Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pretty much soYour confused and distorted version of socialism.The whole thing is based on a straw man.A growing number of really uninformed students are declaring Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. are correct regarding socialism and how we should rob the rich and deliver to the poor.
OK... two examples both of which may be fiction but still present the truth!
The earth's population is 7,000,000,000
Total wealth of the world after deducting all liabilities: $280,000,000,000,000
Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth
So if progressives/socialists/Democrats had their way, we divide the wealth of the world and each of us would have $36,364... one time right.
They would see that as fair. Right.
But wait...A large proportion of the population in developing countries live on under $1 or $2 per day
Standard of Living in the Developing World | GiveWell
So these people given $36,364 to live on would last...50 years.
Average American spent in 2017 $100 per day in living.
Gallup Daily: U.S. Consumer Spending
$36,364/$100 per day means.. that would last 1 year.
Hmmm... wonder how many of the progressives/socialists/Democrats would be around?
Now this example really strikes home.
And I defy any Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. supporter to prove this is wrong. That if we all decided not to do better than the next person... where would we be?
Oh and remember there is only one leader in the below. Right?
View attachment 229917
View attachment 229915
Which is?
Socialism is a political ideology that advocates for an egalitarian redistribution of wealth and power in society through the redistribution of society’s means of production
(or means of making money).
Socialism, in the simplest of terms, involves making more of an effort to balance the scales between the rich and the poor.
What is socialism, really?
So is this your version of socialism... balancing the scales?
To me when you "balance" you have inertia. No movement either way. Dead in the water.
Again.. redistribute the wealth is socialism i.e. balancing the scales.
Take from a few and give to the many.
Who though is in charge of distributing? Who determines who is "wealthy" and who is poor?
Someone in charge does right. Do you trust people in charge now?
Who would you have that would equitably take from a few and give it all back to the many?
sure it is. see how simple that was?That's not socialism.how you figure. It is statistically correct that if you took away all of the money and handed it out, the money would be all used up and gone. So now you have no money. What next poindexter?The whole thing is based on a straw man.A growing number of really uninformed students are declaring Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. are correct regarding socialism and how we should rob the rich and deliver to the poor.
OK... two examples both of which may be fiction but still present the truth!
The earth's population is 7,000,000,000
Total wealth of the world after deducting all liabilities: $280,000,000,000,000
Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth
So if progressives/socialists/Democrats had their way, we divide the wealth of the world and each of us would have $36,364... one time right.
They would see that as fair. Right.
But wait...A large proportion of the population in developing countries live on under $1 or $2 per day
Standard of Living in the Developing World | GiveWell
So these people given $36,364 to live on would last...50 years.
Average American spent in 2017 $100 per day in living.
Gallup Daily: U.S. Consumer Spending
$36,364/$100 per day means.. that would last 1 year.
Hmmm... wonder how many of the progressives/socialists/Democrats would be around?
Now this example really strikes home.
And I defy any Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. supporter to prove this is wrong. That if we all decided not to do better than the next person... where would we be?
Oh and remember there is only one leader in the below. Right?
View attachment 229917
View attachment 229915
A growing number of really uninformed students are declaring Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. are correct regarding socialism and how we should rob the rich and deliver to the poor.
OK... two examples both of which may be fiction but still present the truth!
The earth's population is 7,000,000,000
Total wealth of the world after deducting all liabilities: $280,000,000,000,000
Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth
So if progressives/socialists/Democrats had their way, we divide the wealth of the world and each of us would have $36,364... one time right.
They would see that as fair. Right.
But wait...A large proportion of the population in developing countries live on under $1 or $2 per day
Standard of Living in the Developing World | GiveWell
So these people given $36,364 to live on would last...50 years.
Average American spent in 2017 $100 per day in living.
Gallup Daily: U.S. Consumer Spending
$36,364/$100 per day means.. that would last 1 year.
Hmmm... wonder how many of the progressives/socialists/Democrats would be around?
Now this example really strikes home.
And I defy any Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. supporter to prove this is wrong. That if we all decided not to do better than the next person... where would we be?
Oh and remember there is only one leader in the below. Right?
View attachment 229917
View attachment 229915
yes it is. see how simple that is? Without evidence we can PeeWee Herman this all day.No, you are just mindlessly repeating republican talking points.oh bullshit, you know very well they all want equal money to all. you all are evil.-Yours is. Find me one time..... one single time that Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders suggested that ALL people should get an equal wage? The proposition the two latter give is that the rich pay a proportional higher amount in taxes to make SOME basic services available to all Americans. Obama does the same in a lesser amount. This is NOT the same as suggesting that everybody gets the same amount of money. So a strawman.The whole thing is based on a straw man.A growing number of really uninformed students are declaring Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. are correct regarding socialism and how we should rob the rich and deliver to the poor.
OK... two examples both of which may be fiction but still present the truth!
The earth's population is 7,000,000,000
Total wealth of the world after deducting all liabilities: $280,000,000,000,000
Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth
So if progressives/socialists/Democrats had their way, we divide the wealth of the world and each of us would have $36,364... one time right.
They would see that as fair. Right.
But wait...A large proportion of the population in developing countries live on under $1 or $2 per day
Standard of Living in the Developing World | GiveWell
So these people given $36,364 to live on would last...50 years.
Average American spent in 2017 $100 per day in living.
Gallup Daily: U.S. Consumer Spending
$36,364/$100 per day means.. that would last 1 year.
Hmmm... wonder how many of the progressives/socialists/Democrats would be around?
Now this example really strikes home.
And I defy any Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. supporter to prove this is wrong. That if we all decided not to do better than the next person... where would we be?
Oh and remember there is only one leader in the below. Right?
View attachment 229917
View attachment 229915
What "whole thing" is based on a "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument." i.e. "straw man"?
