Why do Blacks vote Democrat?

[Ernie S.]

Up his ass.

 

[Lumpy 1]

mmm .. I'll go with, "or what".

If you go with "or what" you are running away from the question. Here, I'll fill in the blanks your mind refuses to.

You and other butt hurt souls keep trying to divide and conquer, don't you? You are trying to shame or "cajole" blacks into believing that their almost universal support of democrats is wrong, aren't you? Or is this just grandstanding for your peers to pass a little time!

I'm pointing out that the Democratic Party has failed for several generations in poor black neighborhoods. Tell me about the improvements in employment opportunities, education and business opportunities over the past 6 1/2? If you feel threatened by the realities that's your problem. Yup, I find Democratic Party race baiting and lies in regards to Republicans completely despicable but alas you seem to revel in it, enjoy.

So now you are saying the Democrats have failed for several generations in poor black and white neighborhoods when earlier you were accusing those same Democrats of masterminding a plan to
"keep Black exactly where they want them." That , my friend, is a non-sequitur.

Not exactly, I believe I said Democrats like blacks exactly where they have them. I don't know about some mastermind plan, although, I've read up on such plans starting in the 60's, they're difficult plans to accept without more research and facts.

btw. you should probably look up the meaning of non-sequitur.

I never use words or phrases without knowing what they mean. too bad you don't understand the definitions of words that are unfamiliar to you.

In college I learned the noun (non -sequitur) is a premise that does not logically follow a previous conclusion or statement . Your premise that Democrats have failed for several years in black neighborhoods does not logically follow your statement that Democrats are keeping Blacks right where they want them..

Logically, If the latter statement were true, the Democrats were successful in black neighborhoods by orchestrating the outcome they meant to have. Do you get it now!

Okay, I suppose I'll just agree that Democrats are successful at failure.

 

[JQPublic1]

Is that your final answer?

We don't need a union... but we could benefit from forming various professional organizations to speak for American STEM workers.

Are yo admitting that American STEM workers are being overwhelmed by the brainpower of more competent foreign workers? You aren't asking for Affirmative Action are you? <A bit of sarcasm there>

Frankly, though, as an American, I want you to succeed. But employers are looking for the best... Can you keep up?

LOL It's not a matter of "keeping up" you dumb shit. It's a matter of being forced by your government to hand your job over to minimum wage foreign workers. Why would I want to "keep up" with anyone for minimum wages? What part of minimum wage is confusing you? Are you a minimum wage worker?

With those incendiary remarks I doubt you are a STEM worker at all.
For one thing, STEM workers thrive in the fields of science technology,electronics and math. No worker with those skills is going to work for minimum wage.
Excuse my ignorance, but how does the government figure in al of this? Are you a contractor? You aren't a government worker because they are unionized even at state and county levels. I am seriously interested.
I

As per your doubts.. Go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on.

H1B visa programmers do in fact come here to work for minimum wages. Apparently, our minimum wage is a good wage in some countries. They come here to learn the job from American workers that they are replacing then go back to their home country with what used to be a high paying American job.

No I'm not a contractor, not at the moment. No I'm not a government worker.

The government figures into this by providing H1B visas to foreign STEM workers for taking jobs in America at wages that are substandard. It's not supposed to work that way but the corporations are doing it anyway and our government is looking the other way. How could you not have heard about this. Head under a rock?

I'll ignore your truculence for now because I did learn something in this exchange. I'd heard of work visas but I never tied them to STEM employees or the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

After a cursory research of the data I see that you are right to be deeply concerned. Here is a link for others who might be interested in learning more about H1B programs:

H-1B visa - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[JQPublic1]

If you go with "or what" you are running away from the question. Here, I'll fill in the blanks your mind refuses to.

You and other butt hurt souls keep trying to divide and conquer, don't you? You are trying to shame or "cajole" blacks into believing that their almost universal support of democrats is wrong, aren't you? Or is this just grandstanding for your peers to pass a little time!

