An Elizabeth Warren Quote Spreading On Social Media; Any Brainy Responses?

[rightwinger]

Yes, I do blame Reagan

He is the face of Supply Side Economics. Our country has been in a thirty year experiment with Reaganomics and the middle class has paid the price

How has cutting taxes harmed the middle class?

By cutting what our wealthiest taxpayers used to support. Schools, healthcare, infrastructure, government services

They pay more in taxes now than they did then, and spending on all of these services has increased in real dollars.

So, once again, how did cutting marginal tax rates harm the middle class?

Weak.....very weak

What percent of their income do they pay now compared to then?

Total dollars unadjusted for inflation and increased wealth is deceptive and you know it

What difference does it make what the percentage is? The bottom line is that they pay a larger share of total income taxes.

Once again....weak, very weak

That larger share is due to the immensely larger piece of the pie that they are taking

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wages have been flatlined for decades. Costs have gone up exponentially.

Nice try though.

ROFLMNAO!

So the cost of labor has not gone up?

Really? Would ya care to make a guess on what the increases on the cost of labor in just ONE noteworthy piece of Legislation, OKA: obama's scare?

Go ahead... take a guess. (Here's a clue... the costs are SO NEGLIGIBLE that Labor hours are being cut, universally by all organizations affected by such.)

(Again reader, we're only talking about ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION HERE.)

Okie dokie. Nice made up stuff. Was there a point to your rant?

Aside from the fact that we know costs have risen and salaries flatlined (well except for the top 1%) but feel free to tell me how someone on minimum wage pays for a place to live, feeds their family, gives them proper medical care and pays for college.

We'll wait.

When has anyone living on minimum wage ever been able to afford to live on his own and support a family? This miracle sure never occurred when I was making minimum wage.

Adjusted for inflation the minimum wage peaked in 1969, thereabouts. So all you people who say a low, or lower minimum wages helps the economy,

you've gotten that lower minimum wage for almost 50 years.

Are things better?

 

[bripat9643]

Apple made 18 billion in the last quarter manufacturing at rock bottom wages overseas. Why is that a good thing?

Just because they can? Is that what makes it good?

Those people all earned more working for Apple than they could have earned elsewhere. The $18 billion Apple earned will be used to create new products and new jobs.

Where's the downside?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Apple made 18 billion in the last quarter manufacturing at rock bottom wages overseas. Why is that a good thing?

"The Good Thing" is that as a result of the lower manufacturing cost, Apple's products are within the means of MOST PEOPLE to BUY THEM, thus MOST PEOPLE can receive the benefit that those products represent to them.

We call this THE NATURAL ORDER OF ECONOMICS, OKA: Capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

How has cutting taxes harmed the middle class?

By cutting what our wealthiest taxpayers used to support. Schools, healthcare, infrastructure, government services

They pay more in taxes now than they did then, and spending on all of these services has increased in real dollars.

So, once again, how did cutting marginal tax rates harm the middle class?

Weak.....very weak

What percent of their income do they pay now compared to then?

Total dollars unadjusted for inflation and increased wealth is deceptive and you know it

What difference does it make what the percentage is? The bottom line is that they pay a larger share of total income taxes.

Once again....weak, very weak

That larger share is due to the immensely larger piece of the pie that they are taking

The people at the bottom are also receiving more in wages than they did 50 years ago, so who gives a fuck what share the top 1% is earning?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The American working/middle class over the last 50 years went from the one earner household being the norm to the two earner household being the norm - mostly out of necessity.

Why is that better?

 

[rightwinger]

The standard of living is not a constant. The modern standard of living for today's American family, even for the "poor", is higher than its ever been. Much of this is due advancements in technology. We have lots of stuff today to make life easier that we didn't have just a few years ago.

A single wage earner today can easily support a family today at a 1950's standard of living. Own only one car, live in a small house with only one restroom, no computer, no cable TV or Internet, no air condition, low heating bill because of the small house. The wife stays home to take care of the kids so the family is not paying for daycare. The wife also pinches the pennies when shopping for food and cloths. The kids don't get tons of toys that they break quickly and get thrown away. I could go on and on.