Is is the "socialism" of Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. supporter, or is the whole thing my two examples?
- Not for nothing nearly all countries in the world have a system were part of the money people make is taken by the government to be redistributed to the population to provide services in one way or another. The basic disagreement is what for,where, and how much money the government takes. You made it about something else altogether.
oh bullshit, that is exactly what the left in the world wants. Bring everyone in to anyone's country open borders a kumbaya world.A growing number of really uninformed students are declaring Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. are correct regarding socialism and how we should rob the rich and deliver to the poor.
OK... two examples both of which may be fiction but still present the truth!
The earth's population is 7,000,000,000
Total wealth of the world after deducting all liabilities: $280,000,000,000,000
Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth
So if progressives/socialists/Democrats had their way, we divide the wealth of the world and each of us would have $36,364... one time right.
They would see that as fair. Right.
But wait...A large proportion of the population in developing countries live on under $1 or $2 per day
Standard of Living in the Developing World | GiveWell
So these people given $36,364 to live on would last...50 years.
Average American spent in 2017 $100 per day in living.
Gallup Daily: U.S. Consumer Spending
$36,364/$100 per day means.. that would last 1 year.
Hmmm... wonder how many of the progressives/socialists/Democrats would be around?
Now this example really strikes home.
And I defy any Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. supporter to prove this is wrong. That if we all decided not to do better than the next person... where would we be?
Oh and remember there is only one leader in the below. Right?
View attachment 229917
View attachment 229915
To begin and end with, socialism does not require that everyone in the world be given an equal share of the world’s wealth. Your premise is ridiculous.
Instead of wasting you time with bullshit fantasy notions with no basis in reality, why don’t you learn how a socialist democracy REALLY functions and come back with a discussion based in reality.
oh bullshit, that is exactly what the left in the world wants. Bring everyone in to anyone's country open borders a kumbaya world.A growing number of really uninformed students are declaring Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. are correct regarding socialism and how we should rob the rich and deliver to the poor.
OK... two examples both of which may be fiction but still present the truth!
The earth's population is 7,000,000,000
Total wealth of the world after deducting all liabilities: $280,000,000,000,000
Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth
So if progressives/socialists/Democrats had their way, we divide the wealth of the world and each of us would have $36,364... one time right.
They would see that as fair. Right.
But wait...A large proportion of the population in developing countries live on under $1 or $2 per day
Standard of Living in the Developing World | GiveWell
So these people given $36,364 to live on would last...50 years.
Average American spent in 2017 $100 per day in living.
Gallup Daily: U.S. Consumer Spending
$36,364/$100 per day means.. that would last 1 year.
Hmmm... wonder how many of the progressives/socialists/Democrats would be around?
Now this example really strikes home.
And I defy any Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. supporter to prove this is wrong. That if we all decided not to do better than the next person... where would we be?
Oh and remember there is only one leader in the below. Right?
View attachment 229917
View attachment 229915
To begin and end with, socialism does not require that everyone in the world be given an equal share of the world’s wealth. Your premise is ridiculous.
Instead of wasting you time with bullshit fantasy notions with no basis in reality, why don’t you learn how a socialist democracy REALLY functions and come back with a discussion based in reality.
oh bullshit, that is exactly what the left in the world wants. Bring everyone in to anyone's country open borders a kumbaya world.A growing number of really uninformed students are declaring Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. are correct regarding socialism and how we should rob the rich and deliver to the poor.
OK... two examples both of which may be fiction but still present the truth!
The earth's population is 7,000,000,000
Total wealth of the world after deducting all liabilities: $280,000,000,000,000
Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth
So if progressives/socialists/Democrats had their way, we divide the wealth of the world and each of us would have $36,364... one time right.
They would see that as fair. Right.
But wait...A large proportion of the population in developing countries live on under $1 or $2 per day
Standard of Living in the Developing World | GiveWell
So these people given $36,364 to live on would last...50 years.
Average American spent in 2017 $100 per day in living.
Gallup Daily: U.S. Consumer Spending
$36,364/$100 per day means.. that would last 1 year.
Hmmm... wonder how many of the progressives/socialists/Democrats would be around?
Now this example really strikes home.
And I defy any Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. supporter to prove this is wrong. That if we all decided not to do better than the next person... where would we be?
Oh and remember there is only one leader in the below. Right?
View attachment 229917
View attachment 229915
To begin and end with, socialism does not require that everyone in the world be given an equal share of the world’s wealth. Your premise is ridiculous.
Instead of wasting you time with bullshit fantasy notions with no basis in reality, why don’t you learn how a socialist democracy REALLY functions and come back with a discussion based in reality.
Days the stupid Russian who wants idiot right wingers to believe this nonsense.
Pretty much soYour confused and distorted version of socialism.The whole thing is based on a straw man.A growing number of really uninformed students are declaring Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. are correct regarding socialism and how we should rob the rich and deliver to the poor.
OK... two examples both of which may be fiction but still present the truth!
The earth's population is 7,000,000,000
Total wealth of the world after deducting all liabilities: $280,000,000,000,000
Richest 1% now owns half the world's wealth
So if progressives/socialists/Democrats had their way, we divide the wealth of the world and each of us would have $36,364... one time right.
They would see that as fair. Right.
But wait...A large proportion of the population in developing countries live on under $1 or $2 per day
Standard of Living in the Developing World | GiveWell
So these people given $36,364 to live on would last...50 years.
Average American spent in 2017 $100 per day in living.
Gallup Daily: U.S. Consumer Spending
$36,364/$100 per day means.. that would last 1 year.
Hmmm... wonder how many of the progressives/socialists/Democrats would be around?
Now this example really strikes home.
And I defy any Obama/Ocasio-Cortez/Sanders, et.al. supporter to prove this is wrong. That if we all decided not to do better than the next person... where would we be?
Oh and remember there is only one leader in the below. Right?
