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.
The economy won't get moving again until we get these braindead leftists voted out of office.Don't know. What do you think it should be?Most absurd.
Read the article dipshit. You don't understand jack.
Why do you defend government, the elites, and big business committing fraud to enrich themselves?
I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth.
What's the proper amount for the top 8% to have?
I think we will know it is about right when our economy gets moving again.
Yes cause republican policies work? The bush economy sucked. Scott Walker does everything in the republican playbook and WI sucks. The only strong repub states have money (oil) coming out of the ground.
Are the rich supposed to collude to pay workers less like the examples I have shown? That isn't good capitalism.
They don't collude anything.
A worker is only worth as much as another person that will do the same quality of work for the same money. That's how wages are decided.
If you make $15.00 per hour, and tell your boss you want $18.00 per hour, but he could find other people happy to take your job for $15.00, that's the route he will take.
It's not just monkey jobs, it's all jobs including mine. If I tell my boss I need another two bucks an hour to stay on the job, he has to evaluate whether or not he can replace me and my quality of work. If he cannot, I make more money. If he believes he can, he tells me to take my demands and go pound a salt bag.
Big corporations are not the largest employer in America--small businesses are, and they are not colluding with anybody. The biggest problem we have in the US is foreign workers. That's because they screw up the supply and demand process. By allowing them to enter this country, they create an endless supply of workers. And as supply and demand dictates, the more supply and lower demand, the lower the price.
I already gave several examples of corporations getting caught colluding to hold down workers wages. Yes it does happen. Most just don't get caught.
Right to work for less states aren't really doing that great.
They're doing fine because they are attracting businesses over non-right to work states.
That's besides the fact that the cost of living is different depending on where you go. A $300,000 house here is a large beautiful house in a development. A $300,000 house in other places is almost the ghetto.
About eight years ago, I had a kid that moved here from New York to go to school. I generally charged at the time around $500.00 per apartment give or take. He told me that if I could magically take my property, move it to the outskirts of NYC, I could easily get $1,800 for each of my apartments.
While people in the south make less money, they also have a much lower cost of living. Watch HGTV sometime when people are buying houses, and take note of what $700,000 will buy you if you are looking for a home in the NE states. It's ridiculous.
What we know about RTW
To sum up, this study has found that worker-friendly states are significantly healthier, are more productive, have less poverty, and with citizens who enjoy longer life spans. In four of the seven measures (GDP per capita, poverty, insurance and life expectancy rates) so-called “right-to-work” states come out significantly (and statistically) worse.
These findings have broad policy implications in those states where lawmakers are wrongly considering RTW measures, and should inform the good efforts of union members and allies to quell those efforts. Instead of pursuing laws that actually lower the standard of living in their states, policy makers should look for ways to elevate everyone’s standard of living. Enacting RTW laws is not only misguided, but in fact counterproductive to achieving such ends. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as ‘right to work.’ It provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works’. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining.”[26] The evidence suggests that Dr. King was correct in this belief, and that those who would advocate for a state to enact RTW laws would also be lowering the standard of living for that state’s residents.
Poverty, Productivity, and Public Health: The Effects of
Gee, from the NEA, gosh what a surprise.
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.Even Commies have inequality?
Maybe it's a force of nature?
Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much. When there is too much is slows the economy.
Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.
What is the exact right amount? How do you know?
When there is too much is slows the economy.
Why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it
And savings is bad for the economy?
High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes
When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
It was a weak economy and like Reagan he spent too much.The economy won't get moving again until we get these braindead leftists voted out of office.Don't know. What do you think it should be?Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth.
What's the proper amount for the top 8% to have?
I think we will know it is about right when our economy gets moving again.
Yes cause republican policies work? The bush economy sucked. Scott Walker does everything in the republican playbook and WI sucks. The only strong repub states have money (oil) coming out of the ground.
The Bush economy was a great economy for most of his years. If not for the housing collapse which had many a Democrat fingerprint on it, we would have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain administration.
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.Even Commies have inequality?
Maybe it's a force of nature?
Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much. When there is too much is slows the economy.
Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.
What is the exact right amount? How do you know?
When there is too much is slows the economy.
Why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it
And savings is bad for the economy?
High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes
When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
They don't collude anything.
