"Income Inequality": So What?

[squeeze berry]

You, I, and a lot of folks are paying plenty of taxes and yes that includes the poor. That also includes the poor that weren't poor and are now thanks to this latest bubble that burst in this scam they keep trying to label as capitalism which is really a grand pyramid scheme.

I see from your second sentence that you have a misguided perception of those who are and have become poor. Maybe it goes even deeper than that and includes the color of ones skin first and foremost. If so, consider this. Try to consider if the tables were turned and we whites were the ones who were/are the minority and not treated equally? I know they are not treated equally, it's as obvious as the day is long to those who bother to look, see, listen, etc.. How do you think we whites would be better when we weren't being treated equally?

you are the one that brought race into it.

How about proving that blacks are being treated unfairly there Mr Uncle Tim Wise

..and yet another prime example of the comprehension problems you and quite a few of your con buds have. Where did I state they were treated "unfairly?"

you are right that you did not say unfairly, just unequally. Would you mind explaining the difference?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Try paying the tax rates of Sweden then. Everything comes at a cost. There is no free lunch.
Now, your side keeps playing the 91% card.
The fact is there was an almost unreachable threshold to even be in the 91% bracket. And that bracket as all do, only the income above a certain amount and not as your side wants everyone to believe is taxable at that rate.
For example. With a 91% rate a person who earns $1 million is not taxed from dollar one at that rate. To believe that is so would be absurd.
Question: Do you really believe that someone who earned $1 million would lose $910k to the government is just?
You people seek to bring on absolute equality of outcome. You believe we should all be the same regardless of ability or intelligence. Bullshit.
Those of us that work to advance ourselves and try to make a better life through that work are sick and tired of parasites wanting their cut of our money. We sweat, you people take. Is that how you believe it's supposed to work. Do you believe that you are somehow owed something?
Do you really believe that should the federal government figure out a way to increase taxes it will somehow miraculously find the spine to practice fiscal responsibility? As though more confiscation would somehow make it all better?
ANd please, don't hand me some nonsense such as "well, at least it's something". Or "At least we got back at those rich bastards". We have all heard those tunes before. It's boring.

I don't think anyone is arguing that some people don't deserve more that others...it's the amount we're arguing about....When the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, something is seriously wrong.

Right! Add to that the upper 1% gets more in subsidies (welfare-for-the-rich) and is FAR more expensive and costly than is the pittance of welfare the poor receive. Add to that the poor have no representation in DC except the dem's. Seeing as money now equals speech, those with less are not being heard - only despised - never mind that there is no work. The monied interests are too busy buying our elections.

I laugh when you blind libturd followers list shit and make it out as though it is the gospel, but don't provide the proof via a link, etc. Am I supposed to take you on your word? If so, why's that? Based on some of the previous bs you've posted I have no reason to believe you.
Well, Pot, how's Kettle doing?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you claiming the poor have these luxuries?

According to the Census Bureau:

* Eighty percent of the 46 million people in this country classified as "poor" have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire US population had it.

* 92 percent have a microwave.

* Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.

* Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.

* Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.

* Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.

* More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

* 43 percent have Internet access.

* One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.

* One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.

* 42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom. (Tell us again, liberals, how desirable it would be to emulate these countries.)

If you want to argue with how good the poor actually have it in this country, go argue with the Census Bureau, not us.

I laugh when you blind con followers list shit and make it out as though it is the gospel, but don't provide the proof via a linky, etc. Am I suppose to take you on your word? If so, why's that? Based on some of the previous bs you've posted I have no reason to believe you so you can bet I will fact check your latest "list" asap.

Are you really that damned lazy, that "Census Bureau report on poverty" doesn't help you out enough? It doesn't exist because I didn't provide you a link so you didn't have to type into a search engine? Or is it just that you're so damned uninformed that you didn't know the Census Bureau does an annual report on poverty until I mentioned it?

Fucktard.

Yeah, I actually DO doubt that you're going to "fact check my latest list", because you just told me you're too frigging stupid to do it without me drawing you a diagram first.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think anyone is arguing that some people don't deserve more that others...it's the amount we're arguing about....When the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, something is seriously wrong.

Right! Add to that the upper 1% gets more in subsidies (welfare-for-the-rich) and is FAR more expensive and costly than is the pittance of welfare the poor receive. Add to that the poor have no representation in DC except the dem's. Seeing as money now equals speech, those with less are not being heard - only despised - never mind that there is no work. The monied interests are too busy buying our elections.