I'm pointing out that the Democratic Party has failed for several generations in poor black neighborhoods. Tell me about the improvements in employment opportunities, education and business opportunities over the past 6 1/2? If you feel threatened by the realities that's your problem. Yup, I find Democratic Party race baiting and lies in regards to Republicans completely despicable but alas you seem to revel in it, enjoy.

So now you are saying the Democrats have failed for several generations in poor black and white neighborhoods when earlier you were accusing those same Democrats of masterminding a plan to
"keep Black exactly where they want them." That , my friend, is a non-sequitur.

Not exactly, I believe I said Democrats like blacks exactly where they have them. I don't know about some mastermind plan, although, I've read up on such plans starting in the 60's, they're difficult plans to accept without more research and facts.

btw. you should probably look up the meaning of non-sequitur.

I never use words or phrases without knowing what they mean. too bad you don't understand the definitions of words that are unfamiliar to you.

In college I learned the noun (non -sequitur) is a premise that does not logically follow a previous conclusion or statement . Your premise that Democrats have failed for several years in black neighborhoods does not logically follow your statement that Democrats are keeping Blacks right where they want them..

Logically, If the latter statement were true, the Democrats were successful in black neighborhoods by orchestrating the outcome they meant to have. Do you get it now!

Okay, I suppose I'll just agree that Democrats are successful at failure.

Well according to your premise, they did not fail. They succeeded in getting blacks just where they want them according to you! You can't have it both ways. You non-sequitur still stands.

 

[Pogo]

I'm pointing out that the Democratic Party has failed for several generations in poor black neighborhoods. Tell me about the improvements in employment opportunities, education and business opportunities over the past 6 1/2? If you feel threatened by the realities that's your problem. Yup, I find Democratic Party race baiting and lies in regards to Republicans completely despicable but alas you seem to revel in it, enjoy.

So now you are saying the Democrats have failed for several generations in poor black and white neighborhoods when earlier you were accusing those same Democrats of masterminding a plan to
"keep Black exactly where they want them." That , my friend, is a non-sequitur.

Not exactly, I believe I said Democrats like blacks exactly where they have them. I don't know about some mastermind plan, although, I've read up on such plans starting in the 60's, they're difficult plans to accept without more research and facts.

btw. you should probably look up the meaning of non-sequitur.

I never use words or phrases without knowing what they mean. too bad you don't understand the definitions of words that are unfamiliar to you.

In college I learned the noun (non -sequitur) is a premise that does not logically follow a previous conclusion or statement . Your premise that Democrats have failed for several years in black neighborhoods does not logically follow your statement that Democrats are keeping Blacks right where they want them..

Logically, If the latter statement were true, the Democrats were successful in black neighborhoods by orchestrating the outcome they meant to have. Do you get it now!

Okay, I suppose I'll just agree that Democrats are successful at failure.

Well according to your premise, they did not fail. They succeeded in getting blacks just where they want them according to you! You can't have it both ways. You non-sequitur still stands.

Lumpy likes to have it both ways. He's what we call a "switch hitter".

 

[Lumpy 1]

I'm pointing out that the Democratic Party has failed for several generations in poor black neighborhoods. Tell me about the improvements in employment opportunities, education and business opportunities over the past 6 1/2? If you feel threatened by the realities that's your problem. Yup, I find Democratic Party race baiting and lies in regards to Republicans completely despicable but alas you seem to revel in it, enjoy.

So now you are saying the Democrats have failed for several generations in poor black and white neighborhoods when earlier you were accusing those same Democrats of masterminding a plan to
"keep Black exactly where they want them." That , my friend, is a non-sequitur.

Not exactly, I believe I said Democrats like blacks exactly where they have them. I don't know about some mastermind plan, although, I've read up on such plans starting in the 60's, they're difficult plans to accept without more research and facts.

btw. you should probably look up the meaning of non-sequitur.

I never use words or phrases without knowing what they mean. too bad you don't understand the definitions of words that are unfamiliar to you.

In college I learned the noun (non -sequitur) is a premise that does not logically follow a previous conclusion or statement . Your premise that Democrats have failed for several years in black neighborhoods does not logically follow your statement that Democrats are keeping Blacks right where they want them..

