Put Up, or Shut Up; What are Republicans offering the Middle class? Be Specific

[The Rabbi]

95% of the income gains have gone to the top 1% of earners since the 30s. Meanwhile, the min wage is way behind on inflation. If people have more money in their pockets they pump more money into the economy.

If we raised the wage to 10$ an hour, prices would only go up cents on the dollar. The market would easily correct itself.

Wouldn't you want to live in a country with less public assistance.

Doesn't matter. All raising the minimum wage has ever done is raise all other prices so the net effect is zero. That has been shown to be true from the inception of the minimum wage.

Yes CEO compensation is ridiculously high. Yes it needs to be reigned in. No argument from me. But your methods merely allow that bullshit to continue and never addresses the real issues. It merely puts it off for the next generation to deal with.

We ARE the next generation so now it has to be dealt with. In 1932 2% of the population controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Democrats took over both houses for FORTY continuous years and also held the POTUS for a good portion of that time.

When they were done 1% controlled 90% of the wealth. Who were the Dems working for? Because it certainly doesn't look like they were working for the middle class.

That's the point. You think that Democrats (and I am one) are always the good guy but I can show you historically their policies have done more to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few than all the Republican policies since they were founded.

That is a simple historical fact.

Show me the historical proof that democrats are responsible for the concentration of wealth.

If you're democrat, what democratic polices do you favor?

I don't understand why you are so convinced that prices would shoot way up. Yes, there will be a slight increase, but people will still be able to afford it. Meanwhile the extra money being pumped into the economy would eventually bring prices down AND create jobs.

Many more people would be off of public assistance.

Uh, Billy. Is concentration of wealth better or worse since Obama took the WH and Democrats took Congress?
There's your proof.

 

[deltex1]

The powers that be closed my thread because I posted a question that was too hard to answer.

So here it is again;

What are Republicans offering the Middle class? Be Specific

Fuck the repubs. Double fuck the demoquacks. We don't need your fucking help.

 

[The Rabbi]

You people blow me away with the bullshit you say. Yeah, Redfish, I'm sure you get a tingling feeling inside when you hear a republican politician spout on about how he'll preserve freedom, the constitution and warm apple pie, but in reality he has absolutely nothing to offer you. TWhy? Because he doesn't actually give a shit about you.

Tell me. How, specially, has the Republican Party helped the middle class and poor?

Lincoln was a republican. Republicans passed the civil rights act in spite of fillibusters by democrats, republicans passed the Bush tax cuts that cut taxes for every middle class person in the country. Republicans opposed obamacare, the worst piece of legislation in the history of our nation.

Bush's tax cuts is the other chief reason our national debt is so high. Yes, the other reason is over spending, but Bush's spending and tax cutting cost the US 10 trillion dollars. Not only that, but job growth was pathetic under Bush. From his cuts, only 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut were created.

Lincoln? Really? That's the other example you give? Don't you think that is kind of pathetic? I mean sure Lincoln was our best president, but the republican party is absolutely nothing like it was back then.

If the cuts were so bad why did Obama sign legislation extending them?

 

[Billy000]

Doesn't matter. All raising the minimum wage has ever done is raise all other prices so the net effect is zero. That has been shown to be true from the inception of the minimum wage.

Yes CEO compensation is ridiculously high. Yes it needs to be reigned in. No argument from me. But your methods merely allow that bullshit to continue and never addresses the real issues. It merely puts it off for the next generation to deal with.

We ARE the next generation so now it has to be dealt with. In 1932 2% of the population controlled 76% of the nations wealth. Democrats took over both houses for FORTY continuous years and also held the POTUS for a good portion of that time.

When they were done 1% controlled 90% of the wealth. Who were the Dems working for? Because it certainly doesn't look like they were working for the middle class.

That's the point. You think that Democrats (and I am one) are always the good guy but I can show you historically their policies have done more to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few than all the Republican policies since they were founded.

That is a simple historical fact.

Show me the historical proof that democrats are responsible for the concentration of wealth.

If you're democrat, what democratic polices do you favor?

I don't understand why you are so convinced that prices would shoot way up. Yes, there will be a slight increase, but people will still be able to afford it. Meanwhile the extra money being pumped into the economy would eventually bring prices down AND create jobs.

