Why do Blacks vote Democrat?

[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

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

I don't agree with the notion that the iPhone in and of itself is "wealth" in the largest meaning of the word.

Yes, the iPhone was developed by Steve Jobs, who was worth billions, and it was made by human beings in China for wages so small to be meaningful, in order to avoid to pay workers in the U.S. a living wage. In turn, the iPhone was shipped back here to be sold to the U.S. Population for $600.

As we know, Apple is not the exception, their practices are the rule. This is the neoliberal/ financial colonialism that we as a nation has imposed on everyone-- both at home and abroad. And we all are guilty of supporting it. I'm guilty for buying the iPhone, the clothes, the food, the appliances.

But the system is inequitable, unethical, exploitative, immoral, and not sustainable.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Asclepias]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ernie S.]

The system may not be equitable, but it is natural selection at the human level. Were we lesser primates, a more advanced species would see poverty; winners and losers, as completely natural. Why is it that it is fine for a wolf to eat a slow deer, but not for a man with a great mind and ambition to amass fabulous wealth?

 

[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.

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.

Thank you for your reply. Which was brilliant by the way. I had never thought the problem in that way before. Perhaps the term entitlement should be changed for the term of dependency. Recently, I broke my ankle and was out of work for several months. Fortunately, we had insurance that helped cover my expenses while I healed. I became dependent on those checks much in the same way as some grow dependent on welfare. The idea that those checks would have stopped would have frightened me in ways that I would not like. So I can now see your point.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

You do know there is a scale of how much welfare pays out based on total income, right.

Let say you work a 40 hour a wk job that pays twice the amount of welfare each month. Why would you cut your hours again? You are losing money if you do.

If it pays the same per month and you are working 40 hrs per week, you need to sue your employer for back wages!

Also, even if you did have such a job, you would still qualify for certain benefits--Welfare does not pay out that much to start with.

You do understand that being dependent on welfare sucks, right?

 

[Asclepias]

The system may not be equitable, but it is natural selection at the human level. Were we lesser primates, a more advanced species would see poverty; winners and losers, as completely natural. Why is it that it is fine for a wolf to eat a slow deer, but not for a man with a great mind and ambition to amass fabulous wealth?

Wolves share their meal with the pack. The pack makes living easier.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Exempt employees on salary don't receive overtime and never did. I for one was working longer hours 20years ago. Wages for most people went up like gangbusters during the dot com boom.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

You do know there is a scale of how much welfare pays out based on total income, right.

Let say you work a 40 hour a wk job that pays twice the amount of welfare each month. Why would you cut your hours again? You are losing money if you do.

If it pays the same per month and you are working 40 hrs per week, you need to sue your employer for back wages!

Also, even if you did have such a job, you would still qualify for certain benefits--Welfare does not pay out that much to start with.

You do understand that being dependent on welfare sucks, right?

Yes. If you work too many hours and have too much income you loose your welfare. The less you earn the more you get welfare benefits. Some people are content to sit on their asses and live off others as much as possible.

 

[tdc1188]

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.

The statistics I provided do not conflate asset distribution with income distribution. Those are the statistics of income distribution over the past 35 years. Productivity among the U.S. Workforce rose considerably during this time period.
I cannot change your denial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The statistics I provided do not conflate asset distribution with income distribution. Those are the statistics of income distribution over the past 35 years. Productivity among the U.S. Workforce rose considerably during this time period.
I cannot change your denial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wealth transfer is asset transfer... not income. Further, there is no limit to the amount of assets, so your assumption that there is a "transfer" is total bullshit.

 

[tdc1188]

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.

The statistics I provided do not conflate asset distribution with income distribution. Those are the statistics of income distribution over the past 35 years. Productivity among the U.S. Workforce rose considerably during this time period.
I cannot change your denial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wealth transfer is asset transfer... not income. Further, there is no limit to the amount of assets, so your assumption that there is a "transfer" is total bullshit.

What is your reasoning and argument for your flippant dismissal of the data?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pogo]

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.

Exempt employees on salary don't receive overtime and never did. I for one was working longer hours 20years ago. Wages for most people went up like gangbusters during the dot com boom.

What she's saying is that people were reclassified into salaried "managers" as a way of avoiding that overtime, or IOW milking more out of an employee for the same wages. The equivalent of buying a pound of meat from the butcher, and after he gives it to you, grabbing another half pound off his shelf without paying for it.

The other way to do that of course is to reclassify them as "temporary" or "freelance" workers, which has been very widespread. That certainly happened to me, and we had to fight like hell to be fairly compensated for our 14, 16, 18 hour days.


/offtopic

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Exempt employees on salary don't receive overtime and never did. I for one was working longer hours 20years ago. Wages for most people went up like gangbusters during the dot com boom.

