Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fewer and fewer Americans, by percentage, are successful, even while corporate profits have never been higher. And there you sit denying that this is the real problem.
that is due to regulation and healthcare. again, more failed obummer policy. Trump will be recovering some of those lost jobs, opening up new opportunities with new programs because he lifted regulations. It will soon be much better. doesn't take away from those too lazy to look for a job. And you wish no prosperity by keeping them dependent on the state. such a white guy.it's getting out of the fking union. ya toolwhy would I do that? Unions are dying like I said. thanks for agreeing, perhaps it is you who ought to apologize already. loser.dude right to work states will change that. Why do you think the unions want to take down the right to work option? Workers are opting out of the unions. LOL. dude you don't know squat juice.
Unions are already pretty much gone. Where is the prosperity? Admit you are wrong already.
Dying with our economy. Stagnant wages. Dying middle class. Slow growth. If killing unions is good, where is the prosperity?
So stagnant wages, dying middle class, and slow growth is your prosperity?
dude right to work states will change that. Why do you think the unions want to take down the right to work option? Workers are opting out of the unions. LOL. dude you don't know squat juice.and it all says we've outlived the usefulness of a union. A union only keeps the administrators wealthy. It's as failed as the government programs. Oh yeah most government jobs are failed unions.so how is it you would know their value?
There is a lot of information available on the subject.
Strange. Repubs have been saying that for 40 years. But as unions have declined, wages have been stagnant and the middle class has shrunk. Seems you are wrong.
Unions are already pretty much gone. Where is the prosperity? Admit you are wrong already.
So the Repub vision for the economy is stagnant wages, no middle class, and slow economic growth? Just be glad you have a job? How sad.
The United States remains the richest nation in the world, and in fact is getting richer as American corporations are busy sucking up profits from their off-shore subsiduaries, and yet the numbers of poor people continue to rise. What is astonishing is that you continue to blame the poor for their plight, and shower praise on the wealthy who are exploiting them.
If the poor people are not responsible for their plight, then who is?
In the USA, poverty is an option, not an affliction. If you want to be poor, then be poor. If you don't want to be poor, then work and don't be poor. If you want to be poor, have children you can't financially support. If you don't want to be poor, don't have children until you are very financially secure.
I don't know what's worse: That you believe this bullshit, or that you vote on that basis.
The poor didn't set up the system and they don't maintain it. The rich have blocked nearly every path out of poverty there is. Education: students now graduate with so much debt, that they are moving home with their parents and delaying marriage, buying a house and starting life.
Despite the charts and graphs which have been posted which prove otherwise, despite the figures on the transfer of wealth from working class and middle class to the top 5%, you still continue to believe the deck is NOT stacked against working yourself out of poverty.
Fewer and fewer Americans, by percentage, are successful, even while corporate profits have never been higher. And there you sit denying that this is the real problem.
The United States remains the richest nation in the world, and in fact is getting richer as American corporations are busy sucking up profits from their off-shore subsiduaries, and yet the numbers of poor people continue to rise. What is astonishing is that you continue to blame the poor for their plight, and shower praise on the wealthy who are exploiting them.
If the poor people are not responsible for their plight, then who is?
In the USA, poverty is an option, not an affliction. If you want to be poor, then be poor. If you don't want to be poor, then work and don't be poor. If you want to be poor, have children you can't financially support. If you don't want to be poor, don't have children until you are very financially secure.
I don't know what's worse: That you believe this bullshit, or that you vote on that basis.
The poor didn't set up the system and they don't maintain it. The rich have blocked nearly every path out of poverty there is. Education: students now graduate with so much debt, that they are moving home with their parents and delaying marriage, buying a house and starting life.
Despite the charts and graphs which have been posted which prove otherwise, despite the figures on the transfer of wealth from working class and middle class to the top 5%, you still continue to believe the deck is NOT stacked against working yourself out of poverty.
Fewer and fewer Americans, by percentage, are successful, even while corporate profits have never been higher. And there you sit denying that this is the real problem.
why would I do that? Unions are dying like I said. thanks for agreeing, perhaps it is you who ought to apologize already. loser.
Dying with our economy. Stagnant wages. Dying middle class. Slow growth. If killing unions is good, where is the prosperity?
Killing unions has less to do with prosperity than it does keeping jobs in the country and not encouraging industry to invest more in automation.