Many more people would be off of public assistance.

Uh, Billy. Is concentration of wealth better or worse since Obama took the WH and Democrats took Congress?
There's your proof.

You know your signature about fallacy is quite ironic considering you are so often guilty of a fallacy of some sort. The wealth concentration was at full speed during Bush's years. Are you so stupid to believe Bush's enormous tax cut for the wealthy didn't contribute to this?

 

[Billy000]

Lincoln was a republican. Republicans passed the civil rights act in spite of fillibusters by democrats, republicans passed the Bush tax cuts that cut taxes for every middle class person in the country. Republicans opposed obamacare, the worst piece of legislation in the history of our nation.

Bush's tax cuts is the other chief reason our national debt is so high. Yes, the other reason is over spending, but Bush's spending and tax cutting cost the US 10 trillion dollars. Not only that, but job growth was pathetic under Bush. From his cuts, only 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut were created.

Lincoln? Really? That's the other example you give? Don't you think that is kind of pathetic? I mean sure Lincoln was our best president, but the republican party is absolutely nothing like it was back then.

If the cuts were so bad why did Obama sign legislation extending them?

Because it was one of many examples of Obama reaching across the aisle but obviously it was a bonehead move. It is one of Obama's biggest mistakes. However, his tax cut for the middle class benefited the economy well.

 

[The Rabbi]

Show me the historical proof that democrats are responsible for the concentration of wealth.

If you're democrat, what democratic polices do you favor?

I don't understand why you are so convinced that prices would shoot way up. Yes, there will be a slight increase, but people will still be able to afford it. Meanwhile the extra money being pumped into the economy would eventually bring prices down AND create jobs.

Many more people would be off of public assistance.

Uh, Billy. Is concentration of wealth better or worse since Obama took the WH and Democrats took Congress?
There's your proof.

You know your signature about fallacy is quite ironic considering you are so often guilty of a fallacy of some sort. The wealth concentration was at full speed during Bush's years. Are you so stupid to believe Bush's enormous tax cut for the wealthy didn't contribute to this?

Again, wealth distribution is worse today under Obama and the Democrats than it was under Bush and the Republicans. Did the Democrats' policies do absolutely nothing? Are Democrats incapable of passing legislation to fix this? You realize Democrats have essentially held the government for 5years, right? Why haven't they done anything about this problem, except made it worse?

 

[Billy000]

Uh, Billy. Is concentration of wealth better or worse since Obama took the WH and Democrats took Congress?
There's your proof.

You know your signature about fallacy is quite ironic considering you are so often guilty of a fallacy of some sort. The wealth concentration was at full speed during Bush's years. Are you so stupid to believe Bush's enormous tax cut for the wealthy didn't contribute to this?

Again, wealth distribution is worse today under Obama and the Democrats than it was under Bush and the Republicans. Did the Democrats' policies do absolutely nothing? Are Democrats incapable of passing legislation to fix this? You realize Democrats have essentially held the government for 5years, right? Why haven't they done anything about this problem, except made it worse?

Dude you are such a dweeb. It has been ACCELERATING for decades. Tell me, how is Obama supposed to fix it? You people are against ANY government intervention on the market. Tell me ass clown HOW is Obama supposed to fix it? You are too pathetic to accept a raise in the min wage.

 

[The Rabbi]

You know your signature about fallacy is quite ironic considering you are so often guilty of a fallacy of some sort. The wealth concentration was at full speed during Bush's years. Are you so stupid to believe Bush's enormous tax cut for the wealthy didn't contribute to this?

Again, wealth distribution is worse today under Obama and the Democrats than it was under Bush and the Republicans. Did the Democrats' policies do absolutely nothing? Are Democrats incapable of passing legislation to fix this? You realize Democrats have essentially held the government for 5years, right? Why haven't they done anything about this problem, except made it worse?

Dude you are such a dweeb. It has been ACCELERATING for decades. Tell me, how is Obama supposed to fix it? You people are against ANY government intervention on the market. Tell me ass clown HOW is Obama supposed to fix it? You are too pathetic to accept a raise in the min wage.