What she's saying is that people were reclassified into salaried "managers" as a way of avoiding that overtime, or IOW milking more out of an employee for the same wages.

The other way to do that of course is to reclassify them as "temporary" or "freelance" workers. That certianly happened to me, and we had to fight like hell to be fairly compensated for our 14, 16, 18 hour days.

"Salaried" is the biggest crock of mind games I have ever seen. I went contractor my last 5 years working for someone else and made way more money.

 

[tdc1188]

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.

The statistics I provided do not conflate asset distribution with income distribution. Those are the statistics of income distribution over the past 35 years. Productivity among the U.S. Workforce rose considerably during this time period.
I cannot change your denial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wealth transfer is asset transfer... not income. Further, there is no limit to the amount of assets, so your assumption that there is a "transfer" is total bullshit.

Again, the stats demonstrate income disparity/ distribution within society over the past 35 years as a result of a change in policy. That is a fact. There has been a deliberate redistribution of income/wage earning within society that dramatically favors the very top of income earners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The statistics I provided do not conflate asset distribution with income distribution. Those are the statistics of income distribution over the past 35 years. Productivity among the U.S. Workforce rose considerably during this time period.
I cannot change your denial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wealth transfer is asset transfer... not income. Further, there is no limit to the amount of assets, so your assumption that there is a "transfer" is total bullshit.

What is your reasoning and argument for your flippant dismissal of the data?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you a fucking moron?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Exempt employees on salary don't receive overtime and never did. I for one was working longer hours 20years ago. Wages for most people went up like gangbusters during the dot com boom.

What she's saying is that people were reclassified into salaried "managers" as a way of avoiding that overtime, or IOW milking more out of an employee for the same wages. The equivalent of buying a pound of meat from the butcher, and after he gives it to you, grabbing another half pound off his shelf without paying for it.

The other way to do that of course is to reclassify them as "temporary" or "freelance" workers, which has been very widespread. That certainly happened to me, and we had to fight like hell to be fairly compensated for our 14, 16, 18 hour days.


/offtopic

Cry me a river.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Exempt employees on salary don't receive overtime and never did. I for one was working longer hours 20years ago. Wages for most people went up like gangbusters during the dot com boom.

What she's saying is that people were reclassified into salaried "managers" as a way of avoiding that overtime, or IOW milking more out of an employee for the same wages. The equivalent of buying a pound of meat from the butcher, and after he gives it to you, grabbing another half pound off his shelf without paying for it.

The other way to do that of course is to reclassify them as "temporary" or "freelance" workers, which has been very widespread. That certainly happened to me, and we had to fight like hell to be fairly compensated for our 14, 16, 18 hour days.


/offtopic

Cry me a river.

Hey, it was your inaccuracy that got corrected, not mine.

If you don't see a problem with selling your wares/labor for X amount and then consenting to having your wares/labor pocket picked, well suffice to say you won't be my accountant.

 

[tdc1188]

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.

The statistics I provided do not conflate asset distribution with income distribution. Those are the statistics of income distribution over the past 35 years. Productivity among the U.S. Workforce rose considerably during this time period.
I cannot change your denial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wealth transfer is asset transfer... not income. Further, there is no limit to the amount of assets, so your assumption that there is a "transfer" is total bullshit.

What is your reasoning and argument for your flippant dismissal of the data?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you a fucking moron?

Your necessity to resort to insults demonstrates that you are insecure about your beliefs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

The statistics I provided do not conflate asset distribution with income distribution. Those are the statistics of income distribution over the past 35 years. Productivity among the U.S. Workforce rose considerably during this time period.
I cannot change your denial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wealth transfer is asset transfer... not income. Further, there is no limit to the amount of assets, so your assumption that there is a "transfer" is total bullshit.

What is your reasoning and argument for your flippant dismissal of the data?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you a fucking moron?

Your necessity to resort to insults demonstrates that you are insecure about your beliefs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

or... you're just a moron.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Exempt employees on salary don't receive overtime and never did. I for one was working longer hours 20years ago. Wages for most people went up like gangbusters during the dot com boom.

What she's saying is that people were reclassified into salaried "managers" as a way of avoiding that overtime, or IOW milking more out of an employee for the same wages. The equivalent of buying a pound of meat from the butcher, and after he gives it to you, grabbing another half pound off his shelf without paying for it.

The other way to do that of course is to reclassify them as "temporary" or "freelance" workers, which has been very widespread. That certainly happened to me, and we had to fight like hell to be fairly compensated for our 14, 16, 18 hour days.


/offtopic

Cry me a river.

Hey, it was your inaccuracy that got corrected, not mine.

If you don't see a problem with selling your wares/labor for X amount and then consenting to having your wares/labor pocket picked, well suffice to say you won't be my accountant.

It's called a fixed salary dumb ass.