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.

What are you babbling about? We have the most highly educated work force we've ever had. Unarmed to compete in the world? That is as idiotic a statement as I've heard this week.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Democrats buy the minority vote with promises of continued entitlement payments, so duh...
.

Nice try. Why is it that nearly every booming economy this country has seen in the last 80 years has been under Democratic rule?

Yeah, that's it. I remember the go-go Carter years. The Reagan Depression. The boom during Clinton's first administration and sky high unemployment during Bush's.

Notice I did say "nearly". And for the record, Clinton's first term was spent recovering from Bush Sr.'s recession, as Obama has spent his time recovering the country from baby Bush's recession and the intransigent Congress.

Recession ended March 1991.
Clinton took office January 1991.

Recession ended June 2009
Obama took office Jan 2009
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Can't argue with those facts!

Wow, you really have been driking the Kool Aid.

 

[The Rabbi]

Democrats buy the minority vote with promises of continued entitlement payments, so duh...
.

Nice try. Why is it that nearly every booming economy this country has seen in the last 80 years has been under Democratic rule?

Yeah, that's it. I remember the go-go Carter years. The Reagan Depression. The boom during Clinton's first administration and sky high unemployment during Bush's.

Notice I did say "nearly". And for the record, Clinton's first term was spent recovering from Bush Sr.'s recession, as Obama has spent his time recovering the country from baby Bush's recession and the intransigent Congress.

Recession ended March 1991.
Clinton took office January 1991.

Recession ended June 2009
Obama took office Jan 2009
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Can't argue with those facts!

Wow, you really have been driking the Kool Aid.

LOL!!!
I post the actual facts and dates and I've been drinking Kool Aid.
Priceless!
You must be a GOP operative sent here to make libs look like outright morons. You're doing a great job. You deserve a raise!

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Can you name one filthy rich guy who doesn't exploit his workers?

 

[kaz]

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.

Can you name one filthy rich guy who doesn't exploit his workers?

You mean the people who show up for work every day because the filthy rich guy is paying them more than anyone else, comrade?

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Well, your record of alienating them and nearly every other minority (including the largest minority in the U.S. today - hispanics) clearly shows that you are right. Conservatives ARE racist and don't like A LOT of people. Or perhaps I should rephrase this and simply say that conservatives don't like anyone that is not them. So perhaps racist is not the correct phrase. Bigots. Yeah. That word works.

 

[kaz]

Reagan's growth was mainly deficit defense spending (doubled the debt) and a corrupt S+L bubble. Great job!

You know --- maybe we should identify Reagan's performance against the current WH occupant.

Oh wait ---- he's a leftist. He can't do anything wrong.

50 months of growth despite mindless opposition, no corrupt bubble, averted a full blown depress- only cost 6-7 trillion. Thanks for the meltdown/disaster, functional shyttehead.

You think the economy is good? You need to get off your boat and come on shore more often. Or at all.

 

[kaz]

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.

Well, your record of alienating them and nearly every other minority (including the largest minority in the U.S. today - hispanics) clearly shows that you are right. Conservatives ARE racist and don't like A LOT of people. Or perhaps I should rephrase this and simply say that conservatives don't like anyone that is not them. So perhaps racist is not the correct phrase. Bigots. Yeah. That word works.

Even you know you're in trouble since you're dragging out the tired "racism" card. Not working so well for you anymore, is it? Not that you're going to give it up, obviously.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Can you name one filthy rich guy who doesn't exploit his workers?

You mean the people who show up for work every day because the filthy rich guy is paying them more than anyone else, comrade?

They don't show up for work every day becauase some filthy rich guy is paying then more than anyone else, COMRADE. They show up at work because there are limited numbers and kinds of jobs on the market and they have few other choices in this friggin economy. And because they have to put food on the friggin table. I would love to see you make ends meet in this economy on $15,000-$20,000/year with two mouths to feed, not including your own.

 

[orogenicman]

Cutting tax rates will grow the economy, something it hasn't done for a while. And that will make whatever else we need to do more affordable. Though I'm not a neocon, so we probably disagree on how much we actually should be spending on in "the world at large." Most of our domestic problems would be solved by cutting taxes and spending right there.

Cutting taxes has NEVER grown the economy. At best, it is a temporary shot in the arm that benefits very few. What will grow the economy is to bring back our high tech jobs.

LOL, not aware of history are you? Reagan, JFK. Start there.

Corporate taxes were very high under JFK. And the economy grew. RAYGUN cut taxes - before he raised them. And either way, under Raygun, the economy only grew through deficit spending.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Well, your record of alienating them and nearly every other minority (including the largest minority in the U.S. today - hispanics) clearly shows that you are right. Conservatives ARE racist and don't like A LOT of people. Or perhaps I should rephrase this and simply say that conservatives don't like anyone that is not them. So perhaps racist is not the correct phrase. Bigots. Yeah. That word works.

Even you know you're in trouble since you're dragging out the tired "racism" card. Not working so well for you anymore, is it? Not that you're going to give it up, obviously.

