44% of Americans don't have $400 in case there is an emergency

[deanrd]

Found an aricle on welfare for the rich, since the hard core right seems to focus it's hatred only on the poor who get government help.

arhttps://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-socialism-for-the-rich-and-capitalism-for-the-poore getting help from the government.

What hate on the poor?
Getting gangs out of neighborhoods?
Focusing on education.
Helping them to go to colleges?

Helping them go to colleges????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Even you don't believe that.

The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Technical schools also.
You can stay in the dark if you want.

I've always supported Technical Schools and Jr. College which many times, gets funding from local businesses.

But you don't think Republicans actually support job training and funding for education. Not after all the many links I've provided showing they cut funding. Even job training for veterans. I know you know that.

What do you expect from people who hold sick and disabled children hostage? They tweet about it. They don't even try to hide it.

So go ahead. Tell everyone you support this:

 

[peach174]

We are looking at it from different perspectives.
Your looking at it literally with exact numbers.
I'm looking at it in generalization.
The 44% within any number of the programs, not all.

Then, after I don't know how many posts, tell me your perspective? Because it would appear, right now, that your perspective is what you WANT TO SEE and not what's there.

Well a whole bunch got it, why can't you?

Okay, another post and another lack of explanation.

So, you made it up, and now you're trying to ride the time until I get bored and just ignore you then?

You have nothing. You're bullshitting and it's pretty clear you are. Not one figure matches what you said. Not one.

You took 67% and 67 million and tried to make them the same. But you have too much pride to admit a mistake.

You looked at only the 67% and not the 44% of which I was referring.
You are looking at numbers.
I'm looking at the 44% who has only $400.00 in savings which can be within any part of the welfare programs.
Others got it.

You explained this already. I got it. What I don't get is how this 44% relates to those people on welfare. You said it was the same number. I can't find the same number anywhere. Where is it? You posted a source that said 20% of people are on welfare.

Half are on welfare 20% the other 24% are working poor or part of them on Medicade.
The point is 44%, are poor and have only 400.00 in savings and being on assistance it makes it hard to save.
My point was a broad brush generalization of low income with the link of the programs.

Now the 67% , which I didn't address ,who have only 1,000, that's a big problem .
Many have not been taught the importance of saving .

 

[peach174]

Found an aricle on welfare for the rich, since the hard core right seems to focus it's hatred only on the poor who get government help.

arhttps://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-socialism-for-the-rich-and-capitalism-for-the-poore getting help from the government.

What hate on the poor?
Getting gangs out of neighborhoods?
Focusing on education.
Helping them to go to colleges?

Helping them go to colleges????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Even you don't believe that.

The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Technical schools also.
You can stay in the dark if you want.

I've always supported Technical Schools and Jr. College which many times, gets funding from local businesses.

But you don't think Republicans actually support job training and funding for education. Not after all the many links I've provided showing they cut funding. Even job training for veterans. I know you know that.

What do you expect from people who hold sick and disabled children hostage? They tweet about it. They don't even try to hide it.

So go ahead. Tell everyone you support this:

Which party passed school vouchers for the DC district?

Which President canceled it and after all the protesting an had to reinstate it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then, after I don't know how many posts, tell me your perspective? Because it would appear, right now, that your perspective is what you WANT TO SEE and not what's there.

Well a whole bunch got it, why can't you?

Okay, another post and another lack of explanation.

So, you made it up, and now you're trying to ride the time until I get bored and just ignore you then?

You have nothing. You're bullshitting and it's pretty clear you are. Not one figure matches what you said. Not one.

You took 67% and 67 million and tried to make them the same. But you have too much pride to admit a mistake.

You looked at only the 67% and not the 44% of which I was referring.
You are looking at numbers.
I'm looking at the 44% who has only $400.00 in savings which can be within any part of the welfare programs.
Others got it.

You explained this already. I got it. What I don't get is how this 44% relates to those people on welfare. You said it was the same number. I can't find the same number anywhere. Where is it? You posted a source that said 20% of people are on welfare.