View attachment 229917
View attachment 229915
Which is?
Socialism is a political ideology that advocates for an egalitarian redistribution of wealth and power in society through the redistribution of society’s means of production
(or means of making money).
Socialism, in the simplest of terms, involves making more of an effort to balance the scales between the rich and the poor.
What is socialism, really?
So is this your version of socialism... balancing the scales?
To me when you "balance" you have inertia. No movement either way. Dead in the water.
Again.. redistribute the wealth is socialism i.e. balancing the scales.
Take from a few and give to the many.
Who though is in charge of distributing? Who determines who is "wealthy" and who is poor?
Someone in charge does right. Do you trust people in charge now?
Who would you have that would equitably take from a few and give it all back to the many?
Government acts like a referee. Not to make one side or the other win, but to make sure each side has a fair chance
In the past 30 years, all the calls have been going for the wealthy. The wealthy are expected to contribute less and less to society while protections for the working class are eroding
I have no desire to discuss the economy of 1929 to today..it is irrelevantPretty much soYour confused and distorted version of socialism.The whole thing is based on a straw man.
Which is?
Socialism is a political ideology that advocates for an egalitarian redistribution of wealth and power in society through the redistribution of society’s means of production
(or means of making money).
Socialism, in the simplest of terms, involves making more of an effort to balance the scales between the rich and the poor.
What is socialism, really?
So is this your version of socialism... balancing the scales?
To me when you "balance" you have inertia. No movement either way. Dead in the water.
Again.. redistribute the wealth is socialism i.e. balancing the scales.
Take from a few and give to the many.
Who though is in charge of distributing? Who determines who is "wealthy" and who is poor?
Someone in charge does right. Do you trust people in charge now?
Who would you have that would equitably take from a few and give it all back to the many?
Government acts like a referee. Not to make one side or the other win, but to make sure each side has a fair chance
In the past 30 years, all the calls have been going for the wealthy. The wealthy are expected to contribute less and less to society while protections for the working class are eroding
Right and the middle and working class have been shrinking.
Explain to me how come the GDP has grown from 1929 of $1.109 Trillion in inflation adjusted to $18.051 Trillion in 2017 inflation adjusted.
Explain how this growth of 17% a YEAR since 1929 in inflation adjusted occurred.. even though the population has grown by less than 2%?
Explain how come in 1890, there were about 4,000 millionaires in the United States, Google Answers: statistics on millionaires, late 1800s
In other words, $1,000,000 in 1900 is equivalent in purchasing power to $29,180,952.38 in 2017, a difference of $28,180,952.38 over 117 years.
$1,000,000 in 1900 → 2017 | Inflation Calculator
How many people in the USA have net worth over $25 million today?
There were 172,000 households with net worth above $25 million... The Number of High-Net-Worth Households in the US Continues to Grow - Marketing Charts
So in the 128 years since 1890 there are 1,312 times as many millionaires. Again explain how that has happened?
Just over half (52%) of American adults lived in middle-class households in 2016, up slightly from 51% in 2011, but down from 54% in 2001 and 61% in 1971,
The shrinking of America’s middle class has finally ground to a halt
Finally I just find it so funny that people like you and your ilk are so afraid of competition. You want everyone to share equally regardless of intelligence, heritage, drive or education.
You and your ilk think the perfect world would be where everyone was equal in every way. Right?
How bland. How truly inhuman. Our genetic code thrived on competition. Yet you want to bring everyone down to your level rather than raise people up as has been done
in the above example.
Please explain why your method of robbing the people that worked hard for their successes is better?
I have no desire to discuss the economy of 1929 to today..it is irrelevantPretty much soYour confused and distorted version of socialism.Which is?
Socialism is a political ideology that advocates for an egalitarian redistribution of wealth and power in society through the redistribution of society’s means of production
(or means of making money).
Socialism, in the simplest of terms, involves making more of an effort to balance the scales between the rich and the poor.
What is socialism, really?
So is this your version of socialism... balancing the scales?
To me when you "balance" you have inertia. No movement either way. Dead in the water.
Again.. redistribute the wealth is socialism i.e. balancing the scales.
Take from a few and give to the many.
Who though is in charge of distributing? Who determines who is "wealthy" and who is poor?
Someone in charge does right. Do you trust people in charge now?
Who would you have that would equitably take from a few and give it all back to the many?
Government acts like a referee. Not to make one side or the other win, but to make sure each side has a fair chance
In the past 30 years, all the calls have been going for the wealthy. The wealthy are expected to contribute less and less to society while protections for the working class are eroding
Right and the middle and working class have been shrinking.
Explain to me how come the GDP has grown from 1929 of $1.109 Trillion in inflation adjusted to $18.051 Trillion in 2017 inflation adjusted.
Explain how this growth of 17% a YEAR since 1929 in inflation adjusted occurred.. even though the population has grown by less than 2%?
Explain how come in 1890, there were about 4,000 millionaires in the United States, Google Answers: statistics on millionaires, late 1800s
In other words, $1,000,000 in 1900 is equivalent in purchasing power to $29,180,952.38 in 2017, a difference of $28,180,952.38 over 117 years.
$1,000,000 in 1900 → 2017 | Inflation Calculator
How many people in the USA have net worth over $25 million today?
There were 172,000 households with net worth above $25 million... The Number of High-Net-Worth Households in the US Continues to Grow - Marketing Charts
So in the 128 years since 1890 there are 1,312 times as many millionaires. Again explain how that has happened?
Just over half (52%) of American adults lived in middle-class households in 2016, up slightly from 51% in 2011, but down from 54% in 2001 and 61% in 1971,
The shrinking of America’s middle class has finally ground to a halt
Finally I just find it so funny that people like you and your ilk are so afraid of competition. You want everyone to share equally regardless of intelligence, heritage, drive or education.