Logically, If the latter statement were true, the Democrats were successful in black neighborhoods by orchestrating the outcome they meant to have. Do you get it now!

Okay, I suppose I'll just agree that Democrats are successful at failure.

Well according to your premise, they did not fail. They succeeded in getting blacks just where they want them according to you! You can't have it both ways. You non-sequitur still stands.

Okay then, Democrats are exceptionally successful at failure on purpose...

 

[Lumpy 1]

So now you are saying the Democrats have failed for several generations in poor black and white neighborhoods when earlier you were accusing those same Democrats of masterminding a plan to
"keep Black exactly where they want them." That , my friend, is a non-sequitur.

Not exactly, I believe I said Democrats like blacks exactly where they have them. I don't know about some mastermind plan, although, I've read up on such plans starting in the 60's, they're difficult plans to accept without more research and facts.

btw. you should probably look up the meaning of non-sequitur.

I never use words or phrases without knowing what they mean. too bad you don't understand the definitions of words that are unfamiliar to you.

In college I learned the noun (non -sequitur) is a premise that does not logically follow a previous conclusion or statement . Your premise that Democrats have failed for several years in black neighborhoods does not logically follow your statement that Democrats are keeping Blacks right where they want them..

Logically, If the latter statement were true, the Democrats were successful in black neighborhoods by orchestrating the outcome they meant to have. Do you get it now!

Okay, I suppose I'll just agree that Democrats are successful at failure.

Well according to your premise, they did not fail. They succeeded in getting blacks just where they want them according to you! You can't have it both ways. You non-sequitur still stands.

Lumpy likes to have it both ways. He's what we call a "switch hitter".

I'm not sure I appreciate the implications of such a comment...

psst. just messin with her

 

[JQPublic1]

So now you are saying the Democrats have failed for several generations in poor black and white neighborhoods when earlier you were accusing those same Democrats of masterminding a plan to
"keep Black exactly where they want them." That , my friend, is a non-sequitur.

Not exactly, I believe I said Democrats like blacks exactly where they have them. I don't know about some mastermind plan, although, I've read up on such plans starting in the 60's, they're difficult plans to accept without more research and facts.

btw. you should probably look up the meaning of non-sequitur.

I never use words or phrases without knowing what they mean. too bad you don't understand the definitions of words that are unfamiliar to you.

In college I learned the noun (non -sequitur) is a premise that does not logically follow a previous conclusion or statement . Your premise that Democrats have failed for several years in black neighborhoods does not logically follow your statement that Democrats are keeping Blacks right where they want them..

Logically, If the latter statement were true, the Democrats were successful in black neighborhoods by orchestrating the outcome they meant to have. Do you get it now!

Okay, I suppose I'll just agree that Democrats are successful at failure.

Well according to your premise, they did not fail. They succeeded in getting blacks just where they want them according to you! You can't have it both ways. You non-sequitur still stands.

Okay then, Democrats are exceptionally successful at failure on purpose...

Ok, I'll give you some breathing room to back out of this gracefully...

 

[RKMBrown]

We don't need a union... but we could benefit from forming various professional organizations to speak for American STEM workers.

Are yo admitting that American STEM workers are being overwhelmed by the brainpower of more competent foreign workers? You aren't asking for Affirmative Action are you? <A bit of sarcasm there>

Frankly, though, as an American, I want you to succeed. But employers are looking for the best... Can you keep up?

LOL It's not a matter of "keeping up" you dumb shit. It's a matter of being forced by your government to hand your job over to minimum wage foreign workers. Why would I want to "keep up" with anyone for minimum wages? What part of minimum wage is confusing you? Are you a minimum wage worker?

With those incendiary remarks I doubt you are a STEM worker at all.
For one thing, STEM workers thrive in the fields of science technology,electronics and math. No worker with those skills is going to work for minimum wage.
Excuse my ignorance, but how does the government figure in al of this? Are you a contractor? You aren't a government worker because they are unionized even at state and county levels. I am seriously interested.
I

As per your doubts.. Go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on.