Half are on welfare 20% the other 24% are working poor or part of them on Medicade.
The point is 44%, are poor and have only 400.00 in savings and being on assistance it makes it hard to save.
My point was a broad brush generalization of low income with the link of the programs.

Now the 67% , which I didn't address ,who have only 1,000, that's a big problem .
Many have not been taught the importance of saving .

But the statistics you provided don't say this. They say there are 21% of people on govt assistance and they say there 70 million people on medicaid. It doesn't say these are two separate people.

of those 67 million people, 10 million are on unemployment, but 41 million are on food stamps. What are the chances that someone on food stamps is also on Medicaid?

Medicaid is for poor people. Poor people are on food stamps.

 

[peach174]

Well a whole bunch got it, why can't you?

Okay, another post and another lack of explanation.

So, you made it up, and now you're trying to ride the time until I get bored and just ignore you then?

You have nothing. You're bullshitting and it's pretty clear you are. Not one figure matches what you said. Not one.

You took 67% and 67 million and tried to make them the same. But you have too much pride to admit a mistake.

You looked at only the 67% and not the 44% of which I was referring.
You are looking at numbers.
I'm looking at the 44% who has only $400.00 in savings which can be within any part of the welfare programs.
Others got it.

You explained this already. I got it. What I don't get is how this 44% relates to those people on welfare. You said it was the same number. I can't find the same number anywhere. Where is it? You posted a source that said 20% of people are on welfare.

Half are on welfare 20% the other 24% are working poor or part of them on Medicade.
The point is 44%, are poor and have only 400.00 in savings and being on assistance it makes it hard to save.
My point was a broad brush generalization of low income with the link of the programs.

Now the 67% , which I didn't address ,who have only 1,000, that's a big problem .
Many have not been taught the importance of saving .

But the statistics you provided don't say this. They say there are 21% of people on govt assistance and they say there 70 million people on medicaid. It doesn't say these are two separate people.

of those 67 million people, 10 million are on unemployment, but 41 million are on food stamps. What are the chances that someone on food stamps is also on Medicaid?

Medicaid is for poor people. Poor people are on food stamps.

See your looking at it in a different way than me.
I don't want to argue or get into something that both of us are looking at in
opposite views.
Neither of us will get it.
Lets agree that people don't save enough and its big problem, because that is part if our strength in growth and wealth.
Too many spend and don't save.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, another post and another lack of explanation.

So, you made it up, and now you're trying to ride the time until I get bored and just ignore you then?

You have nothing. You're bullshitting and it's pretty clear you are. Not one figure matches what you said. Not one.

You took 67% and 67 million and tried to make them the same. But you have too much pride to admit a mistake.

You looked at only the 67% and not the 44% of which I was referring.
You are looking at numbers.
I'm looking at the 44% who has only $400.00 in savings which can be within any part of the welfare programs.
Others got it.

You explained this already. I got it. What I don't get is how this 44% relates to those people on welfare. You said it was the same number. I can't find the same number anywhere. Where is it? You posted a source that said 20% of people are on welfare.

Half are on welfare 20% the other 24% are working poor or part of them on Medicade.
The point is 44%, are poor and have only 400.00 in savings and being on assistance it makes it hard to save.
My point was a broad brush generalization of low income with the link of the programs.

Now the 67% , which I didn't address ,who have only 1,000, that's a big problem .
Many have not been taught the importance of saving .

But the statistics you provided don't say this. They say there are 21% of people on govt assistance and they say there 70 million people on medicaid. It doesn't say these are two separate people.

of those 67 million people, 10 million are on unemployment, but 41 million are on food stamps. What are the chances that someone on food stamps is also on Medicaid?

Medicaid is for poor people. Poor people are on food stamps.

See your looking at it in a different way than me.
I don't want to argue or get into something that both of us are looking at in
opposite views.
Neither of us will get it.
Lets agree that people don't save enough and its big problem, because that is part if our strength in growth and wealth.
Too many spend and don't save.