You and your ilk think the perfect world would be where everyone was equal in every way. Right?
How bland. How truly inhuman. Our genetic code thrived on competition. Yet you want to bring everyone down to your level rather than raise people up as has been done
in the above example.
Please explain why your method of robbing the people that worked hard for their successes is better?
No question there are more millionaires. There is also a wider gap between the very rich and the working class. The worker gets a smaller and smaller percent of our GDP even though productivity has increased.
The worker today has less bargaining power with his employer and our government is contributing to that
Nobody is claiming that the trend which started under Reagan did not continue under ObamaI have no desire to discuss the economy of 1929 to today..it is irrelevantPretty much soYour confused and distorted version of socialism.
Socialism is a political ideology that advocates for an egalitarian redistribution of wealth and power in society through the redistribution of society’s means of production
(or means of making money).
Socialism, in the simplest of terms, involves making more of an effort to balance the scales between the rich and the poor.
What is socialism, really?
So is this your version of socialism... balancing the scales?
To me when you "balance" you have inertia. No movement either way. Dead in the water.
Again.. redistribute the wealth is socialism i.e. balancing the scales.
Take from a few and give to the many.
Who though is in charge of distributing? Who determines who is "wealthy" and who is poor?
Someone in charge does right. Do you trust people in charge now?
Who would you have that would equitably take from a few and give it all back to the many?
Government acts like a referee. Not to make one side or the other win, but to make sure each side has a fair chance
In the past 30 years, all the calls have been going for the wealthy. The wealthy are expected to contribute less and less to society while protections for the working class are eroding
Right and the middle and working class have been shrinking.
Explain to me how come the GDP has grown from 1929 of $1.109 Trillion in inflation adjusted to $18.051 Trillion in 2017 inflation adjusted.
Explain how this growth of 17% a YEAR since 1929 in inflation adjusted occurred.. even though the population has grown by less than 2%?
Explain how come in 1890, there were about 4,000 millionaires in the United States, Google Answers: statistics on millionaires, late 1800s
In other words, $1,000,000 in 1900 is equivalent in purchasing power to $29,180,952.38 in 2017, a difference of $28,180,952.38 over 117 years.
$1,000,000 in 1900 → 2017 | Inflation Calculator
How many people in the USA have net worth over $25 million today?
There were 172,000 households with net worth above $25 million... The Number of High-Net-Worth Households in the US Continues to Grow - Marketing Charts
So in the 128 years since 1890 there are 1,312 times as many millionaires. Again explain how that has happened?
Just over half (52%) of American adults lived in middle-class households in 2016, up slightly from 51% in 2011, but down from 54% in 2001 and 61% in 1971,
The shrinking of America’s middle class has finally ground to a halt
Finally I just find it so funny that people like you and your ilk are so afraid of competition. You want everyone to share equally regardless of intelligence, heritage, drive or education.
You and your ilk think the perfect world would be where everyone was equal in every way. Right?
How bland. How truly inhuman. Our genetic code thrived on competition. Yet you want to bring everyone down to your level rather than raise people up as has been done
in the above example.
Please explain why your method of robbing the people that worked hard for their successes is better?
No question there are more millionaires. There is also a wider gap between the very rich and the working class. The worker gets a smaller and smaller percent of our GDP even though productivity has increased.
The worker today has less bargaining power with his employer and our government is contributing to that
And there was a definite decline in median wages under Obama as this chart shows.
You really don't believe that statements like these that Obama made helped the economy do you?
FRED Graph | FRED | St. Louis Fed
View attachment 230068
No way will any business grow when rules and regulations consume nearly $1.2 trillion of the GDP yearly just in compliance.
I mean ACA was a perfect example:
Obamacare required an employer with 50 or more employees to have group insurance plan, Obama never understood that the employer would be faced
when the employer wanted to hire another employee to the 49 employees it would cost an employer an average of $284/month per employee.
50 employees times $284 equals $14,200 more per month.
Solution: Hire two part-time employees. No need to spend $14,200/month
As a result
A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.
The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.
shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.
Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract
So certainly that kept Median wages in decline starting in 2008...
View attachment 230069
Nobody is claiming that the trend which started under Reagan did not continue under ObamaI have no desire to discuss the economy of 1929 to today..it is irrelevantPretty much soSocialism is a political ideology that advocates for an egalitarian redistribution of wealth and power in society through the redistribution of society’s means of production
(or means of making money).
Socialism, in the simplest of terms, involves making more of an effort to balance the scales between the rich and the poor.
What is socialism, really?
So is this your version of socialism... balancing the scales?
To me when you "balance" you have inertia. No movement either way. Dead in the water.
Again.. redistribute the wealth is socialism i.e. balancing the scales.
Take from a few and give to the many.
Who though is in charge of distributing? Who determines who is "wealthy" and who is poor?
Someone in charge does right. Do you trust people in charge now?
Who would you have that would equitably take from a few and give it all back to the many?
Government acts like a referee. Not to make one side or the other win, but to make sure each side has a fair chance
In the past 30 years, all the calls have been going for the wealthy. The wealthy are expected to contribute less and less to society while protections for the working class are eroding
Right and the middle and working class have been shrinking.
Explain to me how come the GDP has grown from 1929 of $1.109 Trillion in inflation adjusted to $18.051 Trillion in 2017 inflation adjusted.
Explain how this growth of 17% a YEAR since 1929 in inflation adjusted occurred.. even though the population has grown by less than 2%?
Explain how come in 1890, there were about 4,000 millionaires in the United States, Google Answers: statistics on millionaires, late 1800s
In other words, $1,000,000 in 1900 is equivalent in purchasing power to $29,180,952.38 in 2017, a difference of $28,180,952.38 over 117 years.