So it was all a lie. You killed unions and there is not any prosperity. Go figure.
Was there prosperity with unions? I must have missed that one.
We on the right realized the reason jobs left the country and needed to put a stop to it. So we didn't support unions for that reason.
Yes, there was great prosperity and economic growth.
So the Repub vision for the economy is stagnant wages, no middle class, and slow economic growth? Just be glad you have a job? How sad.
We still need to outlaw public sector unions.
again it was the progressives that pushed us into this. they took away an alternate path for employment. Ask Mike Rowe...The United States remains the richest nation in the world, and in fact is getting richer as American corporations are busy sucking up profits from their off-shore subsiduaries, and yet the numbers of poor people continue to rise. What is astonishing is that you continue to blame the poor for their plight, and shower praise on the wealthy who are exploiting them.
If the poor people are not responsible for their plight, then who is?
In the USA, poverty is an option, not an affliction. If you want to be poor, then be poor. If you don't want to be poor, then work and don't be poor. If you want to be poor, have children you can't financially support. If you don't want to be poor, don't have children until you are very financially secure.
I don't know what's worse: That you believe this bullshit, or that you vote on that basis.
The poor didn't set up the system and they don't maintain it. The rich have blocked nearly every path out of poverty there is. Education: students now graduate with so much debt, that they are moving home with their parents and delaying marriage, buying a house and starting life.
Despite the charts and graphs which have been posted which prove otherwise, despite the figures on the transfer of wealth from working class and middle class to the top 5%, you still continue to believe the deck is NOT stacked against working yourself out of poverty.
Fewer and fewer Americans, by percentage, are successful, even while corporate profits have never been higher. And there you sit denying that this is the real problem.
Like I've said so many times, yes, the people at the top are getting money from people at the bottom and middle, but not by force. The people at the bottom and middle freely give their money to the top, and at times, even beg them to take it.
You do it, I do it, everybody here does it. Yet even though we are responsible for this wealth transfer, some complain about it even though they are part of the problem.
The "rich" are not making education unaffordable, it's those liberal colleges that make education unaffordable. They can preach all the Socialism they want to their students, but when it comes to their pocketbooks, they take advantage of the supply and demand process more so than those greedy CEO's and business owners.
So again, poverty is a choice, not an affliction. If you don't believe so, then give me your scenario how somebody ends up poor. I'll give you mine how to stay out of poverty:
A kid graduates high school. He or she gets a job and starts earning money. They try to live with their parents as long as possible (or as long as they can take it) and save money for a house or a nest egg if they decided to rent.
Once that kid gets kicked out of the house or opts to get their own place, they get friends or family members to go on an apartment and divide up the living costs. They continue to save money, and continue to get pay increases at their job or try to advance themselves within the company. They don't have any children, stay away from buying unnecessary things like the latest cell phone, the newest care, the most expensive cable or satellite package.
This is how you stay out of poverty. And if that doesn't work, get a secondary job on the weekends or perhaps work overtime if your company offers it. Now you tell me how somebody getting out of school ends up in poverty.
I would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits.
Socialism
Government owning and running the businesses. No thank you.
that is due to regulation and healthcare. again, more failed obummer policy. Trump will be recovering some of those lost jobs, opening up new opportunities with new programs because he lifted regulations. It will soon be much better. doesn't take away from those too lazy to look for a job. And you wish no prosperity by keeping them dependent on the state. such a white guy.it's getting out of the fking union. ya toolwhy would I do that? Unions are dying like I said. thanks for agreeing, perhaps it is you who ought to apologize already. loser.Unions are already pretty much gone. Where is the prosperity? Admit you are wrong already.
Dying with our economy. Stagnant wages. Dying middle class. Slow growth. If killing unions is good, where is the prosperity?
So stagnant wages, dying middle class, and slow growth is your prosperity?
why would I do that? Unions are dying like I said. thanks for agreeing, perhaps it is you who ought to apologize already. loser.
Dying with our economy. Stagnant wages. Dying middle class. Slow growth. If killing unions is good, where is the prosperity?
Killing unions has less to do with prosperity than it does keeping jobs in the country and not encouraging industry to invest more in automation.
So it was all a lie. You killed unions and there is not any prosperity. Go figure.
Was there prosperity with unions? I must have missed that one.