H1B visa programmers do in fact come here to work for minimum wages. Apparently, our minimum wage is a good wage in some countries. They come here to learn the job from American workers that they are replacing then go back to their home country with what used to be a high paying American job.

No I'm not a contractor, not at the moment. No I'm not a government worker.

The government figures into this by providing H1B visas to foreign STEM workers for taking jobs in America at wages that are substandard. It's not supposed to work that way but the corporations are doing it anyway and our government is looking the other way. How could you not have heard about this. Head under a rock?

I'll ignore your truculence for now because I did learn something in this exchange. I'd heard of work visas but I never tied them to STEM employees or the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

After a cursory research of the data I see that you are right to be deeply concerned. Here is a link for others who might be interested in learning more about H1B programs:

H-1B visa - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Fair enough.. Truce.

 

[tdc1188]

Why? Because the idea was we shouldn't have a society where the small group of people control the wealth and power, run the industries, and the rest of us depend on them.

small group??? What a total 100% idiot!! And what a perfect idiot liberal. there are 200 million businesses in the world today. Thats a small group? And there are billions of people who don't even want to be in business because they don't care about the kind of wealth and power you get from business.

Also, I hate to rock your violent idiotic little Marxist world but the second Red China switched to Republican capitalism it eliminated 40% of the world's poverty. You don't have to be an idiot liberal the rest of your life. Its a choice you don't have to make.

For you to respond with insults shows your insecurities with your own beliefs. Anytime someone responds with negativity (separation, dislocation, segregation mentality) it is out of fear that what is being said might actually be true, otherwise there would not be such a venomous response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tdc1188]

But who distinguished themselves not by the work they did, or the quality of work they did, but by the wealth they have amassed, the power accumulated-- and that comes at the expense of everyone else.

of course that's 100% stupid and liberal. Steve Jobs distinguished himself by the wealth he gave us not by the trivial wealth he earned for himself which was not enough to run the federal govt for even one day!!.

If as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here why are you here?

I did not realize Steve Job's gave us wealth. Gadgets? Yes. But wealth? No. Unless by "Us" you are referring to Apple's shareholders....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amrchaos]

Question

What are the Republicans offering people that are either/and
1. poor
2. uneducated
3.deeply entrenched Democrat voter
4.insecure in ones self
5.feels targeted by society

I don't think Republicans offer anything, so why would anyone in any of these catagories vte Republican. In fact, is it not true that some Republicans promote these concepts about most Blacks to the general population.

Think about it. The only reason I can see a black person voting Republican is either:
A. He wants tax cuts
B. He is an ardent social conservative
C.He wants to try something new.
But being poor tends to undermine A and B. Hard to hold a moral conviction when you are desperate.

 

[tdc1188]

Bernie Sanders is a socialist democrat

of course that's a filthy filthy treasonous liberal lie. Socialism was invented by Marx as a stop over on way to communism. (USSR- ever heard of it??)Bush introduced first $2trillion and $3 trillion budgets, Obama is now at $4 trillion plus he took over 20% of economy with Obamacommiecare, and now Sanders wants still way bigger govt. To a liberal swine the govt is never big enough if it is short of communism!!

Now do you understand?

Socialism predates Marx. It is a response to capitalism; it has always been the critical response to capitalism. Socialism has always been capitalism's shadow. The longer we have capitalism, the longer we have socialism, because it is capitalism's self-criticism. It has been generated by capitalism. As capitalism has spread around the world, socialism has spread as well-- a few minutes behind.

This critique of capitalism was called socialism because capitalism was identified with individuals; individuals struggling to make a business, to make a business grow, and gather wealth into their hands. And it created then a gap between individuals who did that, and all the other people who didn't. The employers vs. the employees; Those that gathered the wealth and power into their hands, versus those who didn't.

And as the capitalist system developed, it developed criticism. First, from the victims of the process-- the people who had nothing; the people who had things stolen from them. Second, were the critics who looked at this system and the way it works and said this isn't moral, this isn't ethical, this isn't beautiful, this is something that we as human beings can, and should, do better than.

So these two groups tried to develop an alternative. The alternative they fumbled and bumbled their way too was called socialism.