No question my grandfather could not afford a computer or a cell phone

But he worked as a painter going to muster every day to pick up work. He was able to afford a house, a new car every seven years, healthcare and a retirement at 60.

A standard today's worker can't match

Houses in those days were half the size of modern houses. The didn't have granite counter tops, side-by-side refrigerators, chef style gas ranges, crown molding, brick pavers or swimming pools. Your father's new car didn't have air-conditioning, power windows, power door locks, ABS breaks, airbags, cruise control, premium sound, GPS or leather upholstery. Right up until the day he died my father bought cars without any these modern contrivances (except for the airbags) because he considered them to be extravagant luxuries.

Very few working Americans can afford McMansions with swimming pools, granite counters, two thousand dollar ranges and crown molding

They are more concerned with paying the rent, rising healthcare costs and maybe sending their kids to college

Have you shopped for a home these days? Those items are considered "must haves." They are standard on most new homes.

If someone were to contract to build a house like most middle class houses of the 1950s today, if would be considered a shack.

Or a double wide

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apple made 18 billion in the last quarter manufacturing at rock bottom wages overseas. Why is that a good thing?

"The Good Thing" is that as a result of the lower manufacturing cost, Apple's products are within the means of MOST PEOPLE to BUY THEM, thus MOST PEOPLE can receive the benefit that those products represent to them.

We call this THE NATURAL ORDER OF ECONOMICS, OKA: Capitalism.

They made 18 BILLION IN PROFIT in the quarter. What if they only made 9 billion, and the other half went to better wages,

even to wages high enough to bring decent jobs back to the US? Where's the harm?

 

[BULLDOG]

Very true

And the American worker is the most productive on earth and has little to show for it
Where once a single wage earner could support a family, now two wage earners struggle to maintain the same standard of living

But go ahead and blame lazy workers

The standard of living is not a constant. The modern standard of living for today's American family, even for the "poor", is higher than its ever been. Much of this is due advancements in technology. We have lots of stuff today to make life easier that we didn't have just a few years ago.

A single wage earner today can easily support a family today at a 1950's standard of living. Own only one car, live in a small house with only one restroom, no computer, no cable TV or Internet, no air condition, low heating bill because of the small house. The wife stays home to take care of the kids so the family is not paying for daycare. The wife also pinches the pennies when shopping for food and cloths. The kids don't get tons of toys that they break quickly and get thrown away. I could go on and on.

No question my grandfather could not afford a computer or a cell phone

But he worked as a painter going to muster every day to pick up work. He was able to afford a house, a new car every seven years, healthcare and a retirement at 60.

A standard today's worker can't match

Houses in those days were half the size of modern houses. The didn't have granite counter tops, side-by-side refrigerators, chef style gas ranges, crown molding, brick pavers or swimming pools. Your father's new car didn't have air-conditioning, power windows, power door locks, ABS breaks, airbags, cruise control, premium sound, GPS or leather upholstery. Right up until the day he died my father bought cars without any these modern contrivances (except for the airbags) because he considered them to be extravagant luxuries.

Are you trying to say the working poor are poor because they have spent all their money on the things you listed? You see how stupid that is, don't you?

Off topic comment; I have noticed that clown avatars are starting to go out of style with the left wing posters.

Fashion is everything.

.

Far from off topic. The poster made a list of items affluent people enjoy and I merely ask what info that list was offering to this discussion. Just because you are embarrassed to answer a question doesn't make it off subject.

 

[rightwinger]

By cutting what our wealthiest taxpayers used to support. Schools, healthcare, infrastructure, government services

They pay more in taxes now than they did then, and spending on all of these services has increased in real dollars.

So, once again, how did cutting marginal tax rates harm the middle class?

Weak.....very weak

What percent of their income do they pay now compared to then?

Total dollars unadjusted for inflation and increased wealth is deceptive and you know it

What difference does it make what the percentage is? The bottom line is that they pay a larger share of total income taxes.

Once again....weak, very weak

That larger share is due to the immensely larger piece of the pie that they are taking

The people at the bottom are also receiving more in wages than they did 50 years ago, so who gives a fuck what share the top 1% is earning?