$1,000,000 in 1900 → 2017 | Inflation Calculator
How many people in the USA have net worth over $25 million today?
There were 172,000 households with net worth above $25 million... The Number of High-Net-Worth Households in the US Continues to Grow - Marketing Charts
So in the 128 years since 1890 there are 1,312 times as many millionaires. Again explain how that has happened?
Just over half (52%) of American adults lived in middle-class households in 2016, up slightly from 51% in 2011, but down from 54% in 2001 and 61% in 1971,
The shrinking of America’s middle class has finally ground to a halt
Finally I just find it so funny that people like you and your ilk are so afraid of competition. You want everyone to share equally regardless of intelligence, heritage, drive or education.
You and your ilk think the perfect world would be where everyone was equal in every way. Right?
How bland. How truly inhuman. Our genetic code thrived on competition. Yet you want to bring everyone down to your level rather than raise people up as has been done
in the above example.
Please explain why your method of robbing the people that worked hard for their successes is better?
No question there are more millionaires. There is also a wider gap between the very rich and the working class. The worker gets a smaller and smaller percent of our GDP even though productivity has increased.
The worker today has less bargaining power with his employer and our government is contributing to that
And there was a definite decline in median wages under Obama as this chart shows.
You really don't believe that statements like these that Obama made helped the economy do you?
FRED Graph | FRED | St. Louis Fed
View attachment 230068
No way will any business grow when rules and regulations consume nearly $1.2 trillion of the GDP yearly just in compliance.
I mean ACA was a perfect example:
Obamacare required an employer with 50 or more employees to have group insurance plan, Obama never understood that the employer would be faced
when the employer wanted to hire another employee to the 49 employees it would cost an employer an average of $284/month per employee.
50 employees times $284 equals $14,200 more per month.
Solution: Hire two part-time employees. No need to spend $14,200/month
As a result
A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.
The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.
shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.
Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract
So certainly that kept Median wages in decline starting in 2008...
View attachment 230069
We are claiming that working Americans are being squeezed out of our prosperity and our government continues to help those who are already making obscene profits
I have the right to smoke 5 packs of cigarettes a day. That doesn't mean it's good to do so. As for the rest. In the very first reply in this post you called me evil. You did so because I don't believe as you do. I did no such thing. You said to me I hate all Americans. When I showed that to be demonstrably wrong you are now calling me both a fk and accuse me of the exact thing you do. JC I have shown on this board my ability to both agree on some issues with conservatives and even have changed my position on some issues when I was shown to be wrong. I'm willing to bet you can show no such thing.being irrational is a human right. you wish to eliminate those who don't think as you. that makes you a fk. You want all people to believe as you do, have at it. just don't bring it to my country. keep it in Belgium. People should actually work to agree on tough subjects and respect the other's view. not you progressives. nope.Insufficient financial means is just as capable of stopping someone from getting care. I have friends and family who've had this experience. For some people it is a choice between eating and getting care, denying it does NOT change the truth of that.doctors are available to all. you are in error.Oh and btw.46 Million Uninsured: A Look Behind The Number
https://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
The fact that some people in the US, the richest country in the world does NOT balk at having citizens incapable of having access to high quality healthcare is something that to me is baffling.
you mean you want free doctors.
Oh, bullshit. My 23-year-old son had to go to urgent care for an ear infection, and didn't have the insurance card to take with him. They went ahead and treated him, sent me a bill to submit to the insurance, AND signed him up for Medicaid as a backup, just in case.
"Choice between eating and getting care", my ass.Ah, getting sick is a something people do to themselves? Getting hit by a car is a choice? As for me hating Americans, I married one and my daughter has dual nationality. What I hate is the mechanisms that makes people believe without question. It makes them claim stuff like "being healthy is a personal choice". Even if they are intelligent, their personal beliefs makes them irrational. Irrational people are dangerous.no it isn't, poor life style does that. what one eats, what one does, what one doesn't do. it's so many things. you just hate americans doctors and the people.My point was that financial means is something that excludes people from getting proper care. Something you denied, and something I have personal experience to the contrary in. It's also something that as far as I now only happens in ONE first world country.... yours.in the US?REALLY? My brother in law got hit by a car without insurance. This meant that the ER did nothing more then stabilizing his shattered shoulder before they send him on his way. He couldn't afford the reconstructive surgery required and as a result has now less then 50 percent mobility in that arm. The mother of a friend of my wife likely died because she couldn't afford going to the doctor and have the test that would have diagnosed her cancer. That's 2 examples in my wide circle.
BTW, how is that the doctor's concern. Your brother should look into his own next steps.
The lady only had to go to a doctor. That's sad. There are so many places she could have gone. Likely she was going to die due to cancer.
That depends on were you live and what procedure.how long does one have to wait to have procedures done?The AVERAGE healthcare cost in Belgium is about half yours. This means out of pocket PLUS taxes. As a percentage of GDP the difference is less pronounced but still 50 percent.Not at all. If my taxes pay for it I DO pay. I live in Belgium, a country that has a tax rate that would make you blanch. On the other hand I have affordable ( not free) healthcare for half of the price. Why is it that all you Republicans constantly claim that only paying out of pocket constitutes paying?doctors are available to all. you are in error.
you mean you want free doctors.
Leftists consider having to pay for stuff themselves to be "not having access".
I dunno about Belgium, but if you're submitting to that level of taxes, you're nuts. If you think your healthcare is "affordable" despite paying that level of taxes, you're beyond nuts.
You misunderstand what we're saying. The issue here isn't whether we're paying out of pocket or through taxes; the issue is that OTHER people aren't paying through taxes OR out of their own pockets. When leftists blather about wanting to raise taxes so that "everyone has access to high quality healthcare", what they're saying is that they want ME to pay for THEIR healthcare.