So Bush could increase wealth disparity but Obama, who had a filibuster proof majority in Congress, ccould do nothing?
Arent you tired of having a do-nothing president who can't get anything accomplished?

 

[Billy000]

Again, wealth distribution is worse today under Obama and the Democrats than it was under Bush and the Republicans. Did the Democrats' policies do absolutely nothing? Are Democrats incapable of passing legislation to fix this? You realize Democrats have essentially held the government for 5years, right? Why haven't they done anything about this problem, except made it worse?

Dude you are such a dweeb. It has been ACCELERATING for decades. Tell me, how is Obama supposed to fix it? You people are against ANY government intervention on the market. Tell me ass clown HOW is Obama supposed to fix it? You are too pathetic to accept a raise in the min wage.

So Bush could increase wealth disparity but Obama, who had a filibuster proof majority in Congress, ccould do nothing?
Arent you tired of having a do-nothing president who can't get anything accomplished?

Answer the question. HOW is any president supposed to fix it. Tell me what GOVERNMENT policy YOU would support to manipulate wages in the market?

 

[The Rabbi]

Dude you are such a dweeb. It has been ACCELERATING for decades. Tell me, how is Obama supposed to fix it? You people are against ANY government intervention on the market. Tell me ass clown HOW is Obama supposed to fix it? You are too pathetic to accept a raise in the min wage.

So Bush could increase wealth disparity but Obama, who had a filibuster proof majority in Congress, ccould do nothing?
Arent you tired of having a do-nothing president who can't get anything accomplished?

Answer the question. HOW is any president supposed to fix it. Tell me what GOVERNMENT policy YOU would support to manipulate wages in the market?

You claim Bush and the Republicans caused it. If they caused it, then someone else can fix it, capiche?
Why has Obama done nothing to fix it? IN fact, why has Obama made it much much worse? Doesn't Obama care about the middle class??

 

[Billy000]

So Bush could increase wealth disparity but Obama, who had a filibuster proof majority in Congress, ccould do nothing?
Arent you tired of having a do-nothing president who can't get anything accomplished?

Answer the question. HOW is any president supposed to fix it. Tell me what GOVERNMENT policy YOU would support to manipulate wages in the market?

You claim Bush and the Republicans caused it. If they caused it, then someone else can fix it, capiche?
Why has Obama done nothing to fix it? IN fact, why has Obama made it much much worse? Doesn't Obama care about the middle class??

Dude you are pathetic. Answer the question or get lost.

 

[Billy000]

I am all for fixing the wealth gap problem. We need to make changes in our free market system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Show me the historical proof that democrats are responsible for the concentration of wealth.

If you're democrat, what democratic polices do you favor?

I don't understand why you are so convinced that prices would shoot way up. Yes, there will be a slight increase, but people will still be able to afford it. Meanwhile the extra money being pumped into the economy would eventually bring prices down AND create jobs.

Many more people would be off of public assistance.

Uh, Billy. Is concentration of wealth better or worse since Obama took the WH and Democrats took Congress?
There's your proof.

You know your signature about fallacy is quite ironic considering you are so often guilty of a fallacy of some sort. The wealth concentration was at full speed during Bush's years. Are you so stupid to believe Bush's enormous tax cut for the wealthy didn't contribute to this?

Bush's enormous tax cut for the wealthy, can you give the specifics?

What made it so enormous?

 

[Billy000]

Uh, Billy. Is concentration of wealth better or worse since Obama took the WH and Democrats took Congress?
There's your proof.

You know your signature about fallacy is quite ironic considering you are so often guilty of a fallacy of some sort. The wealth concentration was at full speed during Bush's years. Are you so stupid to believe Bush's enormous tax cut for the wealthy didn't contribute to this?

Bush's enormous tax cut for the wealthy, can you give the specifics?

What made it so enormous?

So hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue is not enormous to you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know your signature about fallacy is quite ironic considering you are so often guilty of a fallacy of some sort. The wealth concentration was at full speed during Bush's years. Are you so stupid to believe Bush's enormous tax cut for the wealthy didn't contribute to this?

Bush's enormous tax cut for the wealthy, can you give the specifics?

What made it so enormous?

So hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue is not enormous to you?

What was the tax rate before and after the cut?

 

[Billy000]

Bush's enormous tax cut for the wealthy, can you give the specifics?

