So you want better paying jobs?

[Boss]

Right now a lot more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class.

Not true.

View attachment 49195

Depending on the local, 75k seems a low number to be considered upper income...

I don't understand your point. The graphic shows where the so-called "middle class" are going. Now you want to get anal over the parameters of the graphic but I can't change that. Some number had to be used to distinguish between low-middle-high and $25k-$75k seems to be reasonable parameters for "middle income" to me.

The data clearly shows the number of families below $25k are declining since 1967. The number of families below $75k are also declining. Where are they going? The graphic clearly shows you where they are going.

So when you say "more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class" that's just not correct according to the US Census Bureau statistics since 1967.

 

[Boss]

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards.

And as demonstrated here on numerous occasions, you're an idiot.

Correll can't even be happy with where we draw the line for "upper income" because it all depends on locale, but you're clamoring for some stupid "benchmark" without any definition. Seems to me, liberal retards have set up the ultimate never-ending argument. In 30 years, you'll still be arguing for a "living wage" because $125 an hour is just not enough... a family can't be expected to live on $250k per year! The ONLY thing that has changed with progressives since 1933 is the numbers.

ALL you do when you increase the MW is drive up prices and eliminate jobs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards.

And as demonstrated here on numerous occasions, you're an idiot.

Correll can't even be happy with where we draw the line for "upper income" because it all depends on locale, but you're clamoring for some stupid "benchmark" without any definition. Seems to me, liberal retards have set up the ultimate never-ending argument. In 30 years, you'll still be arguing for a "living wage" because $125 an hour is just not enough... a family can't be expected to live on $250k per year! The ONLY thing that has changed with progressives since 1933 is the numbers.

ALL you do when you increase the MW is drive up prices and eliminate jobs.

good point!! Bush introduced first $2 and 3 $trillion budgets, Obama is at $4 trillion and all liberals want is more and more. Its "Never Enough" [book name] even when they have everything they said wanted in 1950!!

 

[danielpalos]

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards.

And as demonstrated here on numerous occasions, you're an idiot.

Correll can't even be happy with where we draw the line for "upper income" because it all depends on locale, but you're clamoring for some stupid "benchmark" without any definition. Seems to me, liberal retards have set up the ultimate never-ending argument. In 30 years, you'll still be arguing for a "living wage" because $125 an hour is just not enough... a family can't be expected to live on $250k per year! The ONLY thing that has changed with progressives since 1933 is the numbers.

ALL you do when you increase the MW is drive up prices and eliminate jobs.

Only in your dreams are you a super Man. Here you are merely full of fallacy and a slacker and a mooch regarding a social work ethic when discussing the Body politic.

I don't care about "upper income" simply due to my "faith" in Capitalism.

I am merely recommending solving simple poverty and capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment in the market for labor.

 

[danielpalos]

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards.

And as demonstrated here on numerous occasions, you're an idiot.

Correll can't even be happy with where we draw the line for "upper income" because it all depends on locale, but you're clamoring for some stupid "benchmark" without any definition. Seems to me, liberal retards have set up the ultimate never-ending argument. In 30 years, you'll still be arguing for a "living wage" because $125 an hour is just not enough... a family can't be expected to live on $250k per year! The ONLY thing that has changed with progressives since 1933 is the numbers.

ALL you do when you increase the MW is drive up prices and eliminate jobs.

good point!! Bush introduced first $2 and 3 $trillion budgets, Obama is at $4 trillion and all liberals want is more and more. Its "Never Enough" [book name] even when they have everything they said wanted in 1950!!

says the right while financing and spending; and, complaining about the left being willing to discuss taxation and then spending on social programs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards.

And as demonstrated here on numerous occasions, you're an idiot.

Correll can't even be happy with where we draw the line for "upper income" because it all depends on locale, but you're clamoring for some stupid "benchmark" without any definition. Seems to me, liberal retards have set up the ultimate never-ending argument. In 30 years, you'll still be arguing for a "living wage" because $125 an hour is just not enough... a family can't be expected to live on $250k per year! The ONLY thing that has changed with progressives since 1933 is the numbers.

ALL you do when you increase the MW is drive up prices and eliminate jobs.

good point!! Bush introduced first $2 and 3 $trillion budgets, Obama is at $4 trillion and all liberals want is more and more. Its "Never Enough" [book name] even when they have everything they said wanted in 1950!!

says the right while financing and spending; and, complaining about the left being willing to discuss taxation and then spending on social programs.

liberal gibberish English from illiterate

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I am merely recommending solving simple poverty

China just solved 40% of the world's poverty by switching to capitalism, not by putting people on the liberal dole.

 

[danielpalos]

forty percent is not full employment of resources as a benchmark Standard.

why do you object to solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?

correcting for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment to much hard-work, socially.

 

[Boss]

why do you object to solving simple poverty

Because poverty isn't simple and you won't ever solve it, idiot.

