[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Nu Uhhhh!!! but this is where Zep learned to read.
You contribute nothing that a 3rd grader can’t so please just go away!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The living explosion of the last 30 years that you describe is only true for the upper crust of this countries top elite.[/quote]
False. See Whittle’s breakdown. You can find the Heritage Study here and around this link: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor
And if your lefty PERI is considered a real source so is the righty Heritage.
Source? (Please provide one that shows people staying in the same wage range too, not one that shows the wage ranges stagnant, because stagnant ranges are irrelevant if there is mobility between ranges. Thanks)
Lets see, things my parents (Lower middle class, I make more now than both of them combined have any year they have been together) have now they didn’t when I was 3:
House
Second car (Both less than 4 years old)
HDTV
Dish Network
TVIO
High speed internet
2 desktop computers
2 laptop computers
a Wii
Fax Machine
Scanner
Printer
International Travel (we went camping for vacations, lol)
Money saved for retirement
Custom golf clubs, 3 sets
These pots and pans my mom won’t let anyone touch but her
Country Club Membership
Cellphones
I could go on…
Things I see in poor neighborhoods I didn’t see 20 years ago:
3k worth of rims on cars without rust holes
$1,500 worth of speakers and stereo equipment in these cars
Air conditioners in two or more windows all summer
50" HDTV’s
Blueray players
DVD’s
Laptops
computers
Internet
iPhones
iPads
iPods
Xbox’s
Playstations
Do you really need a run down of the technological advancements that have come about, medical, all that too?
[quote]So once again you have no idea what is going on in the real world.
[/quote]
So once again you forget you are posting on the internet and not talking into a mirror[/quote]
Your argument is spurious to say the least. Because someone has a bias that defacto makes them wrong. Then according to that argument no one can be truthful.
More information on the inequality of the income gains.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What is important to you is who’s side is winning. Truth doesn’t matter.[/quote]
What is important to me, in the context of this thread is everyone is winning. A rising tide lifts all boats. That has happened in America since the 1980s.
I’m sorry you appear to be envious and completely butthurt that some people are winning more than others. I hate to break it to you, but life isn’t fair, and no one or no government or society can construct fairness. Nature won’t allow it.
[quote]Here is a link albeit not a video with information on who has received the majority of gains since 2009 Yes, Virginia, the Rich Continue to Get Richer: the Top 1% Got 121% of Income Gains Since 2009 | naked capitalism
[/quote]
I can tell by the title in the link it is a hit peice. Guess who took the majority of the losses in 2008? Hmmm…
Then your point has nothing, what so ever to do with what I posted.
Just as a refresher:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
America has seen wealth and standard of living explosions over the last 30 years pretty much unrivaled throughout human history, [/quote]
I didn’t say it was solely because of the private or public sector. I didn’t say it was even, fair or anything. I said what I said. What I said is true.
Your rebuttal is the equivilent of an 8 year old who got a B on a paper when 4 other students got an A. You don’t care that you earned a B, you only care that someone else earned a higher grade… When a B is better than the 3 students that earned C and the poor Indian and Cuban students who earned F’s.
Irrelevant. I never said private sector did anything on its own, or that public sector didn’t help…
Can you debate without personal attacks? They show a weak arguement, weak debator or weak intellect. Which are you?
Wouldn’t you want to make sure you don’t have typos in a sentence where you try and use a personal attack on someone’s intelligence to rebut their position?
lol, just lol.
You pick one of dozens of examples I list. Even if the internets development in public sector was relevant, which it isn’t, because I never said public sector wasn’t part of the boom, it still doesn’t even begin to rebut anything I said.
Again, your only responce is personal attacks and complaining some people made more money than others, ignoring the fact everyone’s life improved… (Which was my point BTW)
No shit, and thefakenews that you post has a vested interest in getting the conclusions that increase their donations from the leftys that worship their alter…
Funny you say that when you post so little of it.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
More information on the inequality of the income gains.
[/quote]
Hmmm… Does there studies factor in mobilty between earning percentiles?
Do you understand why that is important?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
More information on the inequality of the income gains.
[/quote]
Hmmm… Does there studies factor in mobilty between earning percentiles?
Do you understand why that is important?[/quote]
Here is another hit piece on the mythology of economic mobility.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
What is important to you is who’s side is winning. Truth doesn’t matter.[/quote]
What is important to me, in the context of this thread is everyone is winning. A rising tide lifts all boats. That has happened in America since the 1980s.
I’m sorry you appear to be envious and completely butthurt that some people are winning more than others. I hate to break it to you, but life isn’t fair, and no one or no government or society can construct fairness. Nature won’t allow it.