Why? Because the idea was we shouldn't have a society where the small group of people control the wealth and power, run the industries, and the rest of us depend on them.

Socialist would rather think of society this way: production is a social activity we all participate in. The wealth that is created in a society is based on what we all as human beings do, plus what the earth-- which no human being put their, ables us to have.

It's a social, it's a community activity. And so socialism then meant we should socially organize production, socially decide who gets what, and socially distribute the power amongst ourselves, in a way that we can all seem moral and decent, and fair.

And so the idea was that capitalism is for the few; for the few individuals who inherit the wealth, or steal the wealth, or make the wealth by hard labor-- that too. But who distinguished themselves not by the work they did, or the quality of work they did, but by the wealth they have amassed, the power accumulated-- and that comes at the expense of everyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

self criticism my ass its the lazy ass
good for nothings that come along to mooch on the riches of the hard working people..

You have accepted the mythology of the establishment that tells us that most people are lazy and do not work, and--like you said-- are moochers off the hard working people. This is a horrendous lie.

This lie is told in order to keep the vast majority of the people fighting amongst themselves, instead of those at the top of the pyramid.

What's reality? Hard work--for the vast majority of people-- does not equate to riches. The system ensures this. People are laboring, and working 40+ hours a week, multiple jobs, and barely scraping buy.

And we have been taught to believe that the richest people in society are the hardest working. I've been around these people--quite often the opposite is true. Often, they were born into privilege, are they stole the money on Wall Street by fraud and and credit default swaps, derivatives, and insider trading.

Lastly, over the past 35 years-- since the adoption of neoliberal policies by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, there has been a dramatic and undeniable, and purposeful transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class, to the top 10% (largest percentage increases in wealth has been as been at top 1%).

The wealthiest and powerful have been waging this class war against 90+% of the population for decades, and they feed us with distractions and diversions to keep us from uniting.

Let's come together.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are dismissing the theft that is redistribution of my income for the benefit of the poor and wealth because of your jealousy for the riches that some rich parents shower on their rich children. And you want me to come together with your attack on my income? How about we start by not redistributing my income by force to people that did not earn my income... then we can come together.

I can't dismiss what does not exist. Do your research. Empirical evidence has shown that over the past 35 years--through specific policies-- the wealth of the bottom 90% of the population has transferred dramatically to the top 10%.

Here are a few statistics to illustrate the point: according to the U.S. Bureau of Census, from 1950-1978 The lowest 20% of income earners saw their incomes increase by 138% from 1950-1978; next 20% saw their incomes rise 98% over the same period; next 20% saw 106% increase; next 20% saw their income increase 111%, and the highest 20% saw their income increase by 99%. As you can see income increased pretty evenly. This is because in the pre-neoliberal era of today, increases in income tended to follow increases in productivity.

However, from 1978-2005, income for the lowest 20% has increased by 1% over that time period of 1978-2005. For the next 20% it's a 9% increase of that time period of 1978-2005. For the next 20% it's a 15% increase in income, for the next 20% it's a 22% increase, for the highest 20% it's a 75% increase in income, and for the top 1% it's a whopping 200% increase in income from 1978-2005. These numbers are according to the budget of the U.S. Government (Congress).

This dramatic income disparity from 1978-2005--and most likely has widened even more since-- has occurred despite continued rising productivity of the workforce.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Misty]

1) I think the Democratic Parties legions of race baiters (the race card) is a very effective tool in keeping racism alive and promoting mistrust, especially between the political parties.

View attachment 44303

Barry Goldwater. Even though he founded the NAACP in Arizona and was a member until he died, he voted against one civil rights bill that he thought was unfair to blacks, the left capitalized on it and got the blacks to switch sides.

 

[HR Pufnstuf]

Money, pure and simple! African Americans assume that much of the government give-a-ways that they rely on come from Democrats in charge, so they vote as Democrats. It is this sense of entitlement that continues to impoverish the African American community and enslaves them to a system where success is punitive and lack of effort is rewarded by continued payments. Remember that no one ever got rich by being on welfare.