We on the right realized the reason jobs left the country and needed to put a stop to it. So we didn't support unions for that reason.
Yes, there was great prosperity and economic growth.
So the Repub vision for the economy is stagnant wages, no middle class, and slow economic growth? Just be glad you have a job? How sad.
the figures on the transfer of wealth from working class and middle class to the top 5%,
again it was the progressives that pushed us into this. they took away an alternate path for employment. Ask Mike Rowe...The United States remains the richest nation in the world, and in fact is getting richer as American corporations are busy sucking up profits from their off-shore subsiduaries, and yet the numbers of poor people continue to rise. What is astonishing is that you continue to blame the poor for their plight, and shower praise on the wealthy who are exploiting them.
If the poor people are not responsible for their plight, then who is?
In the USA, poverty is an option, not an affliction. If you want to be poor, then be poor. If you don't want to be poor, then work and don't be poor. If you want to be poor, have children you can't financially support. If you don't want to be poor, don't have children until you are very financially secure.
I don't know what's worse: That you believe this bullshit, or that you vote on that basis.
The poor didn't set up the system and they don't maintain it. The rich have blocked nearly every path out of poverty there is. Education: students now graduate with so much debt, that they are moving home with their parents and delaying marriage, buying a house and starting life.
Despite the charts and graphs which have been posted which prove otherwise, despite the figures on the transfer of wealth from working class and middle class to the top 5%, you still continue to believe the deck is NOT stacked against working yourself out of poverty.
Fewer and fewer Americans, by percentage, are successful, even while corporate profits have never been higher. And there you sit denying that this is the real problem.
Like I've said so many times, yes, the people at the top are getting money from people at the bottom and middle, but not by force. The people at the bottom and middle freely give their money to the top, and at times, even beg them to take it.
You do it, I do it, everybody here does it. Yet even though we are responsible for this wealth transfer, some complain about it even though they are part of the problem.
The "rich" are not making education unaffordable, it's those liberal colleges that make education unaffordable. They can preach all the Socialism they want to their students, but when it comes to their pocketbooks, they take advantage of the supply and demand process more so than those greedy CEO's and business owners.
So again, poverty is a choice, not an affliction. If you don't believe so, then give me your scenario how somebody ends up poor. I'll give you mine how to stay out of poverty:
A kid graduates high school. He or she gets a job and starts earning money. They try to live with their parents as long as possible (or as long as they can take it) and save money for a house or a nest egg if they decided to rent.
Once that kid gets kicked out of the house or opts to get their own place, they get friends or family members to go on an apartment and divide up the living costs. They continue to save money, and continue to get pay increases at their job or try to advance themselves within the company. They don't have any children, stay away from buying unnecessary things like the latest cell phone, the newest care, the most expensive cable or satellite package.
This is how you stay out of poverty. And if that doesn't work, get a secondary job on the weekends or perhaps work overtime if your company offers it. Now you tell me how somebody getting out of school ends up in poverty.
Mike Rowe on How to Combat Unemployment & the Skills Gap
"Rowe said there are 5.6 million job openings waiting to be filled in fields that for the most part do not require a bachelor's degree.
The former "Dirty Jobs" host and QVC pitchman said he's sent letters to both former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump drawing attention to that fact.
"There's a belief ... in the country that we can cure unemployment by creating opportunity," Rowe said. "The skills gap proves that opportunity along is not enough to get people employed."
"It's a sucker's bet ... You have to be talking about jobs that are uniformly cared about," Rowe said, referencing many trades where such job openings exist."
wrong it would still be welfare just handed out by the corporations. The free market must determine all wages and prices to be efficient at raising our standard at the fastest rate possible. A liberal lacks the IQ to understand capitalismI would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits.
Socialism
Government owning and running the businesses. No thank you.
No they wouldn't own or run any businesses. Would shrink gov by getting people off welfare.
Dying with our economy. Stagnant wages. Dying middle class. Slow growth. If killing unions is good, where is the prosperity?
Killing unions has less to do with prosperity than it does keeping jobs in the country and not encouraging industry to invest more in automation.
So it was all a lie. You killed unions and there is not any prosperity. Go figure.
Was there prosperity with unions? I must have missed that one.
We on the right realized the reason jobs left the country and needed to put a stop to it. So we didn't support unions for that reason.
Yes, there was great prosperity and economic growth.