Is this just an act or are you fucking stupid?

Comparing wages to 50 years ago?

 

[JoeMoma]

No question my grandfather could not afford a computer or a cell phone

But he worked as a painter going to muster every day to pick up work. He was able to afford a house, a new car every seven years, healthcare and a retirement at 60.

A standard today's worker can't match

Houses in those days were half the size of modern houses. The didn't have granite counter tops, side-by-side refrigerators, chef style gas ranges, crown molding, brick pavers or swimming pools. Your father's new car didn't have air-conditioning, power windows, power door locks, ABS breaks, airbags, cruise control, premium sound, GPS or leather upholstery. Right up until the day he died my father bought cars without any these modern contrivances (except for the airbags) because he considered them to be extravagant luxuries.

Very few working Americans can afford McMansions with swimming pools, granite counters, two thousand dollar ranges and crown molding

They are more concerned with paying the rent, rising healthcare costs and maybe sending their kids to college

Have you shopped for a home these days? Those items are considered "must haves." They are standard on most new homes.

If someone were to contract to build a house like most middle class houses of the 1950s today, if would be considered a shack.

Or a double wide

A double wide would probably have more square feet of living area than the average house of the fifties.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apple made 18 billion in the last quarter manufacturing at rock bottom wages overseas. Why is that a good thing?

Just because they can? Is that what makes it good?

Those people all earned more working for Apple than they could have earned elsewhere. The $18 billion Apple earned will be used to create new products and new jobs.

Where's the downside?

They're jobs overseas. You people are dense.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The American working/middle class over the last 50 years went from the one earner household being the norm to the two earner household being the norm - mostly out of necessity.

Why is that better?

Taxation, due to the cost of sustaining the US Federal, State and Local Government has forced both adults to work. Because the monies stripped from their earnings through all taxation, now consumes more than 50% of each earners check. Now this is a very complex calculus... but extrapolate from the data, what happens when two people are at issue; wherein one person used to earn 100%, but today that one person nets half as much as one person used to earn.

GO!

 

[BULLDOG]

No question my grandfather could not afford a computer or a cell phone

But he worked as a painter going to muster every day to pick up work. He was able to afford a house, a new car every seven years, healthcare and a retirement at 60.

A standard today's worker can't match

Houses in those days were half the size of modern houses. The didn't have granite counter tops, side-by-side refrigerators, chef style gas ranges, crown molding, brick pavers or swimming pools. Your father's new car didn't have air-conditioning, power windows, power door locks, ABS breaks, airbags, cruise control, premium sound, GPS or leather upholstery. Right up until the day he died my father bought cars without any these modern contrivances (except for the airbags) because he considered them to be extravagant luxuries.

Are you trying to say the working poor are poor because they have spent all their money on the things you listed? You see how stupid that is, don't you?

I'm telling you the poor are much wealthier now than they were 50 years ago. They all have cell phones, flat screen TVs, cable and air conditioning.

So now you are trying to say the poor are affluent. Another brain dead teabagger who believes all the right wing lies no matter how much reality shows him he is wrong. Did you make an active choice to be so ignorant, or is that just the best you can do?

Compared to the poor in 1950, yes, they are affluent. The definition of "affluent" has changed over the years, obviously.

So what does that have to do with what is considered affluent today?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Houses in those days were half the size of modern houses. The didn't have granite counter tops, side-by-side refrigerators, chef style gas ranges, crown molding, brick pavers or swimming pools. Your father's new car didn't have air-conditioning, power windows, power door locks, ABS breaks, airbags, cruise control, premium sound, GPS or leather upholstery. Right up until the day he died my father bought cars without any these modern contrivances (except for the airbags) because he considered them to be extravagant luxuries.

Very few working Americans can afford McMansions with swimming pools, granite counters, two thousand dollar ranges and crown molding

They are more concerned with paying the rent, rising healthcare costs and maybe sending their kids to college

Have you shopped for a home these days? Those items are considered "must haves." They are standard on most new homes.

If someone were to contract to build a house like most middle class houses of the 1950s today, if would be considered a shack.