 

[amrchaos]

Money, pure and simple! African Americans assume that much of the government give-a-ways that they rely on come from Democrats in charge, so they vote as Democrats. It is this sense of entitlement that continues to impoverish the African American community and enslaves them to a system where success is punitive and lack of effort is rewarded by continued payments. Remember that no one ever got rich by being on welfare.

Everyone, including Blacks, know Americans tax dollars pay for welfare and other social programs. Why would you assume they don't? The Democrat role in this is to keep those programs funded.

It is not a sense of entitlement! The poor, disabled and so on knows the government does not have to provide these. Again, the Democrats role in government is to keep those programs funded.

No, there is no sense of entitlement. there is a sense of FEAR that is found in republican ideology that these programs will be cut or eliminated for tax cuts. The Democrats are not enslaving the unfortunate. The Republicans are scaring them off.

Do you get it yet? Threats of defunding or tearing down the social safety net scares voters from Republicans. Not just Blacks, but everyone that may need it. If you actually sit down and talk to people, you will understand that.

 

[Ernie S.]

But who distinguished themselves not by the work they did, or the quality of work they did, but by the wealth they have amassed, the power accumulated-- and that comes at the expense of everyone else.

of course that's 100% stupid and liberal. Steve Jobs distinguished himself by the wealth he gave us not by the trivial wealth he earned for himself which was not enough to run the federal govt for even one day!!.

If as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to be here why are you here?

I did not realize Steve Job's gave us wealth. Gadgets? Yes. But wealth? No. Unless by "Us" you are referring to Apple's shareholders....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is not your IPhone a tangible asset? You possess wealth that Mr Jobs developed.

 

[Pogo]

1) I think the Democratic Parties legions of race baiters (the race card) is a very effective tool in keeping racism alive and promoting mistrust, especially between the political parties.

View attachment 44303

Barry Goldwater. Even though he founded the NAACP in Arizona and was a member until he died, he voted against one civil rights bill that he thought was unfair to blacks, the left capitalized on it and got the blacks to switch sides.

Excellent, somebody wants to return to the actual topic.

Actually the black shift to Democrat had already started some thirty-plus years before that. I already laid that out some eight hundred posts ago (#115 to be exact) complete with histories and stats.

What you have with Goldwater in 1964 is the beginning (not really but the beginning on a national election scale) of the South voting Republican, not the beginning of blacks voting Democrat. That's a different shift, for a different reason.

 

[RKMBrown]

of course that's a filthy filthy treasonous liberal lie. Socialism was invented by Marx as a stop over on way to communism. (USSR- ever heard of it??)Bush introduced first $2trillion and $3 trillion budgets, Obama is now at $4 trillion plus he took over 20% of economy with Obamacommiecare, and now Sanders wants still way bigger govt. To a liberal swine the govt is never big enough if it is short of communism!!

Now do you understand?

Socialism predates Marx. It is a response to capitalism; it has always been the critical response to capitalism. Socialism has always been capitalism's shadow. The longer we have capitalism, the longer we have socialism, because it is capitalism's self-criticism. It has been generated by capitalism. As capitalism has spread around the world, socialism has spread as well-- a few minutes behind.

This critique of capitalism was called socialism because capitalism was identified with individuals; individuals struggling to make a business, to make a business grow, and gather wealth into their hands. And it created then a gap between individuals who did that, and all the other people who didn't. The employers vs. the employees; Those that gathered the wealth and power into their hands, versus those who didn't.

And as the capitalist system developed, it developed criticism. First, from the victims of the process-- the people who had nothing; the people who had things stolen from them. Second, were the critics who looked at this system and the way it works and said this isn't moral, this isn't ethical, this isn't beautiful, this is something that we as human beings can, and should, do better than.

So these two groups tried to develop an alternative. The alternative they fumbled and bumbled their way too was called socialism.

Why? Because the idea was we shouldn't have a society where the small group of people control the wealth and power, run the industries, and the rest of us depend on them.

Socialist would rather think of society this way: production is a social activity we all participate in. The wealth that is created in a society is based on what we all as human beings do, plus what the earth-- which no human being put their, ables us to have.