[quote]Here is a link albeit not a video with information on who has received the majority of gains since 2009 Yes, Virginia, the Rich Continue to Get Richer: the Top 1% Got 121% of Income Gains Since 2009 | naked capitalism
[/quote]
I can tell by the title in the link it is a hit peice. Guess who took the majority of the losses in 2008? Hmmm…
Then your point has nothing, what so ever to do with what I posted.
Just as a refresher:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
America has seen wealth and standard of living explosions over the last 30 years pretty much unrivaled throughout human history, [/quote]
I didn’t say it was solely because of the private or public sector. I didn’t say it was even, fair or anything. I said what I said. What I said is true.
Your rebuttal is the equivilent of an 8 year old who got a B on a paper when 4 other students got an A. You don’t care that you earned a B, you only care that someone else earned a higher grade… When a B is better than the 3 students that earned C and the poor Indian and Cuban students who earned F’s.
Irrelevant. I never said private sector did anything on its own, or that public sector didn’t help…
Can you debate without personal attacks? They show a weak arguement, weak debator or weak intellect. Which are you?
Wouldn’t you want to make sure you don’t have typos in a sentence where you try and use a personal attack on someone’s intelligence to rebut their position?
lol, just lol.
You pick one of dozens of examples I list. Even if the internets development in public sector was relevant, which it isn’t, because I never said public sector wasn’t part of the boom, it still doesn’t even begin to rebut anything I said.
Again, your only responce is personal attacks and complaining some people made more money than others, ignoring the fact everyone’s life improved… (Which was my point BTW)
No shit, and thefakenews that you post has a vested interest in getting the conclusions that increase their donations from the leftys that worship their alter…
Funny you say that when you post so little of it.[/quote]
Again the majority of gains were gotten by the elite so the explosion happened mostly for them so your argument is thwarted again.
The majority of losses in 2008? Who as a percentage?
If your so find of your sources I can say the same thing. The corporate mainstream news has a duty to provide shareholders a return. It matters not whether any truth is distributed only that the advertising dollars pour in and the conclusions that fill their pockets are disseminated. A financial motive.
The fact that the real news network are only on the internet and Faux News is on TV along with fraudulent talk radio jockeys goes to show you were the majority of the money is going.
Where is your proof that there was upward class mobility? Please document. Or you can follow the one way street you’ve paved for yourself. Countingbeans ideology- berate others for not footnoting everything but there is no need to back up his assertions he only needs to post what he thinks.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
More information on the inequality of the income gains.
[/quote]
Hmmm… Does there studies factor in mobilty between earning percentiles?
Do you understand why that is important?[/quote]
Here is another hit piece on the mythology of economic mobility.
[/quote]
AN unsourced blog from 2009… Super duper read.
Cuba, the land of innovation and development… NOrth Korea, home of the iPad and HDTV…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Again the majority of gains were gotten by the elite so the explosion happened mostly for them so your argument is thwarted again.[/quote]
How does this thwart anything? How does this at all, for one second even beging to address what I said?
It doesn’t.
For about the 300th time, you start sourcing your points and I’ll be more diligent about sourcing my counter points.
[quote]If your so find of your sources I can say the same thing. The corporate mainstream news has a duty to provide shareholders a return. It matters not whether any truth is distributed only that the advertising dollars pour in and the conclusions that fill their pockets are disseminated. A financial motive.
The fact that the real news network are only on the internet and Faux News is on TV along with fraudulent talk radio jockeys goes to show you were the majority of the money is going. [/quote]
Jesus H… So you actually understand that your sole source of news is just as biased as any other source? Yet you continue to pretned it isn’t…
It’s well documented here:
Table 1, page 7
From Page 8: The mobility of the top 1 percent of the income distribution is also important. More than half (57.4 percent = 100 â?? 42.6) of the top 1 percent of households in 1996 had dropped to a lower income group by 2005. This statistic illustrates that the top income groups as measured by a single year of income (i.e., cross-sectional analysis) often include a large share of individuals or households whose income is only temporarily high. Put differently, more than half of the households in the top 1 percent in 2005 were not there nine years earlier. Thus, while the share of income of the top 1 percent is higher than in prior years, it is not a fixed group of households receiving this larger share of income. As suggested by the Schumpeter hotel analogy, many of the more luxurious rooms are occupied by different people at different times.
Table 3 on page 10 is interesting as well, see far right column… Well shit it looks like the top 1% had more decreasing than any other percentile
There is also downward mobility BTW…
Hey, look at that increase in percapita income year over year…
http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm
HEre it is by state…
Disposable Personal Income: Per capita: Current dollars | FRED | St. Louis Fed,
oops, here is another one
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Again the majority of gains were gotten by the elite so the explosion happened mostly for them so your argument is thwarted again.[/quote]
How does this thwart anything? How does this at all, for one second even beging to address what I said?