I laugh when you blind libturd followers list shit and make it out as though it is the gospel, but don't provide the proof via a link, etc. Am I supposed to take you on your word? If so, why's that? Based on some of the previous bs you've posted I have no reason to believe you.
Well, Pot, how's Kettle doing?

I cannot believe this mouthbreathing imbecile is JUST NOW finding out that the US Census Bureau does an annual report on poverty, and feels it's too difficult to locate that data without being provided a specific link. No doubt he also expects that link to connect to large pictures drawn in crayon, as well.

 

[Fordsflylow]

According to the Census Bureau:

* Eighty percent of the 46 million people in this country classified as "poor" have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire US population had it.

* 92 percent have a microwave.

* Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.

* Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.

* Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.

* Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.

* More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

* 43 percent have Internet access.

* One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.

* One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.

* 42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom. (Tell us again, liberals, how desirable it would be to emulate these countries.)

If you want to argue with how good the poor actually have it in this country, go argue with the Census Bureau, not us.

I laugh when you blind con followers list shit and make it out as though it is the gospel, but don't provide the proof via a linky, etc. Am I suppose to take you on your word? If so, why's that? Based on some of the previous bs you've posted I have no reason to believe you so you can bet I will fact check your latest "list" asap.

Are you really that damned lazy, that "Census Bureau report on poverty" doesn't help you out enough? It doesn't exist because I didn't provide you a link so you didn't have to type into a search engine? Or is it just that you're so damned uninformed that you didn't know the Census Bureau does an annual report on poverty until I mentioned it?

Fucktard.

Yeah, I actually DO doubt that you're going to "fact check my latest list", because you just told me you're too frigging stupid to do it without me drawing you a diagram first.

Just as I thought you are AGAIN full of shit. Seems to be an ongoing theme with your posts. There is no such data listed in the census as you have listed there. It had to have come from one of your lame ass right-wing propaganda sites which is why you refuse to provide a linky. The census bureau does not list its data in that manner.

 

[Fordsflylow]

[/B]
you are the one that brought race into it.

How about proving that blacks are being treated unfairly there Mr Uncle Tim Wise

..and yet another prime example of the comprehension problems you and quite a few of your con buds have. Where did I state they were treated "unfairly?"

you are right that you did not say unfairly, just unequally. Would you mind explaining the difference?

They're treated as a second class citizen. I know it, you should know it and likely do just too skeered or too stubborn to admit to it.

 

[Fordsflylow]

If you think Sweden's system is perfect, by all means pack your things and move there.
And do not twist and bend the US Constitution to suit your needs.
Taxation is not intended for liberals to use as a means to get even or to punish.
If you agree with Art 1 Sec 8 you must agree with ALL of it's parts. Not just the ones you believe support your position.

The argument that I should move to Sweden is the argument that I always get when I refute the argument that, "Socialism has always failed in every country where it has been tried."

In Scandinavia what right wing Americans claim does not work works fine.

The U.S. Constitution is vaguely worded and open to various interpretations. Basically it is nothing more than a guide book on how to run a democratic government. During the 1950s the top tax rate never got below 91 percent. There was nothing un Constitutional about that. For most Americans those were good years.

Try paying the tax rates of Sweden then. Everything comes at a cost. There is no free lunch.
Now, your side keeps playing the 91% card.
The fact is there was an almost unreachable threshold to even be in the 91% bracket. And that bracket as all do, only the income above a certain amount and not as your side wants everyone to believe is taxable at that rate.
For example. With a 91% rate a person who earns $1 million is not taxed from dollar one at that rate. To believe that is so would be absurd.
Question: Do you really believe that someone who earned $1 million would lose $910k to the government is just?
You people seek to bring on absolute equality of outcome. You believe we should all be the same regardless of ability or intelligence. Bullshit.
Those of us that work to advance ourselves and try to make a better life through that work are sick and tired of parasites wanting their cut of our money. We sweat, you people take. Is that how you believe it's supposed to work. Do you believe that you are somehow owed something?
Do you really believe that should the federal government figure out a way to increase taxes it will somehow miraculously find the spine to practice fiscal responsibility? As though more confiscation would somehow make it all better?
ANd please, don't hand me some nonsense such as "well, at least it's something". Or "At least we got back at those rich bastards". We have all heard those tunes before. It's boring.

