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

[BULLDOG]

That is obvious they don't. That is why the whole concept of supply side economics is doomed to fail

Do you ever tire of spewing left loon BS? If you want to get ahead, you and anyone else, get off your dead ass and apply yourself. Nobody owes you a thing

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?

 

[rightwinger]

That is the key to the issue. They did earn it
What workers have found since Reagan is that the jobs that used to be able to support a family on, no longer do

That is his legacy

Yes, Trotskyite, blame it on Reagan THIRTY YEARS AGO.... Only you Marxist, could possibly believe in THAT Fairytale! And the Manchurian muslim continued the epic falsehood while blaming BUSH for over 6 years for HIS FAILED SOCIALIST policies.... what's that U6 total 92 MILLION out of work? Over 20 MILLION ADDED to Food Stamp rolls?

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

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Huh... Your Grandfather also enjoyed the benefit nearly 100% of whatever he produced.

For the bulk of his working lifetime, he paid little to no sales tax, virtually no property taxes, fuel taxes, highway taxes were known as tolls and where he was able, he likely avoided those roads where such was practical. He also likely did not have need of a license to paint, he likely had no requirement to carry liability insurance, had little to no insurance on this cars, his health or anything else.

He also paid much lower FICA and Medicare taxes.

LOWER? LOL! I'll say... By comparison, he paid nothing. Which is also true for those who employed him. Meaning THEIR GRANDKIDS can say the same for THEIR GRANDFATHERS.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, Trotskyite, blame it on Reagan THIRTY YEARS AGO.... Only you Marxist, could possibly believe in THAT Fairytale! And the Manchurian muslim continued the epic falsehood while blaming BUSH for over 6 years for HIS FAILED SOCIALIST policies.... what's that U6 total 92 MILLION out of work? Over 20 MILLION ADDED to Food Stamp rolls?

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.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you ever tire of spewing left loon BS? If you want to get ahead, you and anyone else, get off your dead ass and apply yourself. Nobody owes you a thing

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?

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.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, Trotskyite, blame it on Reagan THIRTY YEARS AGO.... Only you Marxist, could possibly believe in THAT Fairytale! And the Manchurian muslim continued the epic falsehood while blaming BUSH for over 6 years for HIS FAILED SOCIALIST policies.... what's that U6 total 92 MILLION out of work? Over 20 MILLION ADDED to Food Stamp rolls?

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

"Since its inception, Social Security has featured a taxable maximum (or "tax max"). In 1937, payroll taxes applied to the first $3,000 in earnings. In 2011, payroll taxes apply to the first $106,800 in earnings. This policy brief summarizes the changes that have occurred to the tax max and to earnings patterns over this period. From 1937 to 1975, Congress increased the tax max on an ad-hoc basis. Increases were justified by the desire to improve system financing and maintain meaningful benefits for middle and higher earners. Since 1975, the tax max has generally increased at the same rate as average wages each year. Some policymakers propose increasing the tax max beyond wage-indexed levels to help restore financial balance and to reflect growing earnings inequality, as workers earning more than the tax max have experienced higher earnings growth rates than other workers in recent decades."

The Evolution of Social Security s Taxable Maximum

 

[Papageorgio]

Where does Warren get her info, she has lied before and why would anyone trust what she says now?

All You Need to Know About Income Inequality, in One Comparison

Let’s start with the Wall Street bonuses. The New York State Comptroller reported on Wednesday that the size of the bonus pool paid to securities industries employees in New York City was $28.5 billion. Dividing this total among 167,800 workers yields an average bonus of $172,860, which seems plausible enough. For sure, some received much, much bigger bonuses, and many received nothing.

What about the total earnings of fulltime workers at the federal minimum wage? The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that there are 1.03 million fulltime workers paid an hourly wage of $7.25 or less. These people tend to work around 40 hours a week on average. If they all earn $7.25 per hour and work 50 weeks per year, the total earnings of this group come to nearly $15 billion. Ms. Anderson, whose report usefully shows all her work, prefers an estimate of 37 hours per week — which looks too low to me based on other data — and 52 weeks per year, so after rounding, she gets to a total of $14 billion.​

Thank you for a source, not sure if those bonuses are outrageous, they seem okay, would we rather have the money kept by Wall Street?

