the overall costs is a minimal investment.

There are plenty of resources available if people want them and plenty of excuses that e made if they don't.

Oh yeah? What do you tell the inner city black kid whose mom is strung out on drugs and whose dad is in jail and doesnt have a telephone or shoes or mail service? How do you proposing providing resources so he can become an astronaut?

Tell him there is some bleeding heart Liberal somewhere that claims he/she has compassion but don't waste your time asking them because their compassion comes from seeing who else they can get the resources from.

The resources you propose providing them would likely come from taxpayers and involve those who didn't do drugs or weren't put in jail having taken from them resources that otherwise would go to THEIR KIDS. I would tell him to not get strung out on drug or do something to get thrown in jail so your kids, if you have any, won't have to rely on taxpayers.

Yeah, see. No answers, you heartless racist bastard. If you don't have a plan to help kids like that you're just in favor of the rich How many jobs did you outsource today?

It can't be racist as I would tell the white kid, the hispanic kid, etc. the same thing.

I don't have to provide answers as I didn't create the problem that caused the questions.

I do have a plan to help kids. I have two daughters and plan on helping them fund college beyond what scholarships, a resource, they'll get because of good grades. The problem is your plan is for me to be forced to help situations I didn't cause even if it means being able to do less for my kids.

 

[Conservative65]

Actually, I would have preferred the money be used to create a viable work force, an educated work force. Instead, it was used to buy votes ("those ni&&ers will vote Democrat for the next 200 years). We didn't help the poor - we created a permanent under-class, unarmed to compete in the world today, and unwilling to try to break the bonds that hold them down.

Compete against who? With what? The rich have taken all the money invested it overseas. What resources do you suppose the poor have in order to "break the bonds"?

Last time I looked, everyone in this country has an opportunity to go to school through the 12th grade. Are you saying that's not a resource? Where I live, there is a technical college that has many Associate degree programs. Most are 60 - 70 semester hours. With lottery money, the overall costs is a minimal investment.

There are plenty of resources available if people want them and plenty of excuses that e made if they don't.

Oh yeah? What do you tell the inner city black kid whose mom is strung out on drugs and whose dad is in jail and doesnt have a telephone or shoes or mail service? How do you proposing providing resources so he can become an astronaut?

Tell him there is some bleeding heart Liberal somewhere that claims he/she has compassion but don't waste your time asking them because their compassion comes from seeing who else they can get the resources from.

The resources you propose providing them would likely come from taxpayers and involve those who didn't do drugs or weren't put in jail having taken from them resources that otherwise would go to THEIR KIDS. I would tell him to not get strung out on drug or do something to get thrown in jail so your kids, if you have any, won't have to rely on taxpayers.

We need cheap loans for that tech school, and many more. You're clueless as to what Pub policies have done. Right up on racist code though...

Feel free to loan them any of your money you want. I find it interesting that the bleeding heart proposals always involve someone else getting the bills.

I am a prime example of those policies. If you vote for what's in your best interest, why shouldn't I do the same?

 

[Listening]

How many minorities do you see in this picture:

Meaningless.

Give us a roster of each convention with the associated ethnicity.

Otherwise....shove it.

The picture speaks for itself. And I don't need a picture or a roster. It isn't like it is some big secret that the Republicans have a huge problem with minorities. We all know it is true. It's just that you folks skirt around the issue and accuse us of race baiting. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

And cute phrases are nothing more than an admission of having no argument.

You can't argue with facts, dude. That is why they are called facts.

Pictures are not facts.

Prochoice women speak at the RNC.

You'll never see a prolife woman speak at the DNC.

Tolerance for you pricks is to accept people who agree with you.