I don't know where you clowns come up with this shit. You may think you are coming across as some cyber joe/jane tough guy/gal, or maybe you think you are somehow intelligent but you're really nothing, especially when you write childish bs like this over and over again.

 

[Fordsflylow]

The term general welfare pertains to the welfare of the nation, not that people get a check every month. A practice, which if continued, would impoverish the nation.

The term "general welfare," like much of the Constitution, is open to various interpretations. I interpret it as an authorization of the welfare state. The Scandinavian countries have generous public sectors of the economy. They also have AAA ratings with Moody's and Standard & Poor's, and less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product than the United States.

Yes we should all become wards of the State.
BTW, the US Constitution is unambiguous.
It is people who see the world inside one big vat of grey matter that for all intents and purposes use words and twist them to put themselves into comfort zones.
Like you have with this out of left field interpretation.
This nation was not formed wit5h the intent of you or anyone else being able to sit at home and collect a check.

No one owes you a God damned thing.
Oh...Your assessment of the Scandinavian Countries leaves out many details.
Number one, there are fewer people living in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland than in the New York Metro area.
Second. All of those countries are virtual homogeneous societies. With little in the way of diversity there is virtually no chance for dissention among the population. The government is benevolent and the people obedient.
These countries have very high income and sales taxes. Some 70% of the income of the average person goes back to the government to pay for the social programs and infrastructure. There is little in the way of financial liberty.
We value our freedom and liberty here. We are citizens. Those people of which you speak are de facto subjects.

What makes you think the wealthy deserves preferential or special treatment as it is and has been getting since the days of reagan?

Are they going to be hurt by obama wanting to raise the rates back to 39%? If they have it so rough why then do they have RECORD profits? RECORD bonuses? RECORD low taxes?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I laugh when you blind con followers list shit and make it out as though it is the gospel, but don't provide the proof via a linky, etc. Am I suppose to take you on your word? If so, why's that? Based on some of the previous bs you've posted I have no reason to believe you so you can bet I will fact check your latest "list" asap.

Are you really that damned lazy, that "Census Bureau report on poverty" doesn't help you out enough? It doesn't exist because I didn't provide you a link so you didn't have to type into a search engine? Or is it just that you're so damned uninformed that you didn't know the Census Bureau does an annual report on poverty until I mentioned it?

Fucktard.

Yeah, I actually DO doubt that you're going to "fact check my latest list", because you just told me you're too frigging stupid to do it without me drawing you a diagram first.

Just as I thought you are AGAIN full of shit. Seems to be an ongoing theme with your posts. There is no such data listed in the census as you have listed there. It had to have come from one of your lame ass right-wing propaganda sites which is why you refuse to provide a linky. The census bureau does not list its data in that manner.

"Listed in the Census"? Really, fucktard? REALLY?! I've spelled it out for you TWICE now, and your ignorant, uninformed, possibly drunk ass actually thought I was talking about the CENSUS?

Shut. The Fuck. Up. You have just conclusively proven yourself to have less wattage than a dead lightbulb, and eliminated any need for anyone on this board to EVER treat you with anything but derision.

Out of consideration for anyone else out there who's as mind-numbingly, droolingly imbecilic as you, but at least retains enough intelligence not to announce it the way you did, I will explain.

The US Census Bureau, an agency of the US Department of Commerce, does many other things with its time and money besides simply conducting a population head count every ten years. One of the things it does is compile and release reports on the various demographic data (that means "information about smaller groups inside the population", since I now know you're too illiterate and thought-impaired to understand the big words without translation). One report they release every year is The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS), informally known as the Poverty Report. This report is available on the US Census Bureau website, which you would know if you had bothered to go there, instead of pompously and childishly announcing from the vast depths of your ignorance that "the census bureau [sic] does not list its data in that manner".

If you were a regular person, you'd be humiliated and slinking away in disgrace right now. Of course, if you were a regular person, you wouldn't have needed this diagrammed out for you in fingerpaints and Crayola.

Way to make a fool of yourself, Goober.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Are you really that damned lazy, that "Census Bureau report on poverty" doesn't help you out enough? It doesn't exist because I didn't provide you a link so you didn't have to type into a search engine? Or is it just that you're so damned uninformed that you didn't know the Census Bureau does an annual report on poverty until I mentioned it?