There has never been any society on the planet where there was no poverty. For most societies, this is their biggest problem. Man has devised all kinds of systems designed to deal with poverty. To date, the most effective way has been through free market capitalism. It has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Couple this with free enterprise through an empowering Constitution enabling individual liberty and entrepreneurial spirit and you have the greatest most prosperous nation the world has ever known. The kind of place others dream of coming to.

Now, we contrast this with the Socialist-Marxist-Maoist-Communist systems promoted by you and Bernie Sanders-- Those systems have resulted in consistent failure with countries of our size every time they have been tried-- usually resulting in tens of millions of dead people buried in mass graves.

 

[Correll]

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity.

Boss says that socialistic policies have failed, and you reply that they are popular...

some policies fail all the time; capitalism failed in 1929.

Interesting. YOu state that "some policies fail all the time" and then mention a single instance of capitalism supposedly failing.

 

[Correll]

Not true.

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

I believe that "the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair."

But, IMO, that is because of Trade and Immigration policies designed looking at the economy as a whole and not at a breakdown of how it hits smaller groups WITHIN the US.

And the answer, in my opinion is NOT "redistribution of wealth" but trade policy and immigration policy designed with the interests of the US Middle Class as the primary goal.

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards. there is no reason to not abolish simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through a form of minimum wage that can be applied for on an at-will basis whenever labor can claim to be unemployed.

I am not sure of your usage of the terms Basic metrics and benchmark standards, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, claim to be unemployed.

Other than that you seem to think that we can legislate reality without concerns of cost.

Which is obviously incorrect.

The money available to the US government is finite.

 

[Correll]

Right now a lot more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class.

Not true.

View attachment 49195

Depending on the local, 75k seems a low number to be considered upper income...

I don't understand your point. The graphic shows where the so-called "middle class" are going. Now you want to get anal over the parameters of the graphic but I can't change that. Some number had to be used to distinguish between low-middle-high and $25k-$75k seems to be reasonable parameters for "middle income" to me.

The data clearly shows the number of families below $25k are declining since 1967. The number of families below $75k are also declining. Where are they going? The graphic clearly shows you where they are going.

So when you say "more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class" that's just not correct according to the US Census Bureau statistics since 1967.

My point is that your graph seem contrary to most data I have seen that shows wage stagnation for middle class workers.

And I do not believe that more people are descending that ascending, I think the group as a whole is stagnating.

I want increasing wages for the Middle Class and Working Poor.

 

[Correll]

I am merely recommending solving simple poverty

China just solved 40% of the world's poverty by switching to capitalism, not by putting people on the liberal dole.

China solved a lot of poverty by switching to Mercantilism and tapping into the Fountain of Wealth Creation that is the United States Economy.

 

[Correll]

why do you object to solving simple poverty

Because poverty isn't simple and you won't ever solve it, idiot.

There has never been any society on the planet where there was no poverty. For most societies, this is their biggest problem. Man has devised all kinds of systems designed to deal with poverty. To date, the most effective way has been through free market capitalism. It has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Couple this with free enterprise through an empowering Constitution enabling individual liberty and entrepreneurial spirit and you have the greatest most prosperous nation the world has ever known. The kind of place others dream of coming to.

Now, we contrast this with the Socialist-Marxist-Maoist-Communist systems promoted by you and Bernie Sanders-- Those systems have resulted in consistent failure with countries of our size every time they have been tried-- usually resulting in tens of millions of dead people buried in mass graves.

IMO, your argument is strongest if you cite the huge MIDDLE CLASS that Free Market Capitalism has built.

Not that citing Millionaire and Billionaires is wrong, mind you.

 

[danielpalos]

why do you object to solving simple poverty

Because poverty isn't simple and you won't ever solve it, idiot.

There has never been any society on the planet where there was no poverty. For most societies, this is their biggest problem. Man has devised all kinds of systems designed to deal with poverty. To date, the most effective way has been through free market capitalism. It has produced more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man. Couple this with free enterprise through an empowering Constitution enabling individual liberty and entrepreneurial spirit and you have the greatest most prosperous nation the world has ever known. The kind of place others dream of coming to.

Now, we contrast this with the Socialist-Marxist-Maoist-Communist systems promoted by you and Bernie Sanders-- Those systems have resulted in consistent failure with countries of our size every time they have been tried-- usually resulting in tens of millions of dead people buried in mass graves.

You are confusing poverty with simply being poor, simpleton. it is a fallacy of false Cause.

poverty can be solved as simply as correcting for the effect of a lack of income in our Institution of money based markets.

poor can Only solved by Individuals pursuing their liberty.

 

[danielpalos]

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity.

Boss says that socialistic policies have failed, and you reply that they are popular...

some policies fail all the time; capitalism failed in 1929.

Interesting. YOu state that "some policies fail all the time" and then mention a single instance of capitalism supposedly failing.

yes; even Prohibition (as a form of Religion) failed as a social policy.