It's a social, it's a community activity. And so socialism then meant we should socially organize production, socially decide who gets what, and socially distribute the power amongst ourselves, in a way that we can all seem moral and decent, and fair.

And so the idea was that capitalism is for the few; for the few individuals who inherit the wealth, or steal the wealth, or make the wealth by hard labor-- that too. But who distinguished themselves not by the work they did, or the quality of work they did, but by the wealth they have amassed, the power accumulated-- and that comes at the expense of everyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

self criticism my ass its the lazy ass
good for nothings that come along to mooch on the riches of the hard working people..

You have accepted the mythology of the establishment that tells us that most people are lazy and do not work, and--like you said-- are moochers off the hard working people. This is a horrendous lie.

This lie is told in order to keep the vast majority of the people fighting amongst themselves, instead of those at the top of the pyramid.

What's reality? Hard work--for the vast majority of people-- does not equate to riches. The system ensures this. People are laboring, and working 40+ hours a week, multiple jobs, and barely scraping buy.

And we have been taught to believe that the richest people in society are the hardest working. I've been around these people--quite often the opposite is true. Often, they were born into privilege, are they stole the money on Wall Street by fraud and and credit default swaps, derivatives, and insider trading.

Lastly, over the past 35 years-- since the adoption of neoliberal policies by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, there has been a dramatic and undeniable, and purposeful transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class, to the top 10% (largest percentage increases in wealth has been as been at top 1%).

The wealthiest and powerful have been waging this class war against 90+% of the population for decades, and they feed us with distractions and diversions to keep us from uniting.

Let's come together.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are dismissing the theft that is redistribution of my income for the benefit of the poor and wealth because of your jealousy for the riches that some rich parents shower on their rich children. And you want me to come together with your attack on my income? How about we start by not redistributing my income by force to people that did not earn my income... then we can come together.

I can't dismiss what does not exist. Do your research. Empirical evidence has shown that over the past 35 years--through specific policies-- the wealth of the bottom 90% of the population has transferred dramatically to the top 10%.

Here are a few statistics to illustrate the point: according to the U.S. Bureau of Census, from 1950-1978 The lowest 20% of income earners saw their incomes increase by 138% from 1950-1978; next 20% saw their incomes rise 98% over the same period; next 20% saw 106% increase; next 20% saw their income increase 111%, and the highest 20% saw their income increase by 99%. As you can see income increased pretty evenly. This is because in the pre-neoliberal era of today, increases in income tended to follow increases in productivity.

However, from 1978-2005, income for the lowest 20% has increased by 1% over that time period of 1978-2005. For the next 20% it's a 9% increase of that time period of 1978-2005. For the next 20% it's a 15% increase in income, for the next 20% it's a 22% increase, for the highest 20% it's a 75% increase in income, and for the top 1% it's a whopping 200% increase in income from 1978-2005. These numbers are according to the budget of the U.S. Government (Congress).

This dramatic income disparity from 1978-2005--and most likely has widened even more since-- has occurred despite continued rising productivity of the workforce.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are conflating asset distribution with income distribution. We don't tax assets, we tax income. Yet here you are bitching about asset distribution. The reason income for the bottom is not increasing is welfare. If you earn more than "welfare" allows you loose your welfare. So people on welfare cut their hours down to make sure they don't go over the welfare limits.

 

[Dragonlady]

Socialism predates Marx. It is a response to capitalism; it has always been the critical response to capitalism. Socialism has always been capitalism's shadow. The longer we have capitalism, the longer we have socialism, because it is capitalism's self-criticism. It has been generated by capitalism. As capitalism has spread around the world, socialism has spread as well-- a few minutes behind.

This critique of capitalism was called socialism because capitalism was identified with individuals; individuals struggling to make a business, to make a business grow, and gather wealth into their hands. And it created then a gap between individuals who did that, and all the other people who didn't. The employers vs. the employees; Those that gathered the wealth and power into their hands, versus those who didn't.

And as the capitalist system developed, it developed criticism. First, from the victims of the process-- the people who had nothing; the people who had things stolen from them. Second, were the critics who looked at this system and the way it works and said this isn't moral, this isn't ethical, this isn't beautiful, this is something that we as human beings can, and should, do better than.