Fucktard.

Yeah, I actually DO doubt that you're going to "fact check my latest list", because you just told me you're too frigging stupid to do it without me drawing you a diagram first.

Just as I thought you are AGAIN full of shit. Seems to be an ongoing theme with your posts. There is no such data listed in the census as you have listed there. It had to have come from one of your lame ass right-wing propaganda sites which is why you refuse to provide a linky. The census bureau does not list its data in that manner.

"Listed in the Census"? Really, fucktard? REALLY?! I've spelled it out for you TWICE now, and your ignorant, uninformed, possibly drunk ass actually thought I was talking about the CENSUS?

Shut. The Fuck. Up. You have just conclusively proven yourself to have less wattage than a dead lightbulb, and eliminated any need for anyone on this board to EVER treat you with anything but derision.

Out of consideration for anyone else out there who's as mind-numbingly, droolingly imbecilic as you, but at least retains enough intelligence not to announce it the way you did, I will explain.

The US Census Bureau, an agency of the US Department of Commerce, does many other things with its time and money besides simply conducting a population head count every ten years. One of the things it does is compile and release reports on the various demographic data (that means "information about smaller groups inside the population", since I now know you're too illiterate and thought-impaired to understand the big words without translation). One report they release every year is The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS), informally known as the Poverty Report. This report is available on the US Census Bureau website, which you would know if you had bothered to go there, instead of pompously and childishly announcing from the vast depths of your ignorance that "the census bureau [sic] does not list its data in that manner".

If you were a regular person, you'd be humiliated and slinking away in disgrace right now. Of course, if you were a regular person, you wouldn't have needed this diagrammed out for you in fingerpaints and Crayola.

Way to make a fool of yourself, Goober.

No, it isn't. Just cause you claim it is does not make it so. What's to hide? Show me the linky and MAKE me a fool. Calling me one doesn't bother me in the least. I'm calling your bluff punkster! Bring it on!!I'd bet my bottom dollar it is from some right wing slime ball just like yourself.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Come on lets see it! You, trying to lecture me on research, that is farking hilarious.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just as I thought you are AGAIN full of shit. Seems to be an ongoing theme with your posts. There is no such data listed in the census as you have listed there. It had to have come from one of your lame ass right-wing propaganda sites which is why you refuse to provide a linky. The census bureau does not list its data in that manner.

"Listed in the Census"? Really, fucktard? REALLY?! I've spelled it out for you TWICE now, and your ignorant, uninformed, possibly drunk ass actually thought I was talking about the CENSUS?

Shut. The Fuck. Up. You have just conclusively proven yourself to have less wattage than a dead lightbulb, and eliminated any need for anyone on this board to EVER treat you with anything but derision.

Out of consideration for anyone else out there who's as mind-numbingly, droolingly imbecilic as you, but at least retains enough intelligence not to announce it the way you did, I will explain.

The US Census Bureau, an agency of the US Department of Commerce, does many other things with its time and money besides simply conducting a population head count every ten years. One of the things it does is compile and release reports on the various demographic data (that means "information about smaller groups inside the population", since I now know you're too illiterate and thought-impaired to understand the big words without translation). One report they release every year is The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS), informally known as the Poverty Report. This report is available on the US Census Bureau website, which you would know if you had bothered to go there, instead of pompously and childishly announcing from the vast depths of your ignorance that "the census bureau [sic] does not list its data in that manner".

If you were a regular person, you'd be humiliated and slinking away in disgrace right now. Of course, if you were a regular person, you wouldn't have needed this diagrammed out for you in fingerpaints and Crayola.

Way to make a fool of yourself, Goober.

No, it isn't. Just cause you claim it is does not make it so. What's to hide? Show me the linky and MAKE me a fool. Calling me one doesn't bother me in the least. I'm calling your bluff punkster! Bring it on!!I'd bet my bottom dollar it is from some right wing slime ball just like yourself.

Hide? HIDE?! Did you just accuse me of hiding THE US CENSUS BUREAU WEBSITE, simply because I expect you to type that into your fucking search engine, instead of posting a "linky" for your lazy ass?

Forget about it. Rather than goading me into spoonfeeding you as you hoped, you've just convinced me you're beneath notice. If you ever accidentally locate the Census Bureau website on your own, feel free to come back and attempt to rectify the shambles you've made of your credibility.