Capitalism failed in 1929 when socialism was introduced more, to our political-economy to compete with the communists who were starting to make fun of us for playing at Hooverville.

 

[danielpalos]

Not true.

82 years we've been listening to the same song and dance.

It's time to bury Socialism once and for all.

If you were able to understand my links and graphs you would know that it is true.

------------

JUNE 24, 2015

A new Gallup poll shows that 47 percent of Americans would consider voting for a socialist candidate. Gallup has been polling Americans on their voting preferences for candidates of different backgrounds since 1937, but this year was the first time they inquired about socialism.

When broken down on party lines, a socialist candidate would earn the consideration of 59 percent of Democrats, 49 percent of Independents, and only 26 percent of Republicans...

Advocates for Sanders argue that the Gallup poll is misleading for a number of reasons. While Americans may disapprove of a socialist candidate, they strongly support policies that Sanders stands for. Fifty-two percent support a redistribution of wealth through heavily taxing the rich, for example—the highest number that Gallup has seen since first asking that question in 1940. And 63 percent of Americans believe that the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair.
Good News for Bernie Sanders? Poll Shows 47% of Americans Would Vote for a Socialist

I believe that "the current distribution of wealth in the US is unfair."

But, IMO, that is because of Trade and Immigration policies designed looking at the economy as a whole and not at a breakdown of how it hits smaller groups WITHIN the US.

And the answer, in my opinion is NOT "redistribution of wealth" but trade policy and immigration policy designed with the interests of the US Middle Class as the primary goal.

actually; i believe we should start with basic metrics and benchmark Standards. there is no reason to not abolish simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States through a form of minimum wage that can be applied for on an at-will basis whenever labor can claim to be unemployed.

I am not sure of your usage of the terms Basic metrics and benchmark standards, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, at will employment, form of minimum wage, at will basis, claim to be unemployed.

Other than that you seem to think that we can legislate reality without concerns of cost.

Which is obviously incorrect.

The money available to the US government is finite.

It is about the laws of demand and supply; and full employment of resources as a benchmark standard.

Why do you believe solving for simple poverty would have any harmful effect you may claim, in the private sector. What private sector would be worse off, if more potential customers have more money to buy more goods and services?

hearsay and soothsay is just that; when is the right going to have more than merely fallacy to work with.

 

[danielpalos]

I am merely recommending solving simple poverty

China just solved 40% of the world's poverty by switching to capitalism, not by putting people on the liberal dole.

China solved a lot of poverty by switching to Mercantilism and tapping into the Fountain of Wealth Creation that is the United States Economy.

there should be no official poverty in any command economy.

 

[Boss]

Right now a lot more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class.

Not true.

View attachment 49195

Depending on the local, 75k seems a low number to be considered upper income...

I don't understand your point. The graphic shows where the so-called "middle class" are going. Now you want to get anal over the parameters of the graphic but I can't change that. Some number had to be used to distinguish between low-middle-high and $25k-$75k seems to be reasonable parameters for "middle income" to me.

The data clearly shows the number of families below $25k are declining since 1967. The number of families below $75k are also declining. Where are they going? The graphic clearly shows you where they are going.

So when you say "more people are descending from the middle class than ascending into the upper class" that's just not correct according to the US Census Bureau statistics since 1967.

My point is that your graph seem contrary to most data I have seen that shows wage stagnation for middle class workers.

And I do not believe that more people are descending that ascending, I think the group as a whole is stagnating.

I want increasing wages for the Middle Class and Working Poor.

Well that's because my graph didn't have anything to do with wages for some mythical "worker class" that we don't have in America. It is showing you the movement in percentage of families in various economic levels. We have a free enterprise system whereby people don't have to be "workers" in America, they can be Bosses!

Across the kingdoms and dictatorships of Europe and Asia in the 19th century, this wasn't the case... people were born into the "worker class" and that's where they remained all their life. It was in this environment your heroes developed all this emotive bullshit you spew about "the workers" today. It's not relevant here because if you're not happy with your situation as a "worker" you can be something else. You have that freedom.

In your brainwashed little mind, you somehow assume that "middle class" families are the same group of people across a period of time and that's simply not true. People move up from poor to middle class, people move from middle class to wealthy, people move from wealthy to middle class. In some rare cases, people can skip middle class altogether and go from rich to poor or poor to rich. This dynamic is fluid and changes every single day. So when you talk about "the middle class" it's NOT the same people. It's a mythical group that doesn't exist. Created solely for the purpose of promoting class warfare because that is how Socialism is packaged, promoted and sold to useful idiots such as yourself.

I want every American to prosper and succeed, to reach their best potential, to use their talents and skills in a vibrant free market capitalist system which allows them the freedom of enterprise. I want our policies to encourage and promote that at every level. I want the pity trips and victim mentality to be replaced with motivations and maybe even a little 'tough love' when needed, in order to revive the human spirit.

 

[Boss]

You are confusing poverty with simply being poor...

Will you PLEASE shut the fuck up, you incessant moronic idiot?