So these two groups tried to develop an alternative. The alternative they fumbled and bumbled their way too was called socialism.

Why? Because the idea was we shouldn't have a society where the small group of people control the wealth and power, run the industries, and the rest of us depend on them.

Socialist would rather think of society this way: production is a social activity we all participate in. The wealth that is created in a society is based on what we all as human beings do, plus what the earth-- which no human being put their, ables us to have.

It's a social, it's a community activity. And so socialism then meant we should socially organize production, socially decide who gets what, and socially distribute the power amongst ourselves, in a way that we can all seem moral and decent, and fair.

And so the idea was that capitalism is for the few; for the few individuals who inherit the wealth, or steal the wealth, or make the wealth by hard labor-- that too. But who distinguished themselves not by the work they did, or the quality of work they did, but by the wealth they have amassed, the power accumulated-- and that comes at the expense of everyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

self criticism my ass its the lazy ass
good for nothings that come along to mooch on the riches of the hard working people..

You have accepted the mythology of the establishment that tells us that most people are lazy and do not work, and--like you said-- are moochers off the hard working people. This is a horrendous lie.

This lie is told in order to keep the vast majority of the people fighting amongst themselves, instead of those at the top of the pyramid.

What's reality? Hard work--for the vast majority of people-- does not equate to riches. The system ensures this. People are laboring, and working 40+ hours a week, multiple jobs, and barely scraping buy.

And we have been taught to believe that the richest people in society are the hardest working. I've been around these people--quite often the opposite is true. Often, they were born into privilege, are they stole the money on Wall Street by fraud and and credit default swaps, derivatives, and insider trading.

Lastly, over the past 35 years-- since the adoption of neoliberal policies by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, there has been a dramatic and undeniable, and purposeful transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class, to the top 10% (largest percentage increases in wealth has been as been at top 1%).

The wealthiest and powerful have been waging this class war against 90+% of the population for decades, and they feed us with distractions and diversions to keep us from uniting.

Let's come together.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are dismissing the theft that is redistribution of my income for the benefit of the poor and wealth because of your jealousy for the riches that some rich parents shower on their rich children. And you want me to come together with your attack on my income? How about we start by not redistributing my income by force to people that did not earn my income... then we can come together.

I can't dismiss what does not exist. Do your research. Empirical evidence has shown that over the past 35 years--through specific policies-- the wealth of the bottom 90% of the population has transferred dramatically to the top 10%.

Here are a few statistics to illustrate the point: according to the U.S. Bureau of Census, from 1950-1978 The lowest 20% of income earners saw their incomes increase by 138% from 1950-1978; next 20% saw their incomes rise 98% over the same period; next 20% saw 106% increase; next 20% saw their income increase 111%, and the highest 20% saw their income increase by 99%. As you can see income increased pretty evenly. This is because in the pre-neoliberal era of today, increases in income tended to follow increases in productivity.

However, from 1978-2005, income for the lowest 20% has increased by 1% over that time period of 1978-2005. For the next 20% it's a 9% increase of that time period of 1978-2005. For the next 20% it's a 15% increase in income, for the next 20% it's a 22% increase, for the highest 20% it's a 75% increase in income, and for the top 1% it's a whopping 200% increase in income from 1978-2005. These numbers are according to the budget of the U.S. Government (Congress).

This dramatic income disparity from 1978-2005--and most likely has widened even more since-- has occurred despite continued rising productivity of the workforce.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are conflating asset distribution with income distribution. We don't tax assets, we tax income. Yet here you are bitching about asset distribution. The reason income for the bottom is not increasing is welfare. If you earn more than "welfare" allows you loose your welfare. So people on welfare cut their hours down to make sure they don't go over the welfare limits.

Bullshit. People are working longer hours than they were 20 years ago, but they're not getting paid for them. They're given a meaningless title and classified as "management" so they receive no overtime.

The wages of working people haven't increased in any meaningful way since Reagan was elected. The wages of the top 5% have increased by over 200% during this time frame.