What made it so enormous?

So hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue is not enormous to you?

What was the tax rate before and after the cut?

Are you so lazy that you can't even Google this information? For the highest margin, it was 39.6% before. It dropped to 35%.

Next time do your own Googling. It really isnt hard.

 

[Billy000]

The Heritage Foundation concludes that the Bush tax cuts led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less;[3] while the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has concluded that the tax cuts have conferred the "largest benefits, by far on the highest income households." CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent.[4] The underlying policy has been criticized by Democratic Party congressional opponents for giving tax cuts to the rich with capital gains tax breaks while acknowledging some benefit extended to middle and lower income brackets as well

Dems call for ending tax cuts for rich - USATODAY.com

 

[Billy000]

Statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that these tax cuts effectively "paid for themselves" have been disputed by the CBPP,[6] the U.S. Treasury Department and the CBO.[7][8][9][10] Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2007: "Supply side doctrine, which claimed without evidence that tax cuts would pay for themselves, never got any traction in the world of professional economic research, even among conservatives."[11] Since 2001, federal income tax revenues have remained below the 30-year average of 8.4% of GDP with the exception of 2007, and did not regain their year 2000 dollar peak until 2006, though reasons for regaining previous levels are not given

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020 - CBO

 

[thereisnospoon]

The powers that be closed my thread because I posted a question that was too hard to answer.

So here it is again;

What are Republicans offering the Middle class? Be Specific

It's not hard to answer you just can't understand it.

We offer an opportunity to advance yourself based upon your own ability to actually achieve more than just middle class. We also provide opportunity for low class people to move into the middle class.

You seem to think we need to "offer" people a way to move up in class with no effort on their own. The government will simply grant people middle class status by stealing from others trying to work themselves into the middle class.

Your question isn't too hard to understand the solution is just too far from your ability to conceive.

You can't provide anyone a middle class living if they aren't earning it. There simply isn't enough tax money available to do that.

We offer an opportunity, you want to guarantee a failure of living in poverty on government handouts and think you can call that middle class. We think people without the burdens of government can do better for themselves.

We offer a chance at being successful, you offer them an unemployment check.

What a load of "Pie in the Sky" crap. You use words like "opportunity to advance yourself" and "we offer a chance at being successful." BULLSHIT!!!!! People can advance and be successful if they have jobs that pay more than minimum wage. Where are the jobs bills the gop promised? Obama has literally begged the House for jobs bills and what has the House done? They have voted to repeal ACA over 50 times and still we have no jobs bill. To make matters worse they have basically did absolutely nothing these last 5+ years and this year the House will be in session slightly over 100 days. Where are bills to improve the infrastructure which would help put people back to work. Where are bills that would jump start the economy like the raising of minimum wage? You people have never understood this simple truth: When you get money in the hands of poor people they SPEND it and their spending money creates demand, and that demand creates more jobs and grows the economy. You prefer helping the rich who do not spend the extra money. They invest it and offen those investments help grow the economies of other countries. You people are so mentally dense you could probably crack granite with your heads.

Having a "job" does not necessarily present an opportunity. It what one DOES while working that job.
We have two people. Each started the same day with the same qualifications.
One worker comes to the job every day he does only what he is told. He punches out and goes home. He does this 5 days per week.
The other worker does his job with enthusiasm. He comes up with new ideas on how to do his job better and more efficiently. He receives awards for good performance. He asks to take on more responsibility. Soon he is promoted and as a result is paid more.
Now, if you say opportunity is not earned nut should be 'given' you're not facing reality.
The amount paid is mutually exclusive.
The getting the foot in the door is where it starts. Wages increase with ability, drive and ambition. No one in business is going to pay workers who "put in their time"...That's a widely used phrase by those represented by labor collectives. That phrase no longer carries any merit. It's dead.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue is not enormous to you?

What was the tax rate before and after the cut?

Are you so lazy that you can't even Google this information? For the highest margin, it was 39.6% before. It dropped to 35%.

Next time do your own Googling. It really isnt hard.

4.6/39.6 is less than 12%.

That's your enormous cut? LOL!

What were the cuts in the other brackets?

What's a good word for "bigger than enormous"?