Hence my statement that leftists don't think they have "access to healthcare" if they're in any way having to pay for it themselves, rather than having someone else pony up.
How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? - Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker
50 percent cheaper is affordable isn't it?
It was pre ACA ad the surgery was deemed not essential so the cost of it was more then he could afford at the time.why didn't he?My brother in law also got immediate care. What he didn't get was ALL the care required to reverse the damage.Insufficient financial means is just as capable of stopping someone from getting care. I have friends and family who've had this experience. For some people it is a choice between eating and getting care, denying it does NOT change the truth of that.doctors are available to all. you are in error.Oh and btw.46 Million Uninsured: A Look Behind The Number
https://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
The fact that some people in the US, the richest country in the world does NOT balk at having citizens incapable of having access to high quality healthcare is something that to me is baffling.
you mean you want free doctors.
Oh, bullshit. My 23-year-old son had to go to urgent care for an ear infection, and didn't have the insurance card to take with him. They went ahead and treated him, sent me a bill to submit to the insurance, AND signed him up for Medicaid as a backup, just in case.
"Choice between eating and getting care", my ass.
Because his income, between rent, food and other expenses made, paying for insurance was something he couldn't afford, as for medicaid it was pre ACA so he wasn't eligible. This brings me to my next point. You said your son at 23 has medicaid. This is thanks to ACA, something Republicans almost entirely profess to hate and medicaid is government healthcare. Is that not hypocritical when you want people to be able to take care of themselves?REALLY? My brother in law got hit by a car without insurance. This meant that the ER did nothing more then stabilizing his shattered shoulder before they send him on his way. He couldn't afford the reconstructive surgery required and as a result has now less then 50 percent mobility in that arm. The mother of a friend of my wife likely died because she couldn't afford going to the doctor and have the test that would have diagnosed her cancer. That's 2 examples in my wide circle.that's pure bullshit. not in this country. anyone can get access to a doctor. almost anytime.Insufficient financial means is just as capable of stopping someone from getting care. I have friends and family who've had this experience. For some people it is a choice between eating and getting care, denying it does NOT change the truth of that.doctors are available to all. you are in error.Oh and btw.46 Million Uninsured: A Look Behind The Number
https://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf
The fact that some people in the US, the richest country in the world does NOT balk at having citizens incapable of having access to high quality healthcare is something that to me is baffling.
you mean you want free doctors.
REALLY? How come your brother was wandering around with absolutely no provisions made for the possibility - likelihood, even - of needing medical care at some point in his life? Is he mentally challenged in some way? What prevented him from knowing what any sane, rational adult knows: that human bodies get sick and injured?
Ditto your wife's mother's friend.
And how come NONE of these people have heard of Medicaid or Medicare, if they really are incapable of providing for themselves? Do they live under rocks? How is it that you are apparently surrounded by utterly helpless, none-too-bright people who don't plan for their own personal care?
The demise of unions or the threat of unionization has destroyed the American workerNobody is claiming that the trend which started under Reagan did not continue under ObamaI have no desire to discuss the economy of 1929 to today..it is irrelevantPretty much so
Government acts like a referee. Not to make one side or the other win, but to make sure each side has a fair chance
In the past 30 years, all the calls have been going for the wealthy. The wealthy are expected to contribute less and less to society while protections for the working class are eroding
Right and the middle and working class have been shrinking.
Explain to me how come the GDP has grown from 1929 of $1.109 Trillion in inflation adjusted to $18.051 Trillion in 2017 inflation adjusted.
Explain how this growth of 17% a YEAR since 1929 in inflation adjusted occurred.. even though the population has grown by less than 2%?
Explain how come in 1890, there were about 4,000 millionaires in the United States, Google Answers: statistics on millionaires, late 1800s
In other words, $1,000,000 in 1900 is equivalent in purchasing power to $29,180,952.38 in 2017, a difference of $28,180,952.38 over 117 years.
$1,000,000 in 1900 → 2017 | Inflation Calculator
How many people in the USA have net worth over $25 million today?
There were 172,000 households with net worth above $25 million... The Number of High-Net-Worth Households in the US Continues to Grow - Marketing Charts
So in the 128 years since 1890 there are 1,312 times as many millionaires. Again explain how that has happened?
Just over half (52%) of American adults lived in middle-class households in 2016, up slightly from 51% in 2011, but down from 54% in 2001 and 61% in 1971,
The shrinking of America’s middle class has finally ground to a halt
Finally I just find it so funny that people like you and your ilk are so afraid of competition. You want everyone to share equally regardless of intelligence, heritage, drive or education.
You and your ilk think the perfect world would be where everyone was equal in every way. Right?
How bland. How truly inhuman. Our genetic code thrived on competition. Yet you want to bring everyone down to your level rather than raise people up as has been done
in the above example.
Please explain why your method of robbing the people that worked hard for their successes is better?
No question there are more millionaires. There is also a wider gap between the very rich and the working class. The worker gets a smaller and smaller percent of our GDP even though productivity has increased.
The worker today has less bargaining power with his employer and our government is contributing to that
And there was a definite decline in median wages under Obama as this chart shows.
You really don't believe that statements like these that Obama made helped the economy do you?
FRED Graph | FRED | St. Louis Fed
View attachment 230068
No way will any business grow when rules and regulations consume nearly $1.2 trillion of the GDP yearly just in compliance.
I mean ACA was a perfect example:
Obamacare required an employer with 50 or more employees to have group insurance plan, Obama never understood that the employer would be faced
when the employer wanted to hire another employee to the 49 employees it would cost an employer an average of $284/month per employee.
50 employees times $284 equals $14,200 more per month.
Solution: Hire two part-time employees. No need to spend $14,200/month
As a result
A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.
The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.
shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.
Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract
So certainly that kept Median wages in decline starting in 2008...