Buh bye, fucktard.

 

[Fordsflylow]

"Listed in the Census"? Really, fucktard? REALLY?! I've spelled it out for you TWICE now, and your ignorant, uninformed, possibly drunk ass actually thought I was talking about the CENSUS?

Shut. The Fuck. Up. You have just conclusively proven yourself to have less wattage than a dead lightbulb, and eliminated any need for anyone on this board to EVER treat you with anything but derision.

Out of consideration for anyone else out there who's as mind-numbingly, droolingly imbecilic as you, but at least retains enough intelligence not to announce it the way you did, I will explain.

The US Census Bureau, an agency of the US Department of Commerce, does many other things with its time and money besides simply conducting a population head count every ten years. One of the things it does is compile and release reports on the various demographic data (that means "information about smaller groups inside the population", since I now know you're too illiterate and thought-impaired to understand the big words without translation). One report they release every year is The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS), informally known as the Poverty Report. This report is available on the US Census Bureau website, which you would know if you had bothered to go there, instead of pompously and childishly announcing from the vast depths of your ignorance that "the census bureau [sic] does not list its data in that manner".

If you were a regular person, you'd be humiliated and slinking away in disgrace right now. Of course, if you were a regular person, you wouldn't have needed this diagrammed out for you in fingerpaints and Crayola.

Way to make a fool of yourself, Goober.

No, it isn't. Just cause you claim it is does not make it so. What's to hide? Show me the linky and MAKE me a fool. Calling me one doesn't bother me in the least. I'm calling your bluff punkster! Bring it on!!I'd bet my bottom dollar it is from some right wing slime ball just like yourself.

Hide? HIDE?! Did you just accuse me of hiding THE US CENSUS BUREAU WEBSITE, simply because I expect you to type that into your fucking search engine, instead of posting a "linky" for your lazy ass?

Forget about it. Rather than goading me into spoonfeeding you as you hoped, you've just convinced me you're beneath notice. If you ever accidentally locate the Census Bureau website on your own, feel free to come back and attempt to rectify the shambles you've made of your credibility.

Buh bye, fucktard.

Exactly what i thought! Run along child!

 

[Fordsflylow]

Cecile1200; what are you getting for being a radical right wing mouthpiece on the boards? Or, are ya just that stupid?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Right! Add to that the upper 1% gets more in subsidies (welfare-for-the-rich) and is FAR more expensive and costly than is the pittance of welfare the poor receive. Add to that the poor have no representation in DC except the dem's. Seeing as money now equals speech, those with less are not being heard - only despised - never mind that there is no work. The monied interests are too busy buying our elections.

I laugh when you blind libturd followers list shit and make it out as though it is the gospel, but don't provide the proof via a link, etc. Am I supposed to take you on your word? If so, why's that? Based on some of the previous bs you've posted I have no reason to believe you.
Well, Pot, how's Kettle doing?

I cannot believe this mouthbreathing imbecile is JUST NOW finding out that the US Census Bureau does an annual report on poverty, and feels it's too difficult to locate that data without being provided a specific link. No doubt he also expects that link to connect to large pictures drawn in crayon, as well.

True. He must love reading Shaman's posts.

 

[logical4u]

"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives...

WRONG!!!

I'm no great fan of all things progressive, or of most Progressives, but I'll rise to their defense here. Income inequality as a term, as you spin it, looks nothing like the term used by most credible and reasonable people.

The wealth gap. The income of the highest-paid Americans has soared while the income of the rest of Americans has grown little. The widening gap is cause for concern in all economic systems, but especially the economic system of a Capitalist Democracy, because killing off the middle class will make America a banana republic.

To have a middle class, there cannot be too wide a gap between those at the top and the rest of society, for when that happens there is just the wealthy and the struggling: the haves and the have nots.

America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was not so great a place to live for most Americans and immigrants, pre-FDR. Anyone who wants to argue that is welcome to have their butts kicked and handed to them on a plate of crow.