It doesn’t.
For about the 300th time, you start sourcing your points and I’ll be more diligent about sourcing my counter points.
[quote]If your so find of your sources I can say the same thing. The corporate mainstream news has a duty to provide shareholders a return. It matters not whether any truth is distributed only that the advertising dollars pour in and the conclusions that fill their pockets are disseminated. A financial motive.
The fact that the real news network are only on the internet and Faux News is on TV along with fraudulent talk radio jockeys goes to show you were the majority of the money is going. [/quote]
Jesus H… So you actually understand that your sole source of news is just as biased as any other source? Yet you continue to pretned it isn’t…
It’s well documented here:
Table 1, page 7
From Page 8: The mobility of the top 1 percent of the income distribution is also important. More than half (57.4 percent = 100 â?? 42.6) of the top 1 percent of households in 1996 had dropped to a lower income group by 2005. This statistic illustrates that the top income groups as measured by a single year of income (i.e., cross-sectional analysis) often include a large share of individuals or households whose income is only temporarily high. Put differently, more than half of the households in the top 1 percent in 2005 were not there nine years earlier. Thus, while the share of income of the top 1 percent is higher than in prior years, it is not a fixed group of households receiving this larger share of income. As suggested by the Schumpeter hotel analogy, many of the more luxurious rooms are occupied by different people at different times.
Table 3 on page 10 is interesting as well, see far right column… Well shit it looks like the top 1% had more decreasing than any other percentile
There is also downward mobility BTW…
Hey, look at that increase in percapita income year over year…
http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm
HEre it is by state…
Disposable Personal Income: Per capita: Current dollars | FRED | St. Louis Fed,
oops, here is another one
[/quote]
A conservative college professor(scarce!)made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A… (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
-
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
-
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
-
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
-
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
-
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
A conservative college professor(scarce!)made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A… (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
-
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
-
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
-
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
-
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
-
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
[/quote]
Amen!!! Maybe you should post this everytime Zep puts up a new thread.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
A conservative college professor(scarce!)made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A… (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
-
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
-
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
-
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
-
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
-
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
[/quote]
Amen!!! Maybe you should post this everytime Zep puts up a new thread.[/quote]
He would just look in the mirror and tell himself that we are all crazy, and nobody is lazy and abusive to the system.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
A conservative college professor(scarce!)made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A… (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
-
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
-
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
-
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
-
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
-
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
[/quote]
First off Obama resembles nothing even close to socialism so your proof and the students are complete idiots. When your premise is wrong so are your arguments that follow from that false premise.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Again the majority of gains were gotten by the elite so the explosion happened mostly for them so your argument is thwarted again.[/quote]
How does this thwart anything? How does this at all, for one second even beging to address what I said?
It doesn’t.
For about the 300th time, you start sourcing your points and I’ll be more diligent about sourcing my counter points.
[quote]If your so find of your sources I can say the same thing. The corporate mainstream news has a duty to provide shareholders a return. It matters not whether any truth is distributed only that the advertising dollars pour in and the conclusions that fill their pockets are disseminated. A financial motive.
The fact that the real news network are only on the internet and Faux News is on TV along with fraudulent talk radio jockeys goes to show you were the majority of the money is going. [/quote]
Jesus H… So you actually understand that your sole source of news is just as biased as any other source? Yet you continue to pretned it isn’t…
It’s well documented here:
Table 1, page 7
From Page 8: The mobility of the top 1 percent of the income distribution is also important. More than half (57.4 percent = 100 â?? 42.6) of the top 1 percent of households in 1996 had dropped to a lower income group by 2005. This statistic illustrates that the top income groups as measured by a single year of income (i.e., cross-sectional analysis) often include a large share of individuals or households whose income is only temporarily high. Put differently, more than half of the households in the top 1 percent in 2005 were not there nine years earlier. Thus, while the share of income of the top 1 percent is higher than in prior years, it is not a fixed group of households receiving this larger share of income. As suggested by the Schumpeter hotel analogy, many of the more luxurious rooms are occupied by different people at different times.
Table 3 on page 10 is interesting as well, see far right column… Well shit it looks like the top 1% had more decreasing than any other percentile
There is also downward mobility BTW…
Hey, look at that increase in percapita income year over year…
http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm
HEre it is by state…
Disposable Personal Income: Per capita: Current dollars | FRED | St. Louis Fed,
oops, here is another one
[/quote]
Were these studies adjusted for inflation? Unemployment benefits are higher today than they were in the 1960’s, so what? They are lower when adjusted for inflation.