It's not that we're looking at things from different views, it's that you made up something and tried to pass it off as fact.

So, you haven't been able to justify what you said.

Yes, there are a lot of people who don't have the money saved and a lot of these people will be the poorest people in society. It makes sense.

Where I would say the point lies is that such people are the people who lose out massively in a recession.

7 million people lost their homes in the last recession. 6 million more people were unemployed at the height of the recession than before it started. Some of these people would have been higher up people. Average and median wages dropped in 2009, people were earning less.

The rich people don't care. You lose $100 million from $1 billion, no biggie, you have very little saved, and you lose money, it could be your house going to a bank, which gets rich.

Trump is pushing the country towards the next recession. The US govt has been bad for a long time and it seems to be getting worse with partisan politics. Bush did nothing to stop the last recession.

 

[peach174]

If we start to have two quarters in decline then you will be right.

Just because you think you're right about me does not make it correct.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If we start to have two quarters in decline then you will be right.

I'm assuming you're replying to me.

The US is in boom and bust, and has been for a long time, but it seems to be getting worse. The biggest problem appears to be the short term nature of the Presidency. With only two terms presidents are encouraged to push the economy so that after 4 years it's doing great. After this they don't need to care.

US Republican Presidents seems to have a tendency of ending their term with HIGHER unemployment and economic problems. The only post war Republican President who didn't see this was Reagan, but then there was a rise after he left office and Bush suffered.

I'm not blaming the Republicans entirely. Their policies often lead to boom and bust. They show how great they are in the boom, and pretend it wasn't their fault in the bust. But Democrats aren't necessarily better.

The Chinese are attempting to reduce boom and bust. A recession will undermine their legitimacy, so steady growth is good for them.

But Trump is pushing for a massive boom. His policies look good now, but when the next recession comes, it'll probably be another big one. It might happen in 4 years time, might happen in 10 years time when he's out of the firing line. That doesn't mean his policies aren't building up to that.

 

[Mousterian]

Of course, confounding all these 'trends', is that they have a certain inertia, and the good policies of one Government, will continue to bear fruit, into, and beyond the next Government's term.
And the current Government will always claim credit for any improvement in any figures whatsoever.

 

[Muhammed]

67% of Americans don't have a thousand dollars in the bank.

Last year, the rate of job growth was the slowest in the seven previous years.

I haven't had a chance to watch the SOTU. I recorded it. But I have been watching these facts thrown out on news channels.

Wow, as the facts come out, it looks like Trump needs to work a little harder.

I also recorded the rebuttal.

Did did Trump talk about bringing the country together?

Did he talk about building a future together?

Did he have a vision for the country of prosperity and equality?

Did he talk about us being a nation of immigrants and talk about his own immigrant family?

Did he talk about keeping families together?

I can't wait to see his plans to unify the nation.

Trump isn't going to boast that more people have $400 spare for emergencies. He's going to boast that people who have enough money to last them for three life times, have MORE money.

The US has one of the lowest rates of wealth for the lowest 90% of the people in the world.

This has been changing over time, in the mid 1980s it was the best time for the bottom 90%, and that has been eroding ever since. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush have all helped push the US on its way towards being such a country.

US wealth inequality - top 0.1% worth as much as the bottom 90%

Yeah, 0.1% of the US has the same wealth now as the bottom 90% and every year they get deals to pay little or no tax. And Trump then went and made them pay even less.

Somebody sounds very envious.

 

[Muhammed]

44% of Americans don't have $400 in case there is an emergency

That's certainly possible. It seems to me that a lot of people do not live below their means and invest.

For example, they do stupid shit like buy brand new overpriced cars on credit. Auto dealerships don't really sell cars anymore. They sell loans. Debt.

And then the Democrats and the Obama administration destroyed millions of used automobiles via "cash for clunkers", putting massive inflationary pressure on the price of the means of transportation that people need to find and hold a job.