In every place this argument was used to wrestle power from those that had it, the wealth shifted from those that worked for it, and were willing to fight for it to an "elite intellectual ruling class" (of if you prefer: dictator and henchmen). Only by applying the laws by the gov't EQUALLY, does everyone have a chance of achieving wealth of their own. The taxes being proposed by the Charles Manson come lately in the White House is about PREVENTING those that are WORKING from being able to keep the money they are earning. It does not hurt Charlie's friends out there, they already have accumulated their wealth and have it sheltered from the tax man.
The tax system is a con being pulled over on the citizen that the gov't is "after" the wealthy. It simply makes the "poor" and the "middle class" poorer. It has little to no affect on the "wealthy", but it prevents the rest of us from ever getting there.
The capital gains tax, is a tax that is targeting those that invested in their own retirement. Now those retirements will be taxed at a higher rate (leaving less money for those on a fixed income to live). Those that live with envy as their primary emotion are easily manipulated by the politicians that are determined to become the "ruling class" and subjugating the rest of us. And those that think they are soooo smart supporting the people "in power" are too stupid to see they are Charlie Manson's "Shorty" (he was eliminated when he wasn't needed any more). Charlie is calling, go on, line up for the brain washing!

 

[logical4u]

You think Romney isn't smart and hasn't worked hard?

OK, in addition to being a loser, you're also stupid. I think we see a pattern emerging here.

That is EXACTLY what I'm stating! He's a rich punk and born a rich punk who has never worked a day in his life in comparison to blue collar workers. Why would you defend such a crook unless of course you are a crook also.

Nope, not even close to being stupid, but do wholeheartedly disagree with your long line of knee-deep bs. Nice try though, just the same!

Are you talking about Obama or Romney?

 

[logical4u]

How about those koch punks. Did they work harder and smarter OR did they have everything handed to them on a silver platter?

Someone had to buy the silver platter. Are you one of those who think when you die, the government should get all of your assets?

Not all but much of. They didn't scam...er...earn it! Name me all those rich kids who grew to be adults and did well for others with the money they've been handed? You know, to use as a healthy example of how it is good they get to keep the riches dada or mama made. Please do!

Hello, envy!

 

[logical4u]

WRONG!!!

I'm no great fan of all things progressive, or of most Progressives, but I'll rise to their defense here. Income inequality as a term, as you spin it, looks nothing like the term used by most credible and reasonable people.

The wealth gap. The income of the highest-paid Americans has soared while the income of the rest of Americans has grown little. The widening gap is cause for concern in all economic systems, but especially the economic system of a Capitalist Democracy, because killing off the middle class will make America a banana republic.

To have a middle class, there cannot be too wide a gap between those at the top and the rest of society, for when that happens there is just the wealthy and the struggling: the haves and the have nots.

America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was not so great a place to live for most Americans and immigrants, pre-FDR. Anyone who wants to argue that is welcome to have their butts kicked and handed to them on a plate of crow.

No one is killing off the middle class but the middle class themselves. If your income is stagnant, look to your worth in the "system"

If you're still working making wagons for Conestoga, you need to adapt. People aren't buying covered wagons and there are already more than enough wheelwrights to fill what little demand there is. People that move up and out of the middle class are those who learn new skills, develop new products or create a demand for their services, not the guy that thinks the government should subsidize the prairie schooner industry.

In the real world, what you claim is hooey. Your ability to live in a world of theory and principle is admirable, but to attempt to impose that world of yours onto the real world is

The overwhelming majority of people do not work in places where improving ones skills and acquiring new ones is going to happen.

ex: Everyone who works for GM. What do they all do? Quit? Go to school? Are you mad? Create a demand for services? What do you propose everyone go into marketing?

I agree that individuals should try to learn new skills, develop new products, but that is no way to form an economic and jobs policy. Applying the micro, what works with individuals to the macro plan is just plain stupid. Apples and oranges

Talk about a defeatist attitude?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I laugh when you blind libturd followers list shit and make it out as though it is the gospel, but don't provide the proof via a link, etc. Am I supposed to take you on your word? If so, why's that? Based on some of the previous bs you've posted I have no reason to believe you.
Well, Pot, how's Kettle doing?

I cannot believe this mouthbreathing imbecile is JUST NOW finding out that the US Census Bureau does an annual report on poverty, and feels it's too difficult to locate that data without being provided a specific link. No doubt he also expects that link to connect to large pictures drawn in crayon, as well.

True. He must love reading Shaman's posts.

Among the few things around here he can actually puzzle out the meaning of, I'm sure. Which is interesting, since intelligent, sane people find no meaning in Shaman's posts at all.