Or a double wide

A double wide would probably have more square feet of living area than the average house of the fifties.

lol, so that's your measure? The American working class needs to stay in the 1950's so the richer can get even richer?

 

[percysunshine]

The standard of living is not a constant. The modern standard of living for today's American family, even for the "poor", is higher than its ever been. Much of this is due advancements in technology. We have lots of stuff today to make life easier that we didn't have just a few years ago.

A single wage earner today can easily support a family today at a 1950's standard of living. Own only one car, live in a small house with only one restroom, no computer, no cable TV or Internet, no air condition, low heating bill because of the small house. The wife stays home to take care of the kids so the family is not paying for daycare. The wife also pinches the pennies when shopping for food and cloths. The kids don't get tons of toys that they break quickly and get thrown away. I could go on and on.

No question my grandfather could not afford a computer or a cell phone

But he worked as a painter going to muster every day to pick up work. He was able to afford a house, a new car every seven years, healthcare and a retirement at 60.

A standard today's worker can't match

Houses in those days were half the size of modern houses. The didn't have granite counter tops, side-by-side refrigerators, chef style gas ranges, crown molding, brick pavers or swimming pools. Your father's new car didn't have air-conditioning, power windows, power door locks, ABS breaks, airbags, cruise control, premium sound, GPS or leather upholstery. Right up until the day he died my father bought cars without any these modern contrivances (except for the airbags) because he considered them to be extravagant luxuries.

Are you trying to say the working poor are poor because they have spent all their money on the things you listed? You see how stupid that is, don't you?

Off topic comment; I have noticed that clown avatars are starting to go out of style with the left wing posters.

Fashion is everything.

.

Far from off topic. The poster made a list of items affluent people enjoy and I merely ask what info that list was offering to this discussion. Just because you are embarrassed to answer a question doesn't make it off subject.

.
Chuckle...

 

[bripat9643]

They pay more in taxes now than they did then, and spending on all of these services has increased in real dollars.

So, once again, how did cutting marginal tax rates harm the middle class?

Weak.....very weak

What percent of their income do they pay now compared to then?

Total dollars unadjusted for inflation and increased wealth is deceptive and you know it

What difference does it make what the percentage is? The bottom line is that they pay a larger share of total income taxes.

Once again....weak, very weak

That larger share is due to the immensely larger piece of the pie that they are taking

The people at the bottom are also receiving more in wages than they did 50 years ago, so who gives a fuck what share the top 1% is earning?

Is this just an act or are you fucking stupid?

Comparing wages to 50 years ago?

I thought that's what all you dumb fucks were whining about, how people earn less than 50 years ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The American working/middle class over the last 50 years went from the one earner household being the norm to the two earner household being the norm - mostly out of necessity.

Why is that better?

Taxation, due to the cost of sustaining the US Federal, State and Local Government has forced bot adults to work. Because the monies stripped from their earnings through all taxation, now consumes more than 50% of each earners check. Now this is a very complex calculus... but extrapolate from the data, what happens when two people are at issue; wherein one person used to earn 100%, but today that one person nets half as much as one person used to earn.

GO!

That's false.

 

[BluesLegend]

Apple made 18 billion in the last quarter manufacturing at rock bottom wages overseas. Why is that a good thing?

"The Good Thing" is that as a result of the lower manufacturing cost, Apple's products are within the means of MOST PEOPLE to BUY THEM, thus MOST PEOPLE can receive the benefit that those products represent to them.

We call this THE NATURAL ORDER OF ECONOMICS, OKA: Capitalism.

They made 18 BILLION IN PROFIT in the quarter. What if they only made 9 billion, and the other half went to better wages,

even to wages high enough to bring decent jobs back to the US? Where's the harm?

So middle class stock holders who own Apple decided not to give half the profits to the employees is that your point?

 

[bripat9643]

Apple made 18 billion in the last quarter manufacturing at rock bottom wages overseas. Why is that a good thing?

Just because they can? Is that what makes it good?

Those people all earned more working for Apple than they could have earned elsewhere. The $18 billion Apple earned will be used to create new products and new jobs.

Where's the downside?

They're jobs overseas. You people are dense.

So you believe that raising wages in poor countries like China is not a good thing?