The employees are also making money, a lot of money for investors. I think Wall Street and Congress need not be so close. It find it wrong to blame Wall Street for the laws Congress has written to allow them to be so influential. Look at Congress, they are all rich.

My big issue with Warren is her, "it's okay for me to do it" attitude is concerning. She cheated the government by lying and to this day doesn't feel remorse for it. Had she come out and said she was wrong, and she should not have don't it, I'd been fine. Her attitude is all wrong.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[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?

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?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"The total amount of money that Wall Street handed out in BONUSES last year was DOUBLE the total income of ALL FULL TIME Minimum Wage Workers. That's obscene.. ~Elizabeth Warren

Any significant brainy responses to this?

Such an asinine insinuation doesn't deserve a brainy response. But please do tell me one thing: What is it about a minimum wage job that prohibits receiving bonuses?

Ah. Gotta love rightwingnuts

OH! Now THAT is a lovely concession.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[percysunshine]

Do you ever tire of spewing left loon BS? If you want to get ahead, you and anyone else, get off your dead ass and apply yourself. Nobody owes you a thing

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.

.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

.

I have most of them on ignore

 

[Clementine]

"The total amount of money that Wall Street handed out in BONUSES last year was DOUBLE the total income of ALL FULL TIME Minimum Wage Workers. That's obscene.. ~Elizabeth Warren

Any significant brainy responses to this?

I think in the end of this discussion, most people will notice our Economy was exactly like it was just before the Great Depression. A few had it all and the majority had little. What's sad is the poor people are fighting for their own poverty, they think they will get paid more if their employers aren't restricted by Big Gov......Yea, Your employer is using you like a tool to lower restrictions to make even more profits and make you more poor. Thanks for playing.

Small business will not make it into this discussion because it didn't have enough $ to buy politicians.

Before, the left was touting the success on Wall Street as a sign that the economy was improving.

 

[bripat9643]

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 earning 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.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

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.

 

[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?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, Trotskyite, blame it on Reagan THIRTY YEARS AGO.... Only you Marxist, could possibly believe in THAT Fairytale! And the Manchurian muslim continued the epic falsehood while blaming BUSH for over 6 years for HIS FAILED SOCIALIST policies.... what's that U6 total 92 MILLION out of work? Over 20 MILLION ADDED to Food Stamp rolls?

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

They pay a higher percentage of total income taxes collected, so they obviously pay more, whether you're talking real adjusted dollars or not.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

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

Which you failed to address, thus you turned from that standing point, effectively yielding from that point, thus axiomatically CONCEDING TO THAT POINT.

The Cost of labor skyrocketed from that ONE PIECE OF LEGISLATION. Meaning that the costs of goods and services INCREASED... AS A RESULT of that Legislation. YOUR claim is that because of THAT INCREASE IN THE COST OF LABOR, GOVERNMENT SHOULD FORCE ADDITIONAL COSTS OF LABOR BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN AFFORD LESS.

Your reasoning is CIRCULAR. Thus your reasoning cannot solve THE PROBLEM. Therefore your reasoning is DISQUALIFIED FROM CONSIDERATION BY PEOPLE SEEKING A SOLUTION TO: THE PROBLEM.

See how that works?

 

[JoeMoma]

Do you ever tire of spewing left loon BS? If you want to get ahead, you and anyone else, get off your dead ass and apply yourself. Nobody owes you a thing

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?

I think that the standard of who is considered "poor" is constantly being redefined. There will always be a bottom 10% of income earners. However, the bottom 10% today have much more stuff than the bottom 10% in earlier generations. However, people are getting upset because they can't keep up with the Jones ( the jones work on Wall Street by the way).