A worker is only worth as much as another person that will do the same quality of work for the same money. That's how wages are decided.
If you make $15.00 per hour, and tell your boss you want $18.00 per hour, but he could find other people happy to take your job for $15.00, that's the route he will take.
It's not just monkey jobs, it's all jobs including mine. If I tell my boss I need another two bucks an hour to stay on the job, he has to evaluate whether or not he can replace me and my quality of work. If he cannot, I make more money. If he believes he can, he tells me to take my demands and go pound a salt bag.
Big corporations are not the largest employer in America--small businesses are, and they are not colluding with anybody. The biggest problem we have in the US is foreign workers. That's because they screw up the supply and demand process. By allowing them to enter this country, they create an endless supply of workers. And as supply and demand dictates, the more supply and lower demand, the lower the price.
I already gave several examples of corporations getting caught colluding to hold down workers wages. Yes it does happen. Most just don't get caught.
Right to work for less states aren't really doing that great.
They're doing fine because they are attracting businesses over non-right to work states.
That's besides the fact that the cost of living is different depending on where you go. A $300,000 house here is a large beautiful house in a development. A $300,000 house in other places is almost the ghetto.
About eight years ago, I had a kid that moved here from New York to go to school. I generally charged at the time around $500.00 per apartment give or take. He told me that if I could magically take my property, move it to the outskirts of NYC, I could easily get $1,800 for each of my apartments.
While people in the south make less money, they also have a much lower cost of living. Watch HGTV sometime when people are buying houses, and take note of what $700,000 will buy you if you are looking for a home in the NE states. It's ridiculous.
What we know about RTW
To sum up, this study has found that worker-friendly states are significantly healthier, are more productive, have less poverty, and with citizens who enjoy longer life spans. In four of the seven measures (GDP per capita, poverty, insurance and life expectancy rates) so-called “right-to-work” states come out significantly (and statistically) worse.
These findings have broad policy implications in those states where lawmakers are wrongly considering RTW measures, and should inform the good efforts of union members and allies to quell those efforts. Instead of pursuing laws that actually lower the standard of living in their states, policy makers should look for ways to elevate everyone’s standard of living. Enacting RTW laws is not only misguided, but in fact counterproductive to achieving such ends. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as ‘right to work.’ It provides no ‘rights’ and no ‘works’. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining.”[26] The evidence suggests that Dr. King was correct in this belief, and that those who would advocate for a state to enact RTW laws would also be lowering the standard of living for that state’s residents.
Poverty, Productivity, and Public Health: The Effects of
Gee, from the NEA, gosh what a surprise.
Doesn't change the facts, right to work has been bad. Wages are stagnant.
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much. When there is too much is slows the economy.
Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.
What is the exact right amount? How do you know?
When there is too much is slows the economy.
Why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it
And savings is bad for the economy?
High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes
When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
And like most loud mouth hypocrites he hires tax attorneys so he can pay as few taxes as he can THEN SAYS THE RICH DON'T PAY ENOUGH.
There is not a single law on the books making him pay less then his secretary.
Pull out your checkbook Warren and make things right.
Just send the check to the United Stated Treasury. I think they'd accept it!
Of course we don't have to worry about that. He's a democrat.
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.
What is the exact right amount? How do you know?
When there is too much is slows the economy.
Why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it
And savings is bad for the economy?
High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes
When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
And like most loud mouth hypocrites he hires tax attorneys so he can pay as few taxes as he can THEN SAYS THE RICH DON'T PAY ENOUGH.
There is not a single law on the books making him pay less then his secretary.
Pull out your checkbook Warren and make things right.
Just send the check to the United Stated Treasury. I think they'd accept it!
Of course we don't have to worry about that. He's a democrat.
The fact remains, the wealthy pay low tax rates.
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.
What is the exact right amount? How do you know?
When there is too much is slows the economy.
Why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
The top 10% of earners in this country pay nearly 70% of all collected income taxes by the government. If 70% is not enough for the top 10% to pay, how much should they be paying?
The rates are still low. They pay most of the income taxes because of all the inequality. Nobody else has money to pay.
How much money should the Government take from the people you do not like? What percentage is fair in your opinion?
I don't really think tax rates are the issue. Lowering them clearly did not fix the economy when bush tried it.