You saw the pictures and video from the RNC. You know their policies. Don't deny it.

 

[orogenicman]

Nice try. Why is it that nearly every booming economy this country has seen in the last 80 years has been under Democratic rule?

Yeah, that's it. I remember the go-go Carter years. The Reagan Depression. The boom during Clinton's first administration and sky high unemployment during Bush's.

Notice I did say "nearly". And for the record, Clinton's first term was spent recovering from Bush Sr.'s recession, as Obama has spent his time recovering the country from baby Bush's recession and the intransigent Congress.

Recession ended March 1991.
Clinton took office January 1991.

Recession ended June 2009
Obama took office Jan 2009
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Can't argue with those facts!

Wow, you really have been driking the Kool Aid.

LOL!!!
I post the actual facts and dates and I've been drinking Kool Aid.
Priceless!
You must be a GOP operative sent here to make libs look like outright morons. You're doing a great job. You deserve a raise!

Post the data to back up your claim, bubba.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, that's it. I remember the go-go Carter years. The Reagan Depression. The boom during Clinton's first administration and sky high unemployment during Bush's.

Notice I did say "nearly". And for the record, Clinton's first term was spent recovering from Bush Sr.'s recession, as Obama has spent his time recovering the country from baby Bush's recession and the intransigent Congress.

Recession ended March 1991.
Clinton took office January 1991.

Recession ended June 2009
Obama took office Jan 2009
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Can't argue with those facts!

Wow, you really have been driking the Kool Aid.

LOL!!!
I post the actual facts and dates and I've been drinking Kool Aid.
Priceless!
You must be a GOP operative sent here to make libs look like outright morons. You're doing a great job. You deserve a raise!

Post the data to back up your claim, bubba.

LOL!!! Are you a bot? Because no human being could possibly be that stupid. None.
What do you think I posted, moron? T hat was data.

 

[francoHFW]

Reagan's growth was mainly deficit defense spending (doubled the debt) and a corrupt S+L bubble. Great job!

You know --- maybe we should identify Reagan's performance against the current WH occupant.

Oh wait ---- he's a leftist. He can't do anything wrong.

50 months of growth despite mindless opposition, no corrupt bubble, averted a full blown depress- only cost 6-7 trillion. Thanks for the meltdown/disaster, functional shyttehead.

You think the economy is good? You need to get off your boat and come on shore more often. Or at all.

I recognize you have a good news blackout lol...4% growth ok? Oil/gas boom?

 

[orogenicman]

Notice I did say "nearly". And for the record, Clinton's first term was spent recovering from Bush Sr.'s recession, as Obama has spent his time recovering the country from baby Bush's recession and the intransigent Congress.

Recession ended March 1991.
Clinton took office January 1991.

Recession ended June 2009
Obama took office Jan 2009
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Can't argue with those facts!

Wow, you really have been driking the Kool Aid.

LOL!!!
I post the actual facts and dates and I've been drinking Kool Aid.
Priceless!
You must be a GOP operative sent here to make libs look like outright morons. You're doing a great job. You deserve a raise!

Post the data to back up your claim, bubba.

LOL!!! Are you a bot? Because no human being could possibly be that stupid. None.
What do you think I posted, moron? T hat was data.

Claims are not facts. They are only claims. And even if they are true, they did not end the grim reality many Americans faced long afterwards and are still feeling today.

 

[The Rabbi]

Recession ended March 1991.
Clinton took office January 1991.

Recession ended June 2009
Obama took office Jan 2009
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Can't argue with those facts!

Wow, you really have been driking the Kool Aid.

LOL!!!
I post the actual facts and dates and I've been drinking Kool Aid.
Priceless!
You must be a GOP operative sent here to make libs look like outright morons. You're doing a great job. You deserve a raise!

Post the data to back up your claim, bubba.

LOL!!! Are you a bot? Because no human being could possibly be that stupid. None.
What do you think I posted, moron? T hat was data.

Claims are not facts. They are only claims. And even if they are true, they did not end the grim reality many Americans faced long afterwards and are still feeling today.

You can easily google US Recessions and get a list of their dates. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
Yes, we are still feeling the results of years of failed Democrat policies in stagnant wages, household wealth, and jobs.

 

[Spare_change]

That's quite a narrow view. We still had little in the way of competition, seeing as how Japan and Germany were still in rebuild mode. Now there are many more than those two competing and competing very well.

Oh really? Is that why China makes most products sold in this ocuntry? Because we had little competition? Give me a break.

You can buy a $11 shirt made in China, or a $59 shirt made in Oregon - which do you pick?

Why do you think that shirt from China only costs $11, despite the huge freight costs?

Their slave labor conditions are worse than ours.

We don’t have slave conditions here. Someone with low level skills is getting an equivalent low level pay. If their pay is too low, perhaps they should improve their skills instead of demanding they be paid on existence rather than what they offer.