If it’s true that Americans have consistently made more money over the course of years then why is there no demand? We have more money to spend but yet don’t spend it, indeed?
Philosophically are differences can be drawn from the sources we believe. You are more prone to cite and believe in corporate funded news sources and I am not. If you call my sources biased then I can claim the same for you. But biased to whom is the question? The corporations or the public. And cannot a group of people study stats to find out the truth as opposed to confirmation bias?
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/
Info from the census bureau shows an incline but this isn’t adjusted for inflation and this still does nothing to deflate the argument that the explosion you speak mostly went to the elite as a gross number and as a percentage. My argument had nothing to do with Americans having TV’s or computers but that the upper crust continues to get the majority of the gains and the difference between classes continues to grow. And the concentration of wealth and power is detrimental to this country and the majority of the public.
Your arguments have done nothing to disprove this fact.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Were these studies adjusted for inflation? Unemployment benefits are higher today than they were in the 1960’s, so what? They are lower when adjusted for inflation.[/quote]
http://www.demographia.com/db-pc1929.pdf
sure looks like it
What do you have showing no demand?
Do you have a graph of consumer spending that shows demand trends?
[quote]Philosophically are differences can be drawn from the sources we believe. You are more prone to cite and believe in corporate funded news sources and I am not. If you call my sources biased then I can claim the same for you. But biased to whom is the question? The corporations or the public. And cannot a group of people study stats to find out the truth as opposed to confirmation bias?
[/quote]
This isn’t a dig, but you can’t see your own confirmation bias, pardon us while we ignore your opinion of other’s.
This is a link to a bunch of ‘stuff’. What specificly are you trying to say here?
You obviously ignored the whole paragraph I copy pasted in italic in my last post then…
You’ve provided zero evidence to this, and I’ve provided evidence to the contrary, from the treasury department, in that the same people that made up the top percentiles, are just as likely to be in a bottom precentile a decade later than they are to stay at the top.
Point being, if it isn’t always the same people making the most money year over year, therefore this mythical “upper crust” really isn’t comprised of the same people year over year. Which means your “argument” is bunk, garbage, a made up talking point to make people feel better about themselves…
How is anything concentrated when different people are bringing in the largest incomes year over year?
lol wut?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
A conservative college professor(scarce!)made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A… (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
-
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
-
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
-
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
-
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
-
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
[/quote]
First off Obama resembles nothing even close to socialism so your proof and the students are complete idiots. When your premise is wrong so are your arguments that follow from that false premise.
[/quote]
Ummmmmm eliminating reward for working harder and making more money?
That’s EXACTLY what he is doing.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
He would just look in the mirror and tell himself that we are all crazy, and nobody is lazy and abusive to the system.[/quote]
No, He will look on the Real News and they will tell him that we are all crazy, and nobody is lazy and abusive to the system.
He can not think for himself. He has to hold tight to the ideology no mater how much it makes the poor poorer.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
He would just look in the mirror and tell himself that we are all crazy, and nobody is lazy and abusive to the system.[/quote]
No, He will look on the Real News and they will tell him that we are all crazy, and nobody is lazy and abusive to the system.
He can not think for himself. He has to hold tight to the ideology no mater how much it makes the poor poorer.
[/quote]
Man you just can’t resist! I thought you were leaving my posts?
Unfortunately for you it is you that holds on to an ideology that does nothing but pander to those with wealth and power to the detriment of the disappearing middle class and the poor.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but pander to those with wealth and power to the detriment of the disappearing middle class and the poor.
[/quote]
I really feel bad for people that think this way.
No, in the real world people don’t have less because someone else has more. One person isn’t poor because another is rich… Those that think the pie cannot be expanded are hopeless.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
but pander to those with wealth and power to the detriment of the disappearing middle class and the poor.
[/quote]
I really feel bad for people that think this way.
No, in the real world people don’t have less because someone else has more. One person isn’t poor because another is rich… Those that think the pie cannot be expanded are hopeless. [/quote]
This is the issue with the Liberal Ideology. Liberals believe there is a finite amount of money so if one has it all then you have to take it from them to give to everyone else.
Capitalists believe you can create more wealth for everyone. For example… A person decides to build a house and this person will be the general contractor. They will not use a home builder, and they are going to pay cash for the house. The house costs $200,000 to build. Now where is the $200,000? It is with the people that built the house, subcontractors framers, roofers, painters, and so on and so forth. Now that the house is built the owner has an asset, which is worth $300k because that is what the comps show. The owner of the house just turned $200k into $500k of money over night.
There is no finite amount of money. You can increase your net worth really easy.