View attachment 230069
We are claiming that working Americans are being squeezed out of our prosperity and our government continues to help those who are already making obscene profits
So it seems that the original premise of the founding fathers...i.e. independence. Self-reliance. Freedom to advance at your own pace is what you want to replace.
It seems also that labor unions were your major angst against Reagan and the rest of us that favor self-determination and reliance on our own intelligence, hard work and replace it with co-op, union dependency which you favor.
Using my own and my Father's union experiences (both of us were union members) which are certainly subjective and biased against unions' protectionism that favored
keeping everyone on a same basis...i.e. socialized we found it chaffing to work the full 8 hours while we watched other union members slough off and yet still be protected.
We found our personal experiences frustrating that the unions' contracts were totally slanted towards screwing the employers.
Personal experience on my part is as a utility working repairing pallets one day I had opportunity to work on NEW lumber pallets. My foreman came around later in the day
telling me to stop as the union steward said "only carpenters under the union contract allowed to work on new lumber"!
Think about that nuance. I could repair old pallets with new lumber but when it came to "new pallets" i.e. new lumber only carpenters!
Stupid idiotic union got away with that because the employers didn't want a strike.
Here is a specific non anecdotal illustration of why auto makers for one went off shore under encouragement by our "globalists" presidents!
Unions have also displayed a territorial bent that borders on absurdity.
A Wausau, Wis., public employee union stopped an 86-year-old resident from being a volunteer crossing guard. WAOW-TV reported that union representatives didn’t want the man volunteering because it weakened their case to hire a unionized worker instead.
In another case, a Racine, Wis., public employee filed a grievance because inmates were cutting the grass free of charge.
The union worker claimed it was the “right” for government workers to cut the grass, according to the Racine Journal Times.
Wisconsin's Most Outrageous Examples of Union Collective Bargaining
Union Rules were Harder to Digest than Twinkies | Zero Hedge | Zero Hedge
As most people know by now, Hostess Brands - the maker of such American junk food staples as Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonderbread - announced last week that it had failed to come to terms with the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union and its 5000 striking members, and thus would enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy to unwind the company, sell off its assets and eliminate 18,500 US jobs.
The latest news is that Hostess and the union have agreed to enter into mediation in an attempt to prevent the company's dissolution, but Hostess Brands' story remains a very useful example of how government regulations can impose huge costs on US businesses and either drive them offshore or out of business entirely.
Scott Lincicome: Hostess Brands: A Case Study in Government Burdens and Global (Un)competitiveness
"Take grass cutting. As defined by the current United Auto Worker contract negotiated with the "Big Five" (GM, Ford, Chrysler, and top parts makers Delphi and Visteon), an auto "production worker" is a job description that covers anything from mowing grass to cleaning the toilets.
In the real world, these jobs would be outsourced to $8 an hour, no-benefit wage earners,
but on Planet Big Five, these jobs get the same wages as any auto line-worker:
an average $26 an hour ($60,000 a year) plus benefits that bring the company's
total cost per worker to a staggering $65 an hour."
what is the average hourly wage of a UAW auto worker?
All examples of the idiocy of labor unions and THEN... THEN... the total gall and audacity of labor unions to TAKE MY union dues and donate to Democrats!
68 percent of registered voters say they are concerned that public employee unions have too much influence over politicians who, when elected, must negotiate with these groups. (FOX News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) | March 14-16, 2011)
89 percent of private and government union employees agree that union workers should have the right to know how their dues money is being spent and believe the Department of Labor should disclose union spending on the Internet to ensure accountability. (The Word Doctors | October 26-28, 2010)
69 percent of private and government union employees believe union officials need to stop spending union dues on partisan politics and invest it in creating more jobs, as well as focus on the membership, not the elections. (The Word Doctors | October 26-28, 2010)
Use of members’ money for political goals was second only to corruption as the reasons Americansdisapproved of unions, according to a 2004 Zogby poll.
That poll also found that 63 percent of all employees, and 61 percent of unionized employees, agreed that union members shouldn’t be forced to contribute.
A McLaughlin & Associates poll indicated that 67 percent of workers were unaware of their right to withhold mandatory dues for politics.
Union FactsUse of Dues for Politics - Union Facts
Nobody is claiming that the trend which started under Reagan did not continue under ObamaI have no desire to discuss the economy of 1929 to today..it is irrelevantPretty much so
Government acts like a referee. Not to make one side or the other win, but to make sure each side has a fair chance
In the past 30 years, all the calls have been going for the wealthy. The wealthy are expected to contribute less and less to society while protections for the working class are eroding
Right and the middle and working class have been shrinking.
Explain to me how come the GDP has grown from 1929 of $1.109 Trillion in inflation adjusted to $18.051 Trillion in 2017 inflation adjusted.
Explain how this growth of 17% a YEAR since 1929 in inflation adjusted occurred.. even though the population has grown by less than 2%?
Explain how come in 1890, there were about 4,000 millionaires in the United States, Google Answers: statistics on millionaires, late 1800s
In other words, $1,000,000 in 1900 is equivalent in purchasing power to $29,180,952.38 in 2017, a difference of $28,180,952.38 over 117 years.
$1,000,000 in 1900 → 2017 | Inflation Calculator
How many people in the USA have net worth over $25 million today?
There were 172,000 households with net worth above $25 million... The Number of High-Net-Worth Households in the US Continues to Grow - Marketing Charts
So in the 128 years since 1890 there are 1,312 times as many millionaires. Again explain how that has happened?
Just over half (52%) of American adults lived in middle-class households in 2016, up slightly from 51% in 2011, but down from 54% in 2001 and 61% in 1971,
The shrinking of America’s middle class has finally ground to a halt
Finally I just find it so funny that people like you and your ilk are so afraid of competition. You want everyone to share equally regardless of intelligence, heritage, drive or education.