So the Repub vision for the economy is stagnant wages, no middle class, and slow economic growth? Just be glad you have a job? How sad.
There was great prosperity? Do you know the word "prosperity" comes from the word prosperous; meaning accumulating great wealth and having more than enough material items? I don't recall unions doing that.
The Republican vision is for people to get off their ass and make something of themselves. No more turning nuts onto bolts and getting paid $50,000 a year. Those days are long gone and they are never coming back. Your only two choices are hope and pray somebody hires you to do monkey jobs and pays you great wages, or learn a trade or profession and MAKE YOURSELF worth more money.
That's the Republicans vision.
Killing unions has less to do with prosperity than it does keeping jobs in the country and not encouraging industry to invest more in automation.
So it was all a lie. You killed unions and there is not any prosperity. Go figure.
Was there prosperity with unions? I must have missed that one.
We on the right realized the reason jobs left the country and needed to put a stop to it. So we didn't support unions for that reason.
Yes, there was great prosperity and economic growth.
So the Repub vision for the economy is stagnant wages, no middle class, and slow economic growth? Just be glad you have a job? How sad.
There was great prosperity? Do you know the word "prosperity" comes from the word prosperous; meaning accumulating great wealth and having more than enough material items? I don't recall unions doing that.
The Republican vision is for people to get off their ass and make something of themselves. No more turning nuts onto bolts and getting paid $50,000 a year. Those days are long gone and they are never coming back. Your only two choices are hope and pray somebody hires you to do monkey jobs and pays you great wages, or learn a trade or profession and MAKE YOURSELF worth more money.
That's the Republicans vision.
Thats funny, trump keeps saying he is going to bring manufacturing back.
Unemployment is low, people are working. The jobs just are not so good without unions.
wrong it would still be welfare just handed out by the corporations. The free market must determine all wages and prices to be efficient at raising our standard at the fastest rate possible. A liberal lacks the IQ to understand capitalismI would support no corp taxes as long as it is tied to hiring here and good wages and benefits.
Socialism
Government owning and running the businesses. No thank you.
No they wouldn't own or run any businesses. Would shrink gov by getting people off welfare.
or even to read a book about it. Imagine how different debates would be if liberals knew how to read books?
So it was all a lie. You killed unions and there is not any prosperity. Go figure.
Was there prosperity with unions? I must have missed that one.
We on the right realized the reason jobs left the country and needed to put a stop to it. So we didn't support unions for that reason.
Yes, there was great prosperity and economic growth.
So the Repub vision for the economy is stagnant wages, no middle class, and slow economic growth? Just be glad you have a job? How sad.
There was great prosperity? Do you know the word "prosperity" comes from the word prosperous; meaning accumulating great wealth and having more than enough material items? I don't recall unions doing that.
The Republican vision is for people to get off their ass and make something of themselves. No more turning nuts onto bolts and getting paid $50,000 a year. Those days are long gone and they are never coming back. Your only two choices are hope and pray somebody hires you to do monkey jobs and pays you great wages, or learn a trade or profession and MAKE YOURSELF worth more money.
That's the Republicans vision.
Thats funny, trump keeps saying he is going to bring manufacturing back.
Unemployment is low, people are working. The jobs just are not so good without unions.
How'd those awesome unions do when they owned United Airlines?
It must have been awesome, eh?
Was there prosperity with unions? I must have missed that one.
We on the right realized the reason jobs left the country and needed to put a stop to it. So we didn't support unions for that reason.
Yes, there was great prosperity and economic growth.
So the Repub vision for the economy is stagnant wages, no middle class, and slow economic growth? Just be glad you have a job? How sad.
There was great prosperity? Do you know the word "prosperity" comes from the word prosperous; meaning accumulating great wealth and having more than enough material items? I don't recall unions doing that.
The Republican vision is for people to get off their ass and make something of themselves. No more turning nuts onto bolts and getting paid $50,000 a year. Those days are long gone and they are never coming back. Your only two choices are hope and pray somebody hires you to do monkey jobs and pays you great wages, or learn a trade or profession and MAKE YOURSELF worth more money.
That's the Republicans vision.
Thats funny, trump keeps saying he is going to bring manufacturing back.
Unemployment is low, people are working. The jobs just are not so good without unions.
How'd those awesome unions do when they owned United Airlines?
It must have been awesome, eh?
They should not own a business.