And to make matters worse, during the Obama economic depression the Fed kept devaluing US currency, (quantitative easing) causing inflationary pressure that was a huge blow to the working class, whereas, without woefully incomptent Obama administration interference, market conditions would have made the workers' dollar increase in value because of deflation.

That $400 personal emergency money that some working class people saved was devalued to approximately $350 during the Obama economic depression.

Those who unwisely voted Democrat have no fucking room to bitch if they don't have $400 stashed away in their underwear drawer just in case of an unfortunate and unforeseen emergency of the fiscal sort, and opted to go get an outrageously high interest payday loan.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's the same number who are on government assistance.
https://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/
Dems welfare programs makes it almost impossible for them to save.
They only get enough government assistance that covers 3 weeks out of 4 weeks.

Trump is right ,you help them get out of welfare.

Oh, come on. Republicans don't like any kind of assistance. They want people to starve white away.
Just like their healthcare plan.



It was those poor that put Trump in office.

Tell me how much that "free" lunch program actually costs.

The problem is that if it's government run it will cost far more than it needs to.

If a school wants to give away ham sandwiches, bananas and milk to kids for lunch the fucking government would tell them they can't do it.

Yea, because there is nothing like a hardworking 8 year old.

Non seqitur

 

[Wyatt earp]

67% of Americans don't have a thousand dollars in the bank.

Last year, the rate of job growth was the slowest in the seven previous years.

I haven't had a chance to watch the SOTU. I recorded it. But I have been watching these facts thrown out on news channels.

Wow, as the facts come out, it looks like Trump needs to work a little harder.

I also recorded the rebuttal.

Did did Trump talk about bringing the country together?

Did he talk about building a future together?

Did he have a vision for the country of prosperity and equality?

Did he talk about us being a nation of immigrants and talk about his own immigrant family?

Did he talk about keeping families together?

I can't wait to see his plans to unify the nation.

And you think they have 6 grand when Obama care raised deductibles up from 2 grand to 6 grand????

That never happened to me.

In fact, the states that complained that they only had one carrier had none before Obamacare.

So let's get this straight you post a thread only 67% of Americans have $400 bucks yet claim they can afford 6 thousand dollars in deductibles?

You don't see how i burned you here?

The first line of the first post:

67% of Americans don't have a thousand dollars in the bank.

And you said you burned me when you can't even fuking read?

I was bored. You gave me someone to laugh at and not feel guilt.
Thanks

Bored what , you to stupid to see the irony here?

 

[Skull Pilot]

67% of Americans don't have a thousand dollars in the bank.

Last year, the rate of job growth was the slowest in the seven previous years.

I haven't had a chance to watch the SOTU. I recorded it. But I have been watching these facts thrown out on news channels.

Wow, as the facts come out, it looks like Trump needs to work a little harder.

I also recorded the rebuttal.

Did did Trump talk about bringing the country together?

Did he talk about building a future together?

Did he have a vision for the country of prosperity and equality?

Did he talk about us being a nation of immigrants and talk about his own immigrant family?

Did he talk about keeping families together?

I can't wait to see his plans to unify the nation.

And you think they have 6 grand when Obama care raised deductibles up from 2 grand to 6 grand????

That never happened to me.

In fact, the states that complained that they only had one carrier had none before Obamacare.

So let's get this straight you post a thread only 67% of Americans have $400 bucks yet claim they can afford 6 thousand dollars in deductibles?

You don't see how i burned you here?

The first line of the first post:

67% of Americans don't have a thousand dollars in the bank.

And you said you burned me when you can't even fuking read?

I was bored. You gave me someone to laugh at and not feel guilt.
Thanks

Bored what , you to stupid to see the irony here?

You're too stupid to see the irony of calling someone else stupid when you don't know the difference between to and too

 

[MindWars]

because back in the day of Obama dumbass nobody was making money........OMG some of you Trump haters are beyond stupid asses.

Oh imagine that