You and your ilk think the perfect world would be where everyone was equal in every way. Right?
How bland. How truly inhuman. Our genetic code thrived on competition. Yet you want to bring everyone down to your level rather than raise people up as has been done
in the above example.
Please explain why your method of robbing the people that worked hard for their successes is better?
No question there are more millionaires. There is also a wider gap between the very rich and the working class. The worker gets a smaller and smaller percent of our GDP even though productivity has increased.
The worker today has less bargaining power with his employer and our government is contributing to that
And there was a definite decline in median wages under Obama as this chart shows.
You really don't believe that statements like these that Obama made helped the economy do you?
FRED Graph | FRED | St. Louis Fed
View attachment 230068
No way will any business grow when rules and regulations consume nearly $1.2 trillion of the GDP yearly just in compliance.
I mean ACA was a perfect example:
Obamacare required an employer with 50 or more employees to have group insurance plan, Obama never understood that the employer would be faced
when the employer wanted to hire another employee to the 49 employees it would cost an employer an average of $284/month per employee.
50 employees times $284 equals $14,200 more per month.
Solution: Hire two part-time employees. No need to spend $14,200/month
As a result
A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.
The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.
shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.
Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract
So certainly that kept Median wages in decline starting in 2008...
View attachment 230069
We are claiming that working Americans are being squeezed out of our prosperity and our government continues to help those who are already making obscene profits
So it seems that the original premise of the founding fathers...i.e. independence. Self-reliance. Freedom to advance at your own pace is what you want to replace.
It seems also that labor unions were your major angst against Reagan and the rest of us that favor self-determination and reliance on our own intelligence, hard work and replace it with co-op, union dependency which you favor.
Using my own and my Father's union experiences (both of us were union members) which are certainly subjective and biased against unions' protectionism that favored
keeping everyone on a same basis...i.e. socialized we found it chaffing to work the full 8 hours while we watched other union members slough off and yet still be protected.
We found our personal experiences frustrating that the unions' contracts were totally slanted towards screwing the employers.
Personal experience on my part is as a utility working repairing pallets one day I had opportunity to work on NEW lumber pallets. My foreman came around later in the day
telling me to stop as the union steward said "only carpenters under the union contract allowed to work on new lumber"!
Think about that nuance. I could repair old pallets with new lumber but when it came to "new pallets" i.e. new lumber only carpenters!
Stupid idiotic union got away with that because the employers didn't want a strike.
Here is a specific non anecdotal illustration of why auto makers for one went off shore under encouragement by our "globalists" presidents!
Unions have also displayed a territorial bent that borders on absurdity.
A Wausau, Wis., public employee union stopped an 86-year-old resident from being a volunteer crossing guard. WAOW-TV reported that union representatives didn’t want the man volunteering because it weakened their case to hire a unionized worker instead.
In another case, a Racine, Wis., public employee filed a grievance because inmates were cutting the grass free of charge.
The union worker claimed it was the “right” for government workers to cut the grass, according to the Racine Journal Times.
Wisconsin's Most Outrageous Examples of Union Collective Bargaining
Union Rules were Harder to Digest than Twinkies | Zero Hedge | Zero Hedge
As most people know by now, Hostess Brands - the maker of such American junk food staples as Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonderbread - announced last week that it had failed to come to terms with the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union and its 5000 striking members, and thus would enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy to unwind the company, sell off its assets and eliminate 18,500 US jobs.
The latest news is that Hostess and the union have agreed to enter into mediation in an attempt to prevent the company's dissolution, but Hostess Brands' story remains a very useful example of how government regulations can impose huge costs on US businesses and either drive them offshore or out of business entirely.
Scott Lincicome: Hostess Brands: A Case Study in Government Burdens and Global (Un)competitiveness
"Take grass cutting. As defined by the current United Auto Worker contract negotiated with the "Big Five" (GM, Ford, Chrysler, and top parts makers Delphi and Visteon), an auto "production worker" is a job description that covers anything from mowing grass to cleaning the toilets.
In the real world, these jobs would be outsourced to $8 an hour, no-benefit wage earners,
but on Planet Big Five, these jobs get the same wages as any auto line-worker:
an average $26 an hour ($60,000 a year) plus benefits that bring the company's
total cost per worker to a staggering $65 an hour."
what is the average hourly wage of a UAW auto worker?
All examples of the idiocy of labor unions and THEN... THEN... the total gall and audacity of labor unions to TAKE MY union dues and donate to Democrats!
68 percent of registered voters say they are concerned that public employee unions have too much influence over politicians who, when elected, must negotiate with these groups. (FOX News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) | March 14-16, 2011)
89 percent of private and government union employees agree that union workers should have the right to know how their dues money is being spent and believe the Department of Labor should disclose union spending on the Internet to ensure accountability. (The Word Doctors | October 26-28, 2010)
69 percent of private and government union employees believe union officials need to stop spending union dues on partisan politics and invest it in creating more jobs, as well as focus on the membership, not the elections. (The Word Doctors | October 26-28, 2010)
Use of members’ money for political goals was second only to corruption as the reasons Americansdisapproved of unions, according to a 2004 Zogby poll.
That poll also found that 63 percent of all employees, and 61 percent of unionized employees, agreed that union members shouldn’t be forced to contribute.
A McLaughlin & Associates poll indicated that 67 percent of workers were unaware of their right to withhold mandatory dues for politics.
Union FactsUse of Dues for Politics - Union Facts
Unions and worker friendly legislation built the American middle class, but Reagan convinced people like you that things would be better when people like us could compete for our raises. The right lied. Getting rid of unions and worker protections just means that companies paid less and less, or at least, not more, until corporations today have labour costs that haven't been this low, as a percentage of costs, since the Gilded Age - the time that gave rise to unions in the first place.