It was a weak economy and like Reagan he spent too much.The economy won't get moving again until we get these braindead leftists voted out of office.Don't know. What do you think it should be?
I think we will know it is about right when our economy gets moving again.
Yes cause republican policies work? The bush economy sucked. Scott Walker does everything in the republican playbook and WI sucks. The only strong repub states have money (oil) coming out of the ground.
The Bush economy was a great economy for most of his years. If not for the housing collapse which had many a Democrat fingerprint on it, we would have enjoyed a good economy right into the McCain administration.
Don't know. What do you think it should be?Most absurd.Well then you need to open your mind and read the article.I really don't understand what you are pointing out other than the fact rich people are rich.
The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us.
The system? How? Force you in debt? How does anyone force you to be in debt? Did someone put a gun to your head, and demand you sign up for Discover Card?
What kind of idiocy, is this? The only reason stupid people are in debt, is because they want to buy stuff, they haven't earned the money to pay for.
I just posted an article of a Mexican who came here with no education, who didn't have a work permit, and created a company making drones. He's now a billionaire.
Stop complaining, and start working. Whiny spoiled brat Americanism. Grow up.
Read the article dipshit. You don't understand jack.
Why do you defend government, the elites, and big business committing fraud to enrich themselves?
I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth.
What's the proper amount for the top 8% to have?
This is really screwed up...and we Americans fight among ourselves over stupid things. All the while the elites are screwing us. When will we wake up and take action?
The Panama Papers offer damning proof of this: increasing concentrations of wealth and power that are free of any constraint (such as taxes) is not just the consequence of centralized money and state power--this inequality is the only possible output of centralized money and state power.
Here is a graphic portrayal of just how concentrated global wealth really is: the top .7% (less than 1%) own 45% of all global wealth, and the top 8% own 85%.
Of Two Minds - The Panama Papers: This Is the Consequence of Centralized Money and Power
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much. When there is too much is slows the economy.
Inequality is good for an economy, just not too much.
What is the exact right amount? How do you know?
When there is too much is slows the economy.
Why?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it
And savings is bad for the economy?
High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes
When Reagan left office, the top tax rate was 28%. It's now over 40%.
Is that fixing inequality?
Maybe they meant corporate tax rates? Nope, we have the highest in the world.
Yes it is.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
And like most loud mouth hypocrites he hires tax attorneys so he can pay as few taxes as he can THEN SAYS THE RICH DON'T PAY ENOUGH.
There is not a single law on the books making him pay less then his secretary.
Pull out your checkbook Warren and make things right.
Just send the check to the United Stated Treasury. I think they'd accept it!
Of course we don't have to worry about that. He's a democrat.
Therein lies the problem. In many cases, the wealth is NOT acquired justly.This is really screwed up...and we Americans fight among ourselves over stupid things. All the while the elites are screwing us. When will we wake up and take action?
The Panama Papers offer damning proof of this: increasing concentrations of wealth and power that are free of any constraint (such as taxes) is not just the consequence of centralized money and state power--this inequality is the only possible output of centralized money and state power.
Here is a graphic portrayal of just how concentrated global wealth really is: the top .7% (less than 1%) own 45% of all global wealth, and the top 8% own 85%.
Of Two Minds - The Panama Papers: This Is the Consequence of Centralized Money and Power
As long his wealth is acquired justly, I really don't care how much wealth a person has. Not my business.
Therein lies the problem. In many cases, the wealth is NOT acquired justly.This is really screwed up...and we Americans fight among ourselves over stupid things. All the while the elites are screwing us. When will we wake up and take action?
The Panama Papers offer damning proof of this: increasing concentrations of wealth and power that are free of any constraint (such as taxes) is not just the consequence of centralized money and state power--this inequality is the only possible output of centralized money and state power.
Here is a graphic portrayal of just how concentrated global wealth really is: the top .7% (less than 1%) own 45% of all global wealth, and the top 8% own 85%.
Of Two Minds - The Panama Papers: This Is the Consequence of Centralized Money and Power
As long his wealth is acquired justly, I really don't care how much wealth a person has. Not my business.
Consumers have a little power. If we all chose not to consume much at all for a week, would that shake up the economy? I'd like to see it. Stores vacant just for a week. Won't ever happen but a cool experiment indeed.