Define "low level skills" and place a dollar figure to it;'s worth to a company that hires many "low skill" workers? Look. The corporations did this to themselves. They farmed out the high paying jobs to low wage workers overseas to save a buck, and left millions here with little choice but to work the "low skill" jobs. And you say this as if low skill jobs are of little or no value to these companies, when the fact is in most cases, they are the very backbone of the companies. So treat them with disrespect if you want. But don't expect them to put up with these conditions for long. At Ford, guys with seniority (30 or more years) get to choose the job they want. My step brother is one of those, and he joined the clean up crew. What do these guys do? They sweep and mop the floors - for $30/hour. And yet Ford is turning a profit right here in the U.S.A.

And, your car costs a full year's salary. Makes sense to me - Oh, did we mention Ford having to declare bankruptcy in order to abdicate on the unreasonable demands of the union?

Probably missed that email, huh?

 

[Spare_change]

That's quite a narrow view. We still had little in the way of competition, seeing as how Japan and Germany were still in rebuild mode. Now there are many more than those two competing and competing very well.

Oh really? Is that why China makes most products sold in this ocuntry? Because we had little competition? Give me a break.

You can buy a $11 shirt made in China, or a $59 shirt made in Oregon - which do you pick?

Why do you think that shirt from China only costs $11, despite the huge freight costs?

Their slave labor conditions are worse than ours.

We don’t have slave conditions here. Someone with low level skills is getting an equivalent low level pay. If their pay is too low, perhaps they should improve their skills instead of demanding they be paid on existence rather than what they offer.

Define "low level skills" and place a dollar figure to it;'s worth to a company that hires many "low skill" workers? Look. The corporations did this to themselves. They farmed out the high paying jobs to low wage workers overseas to save a buck, and left millions here with little choice but to work the "low skill" jobs. And you say this as if low skill jobs are of little or no value to these companies, when the fact is in most cases, they are the very backbone of the companies. So treat them with disrespect if you want. But don't expect them to put up with these conditions for long. At Ford, guys with seniority (30 or more years) get to choose the job they want. My step brother is one of those, and he joined the clean up crew. What do these guys do? They sweep and mop the floors - for $30/hour. And yet Ford is turning a profit right here in the U.S.A.

Disrespect? There's something disrespectful about paying somebody what they're worth?

It isn't a question of the value of the job - though, I would argue about the relative value of 'low skill' jobs. It's about the value of the labor. My job is to get you to do $1M worth of labor for $1 - your goal is to do $1 worth of labor for $1M. So far, there are a lot of people willing to take the $1.

As for your nonsense about revolt - we all know that isn't true. The government has established a bail-out in which virtually nobody gets minimum wage, and most get a respectable income. You can rant and rave, and posture yourself as the savior of the downtrodden, but frankly - you just don't have the truth to back you up.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

What are you babbling about? We have the most highly educated work force we've ever had. Unarmed to compete in the world? That is as idiotic a statement as I've heard this week.

You truly ARE disconnected from reality -

on one hand, you complain that all the high tech jobs went overseas, and on the other, you complain that all these supposedly highly qualified workers are sitting here doing menial work because that is all they can find.

The truth about our educational system? We produce functional illiterates. They can't make change - they can't construct a coherent sentence longer than three words. We produce kids that, during a recent testing cycle, of all the students, over 70% of the 10th graders can't perform at the 10th grade level - and 90% of the Afro-American kids tests were not proficient. We get COLLEGE graduates who come to us - and we have to send them to remedial English and remedial math courses at the local junior college - and these are kids who just got their diploma.

We just interviewed and hired for a position in our logistics branch - entry level. Basically, we were looking for a high school graduate capable of reading a bill of lading, finding the box on the shelf, and loading into the truck. We interviewed 21 - that's right, 21 - before we found a high school graduate that met our needs. THAT is ridiculous - it wasn't rocket science. Oh, by the way, despite all your caterwauling about so many people looking for jobs, it took us 3 months of advertising to get those 21 applicants. (I spent more in advertising for the position than the employee will make in the first three months!) People don't want to work, because you made it possible for them not to work.

Ask any - and I mean, any - employer how hard it is to get qualified employees. Listen to them tell you - and then get back to me about how highly educated the work force is. They may have high school diplomas, but they don't know enough to be of any value to us. They ARE unarmed to compete in the world today.

 

[Spare_change]

Notice I did say "nearly". And for the record, Clinton's first term was spent recovering from Bush Sr.'s recession, as Obama has spent his time recovering the country from baby Bush's recession and the intransigent Congress.

Recession ended March 1991.
Clinton took office January 1991.

Recession ended June 2009
Obama took office Jan 2009
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Can't argue with those facts!

Wow, you really have been driking the Kool Aid.

LOL!!!
I post the actual facts and dates and I've been drinking Kool Aid.
Priceless!
You must be a GOP operative sent here to make libs look like outright morons. You're doing a great job. You deserve a raise!

Post the data to back up your claim, bubba.

LOL!!! Are you a bot? Because no human being could possibly be that stupid. None.
What do you think I posted, moron? T hat was data.

But ... but ... it's not really data, if it can't be distorted to support the leftist position. Everybody knows that fact that doesn't support their position isn't really a fact at all ... it's just an .... inconvenience.