Page 84 of 98 FirstFirst ... 3474828384858694 ... LastLast
Results 831 to 840 of 972

Thread: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

  1. #831
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Personal financial mismanagement is not a fault of society. It is the fault of the individual.
    You're just arguing in circles here.

    I didn't call them "positives" and you should evaluate your own statement here.
    OK, but to demonstrate that living standards hadn't declined that's what you referenced. If not for that purpose, why mention new autos and college? Surely you meant something...

    Ok, then, where do these policies come from then?
    You tell me. Or, better, instead of asking me vague questions, make your point.

    Unions are not Un-American. Forcing someone to join one so that they are "allowed" to get a job is un-American.
    The workplace votes for a union. If there is a union in that workplace, not joining is just a decision to enjoy the negotiated pay and benefits, but freeload off others who pay their dues. And if workers don't like working in a union shop, find another job with better pay and benefits. Pretty straightforward. And not un-American for employees who benefit from a union to pay for those benefits.

  2. #832
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    How many sections did he veto and how many are specifically named in that reference?
    What is it with the out of left field questions?

    If you have evidence he vetoed the individual mandate he is on tape applauding, let's see it.

  3. #833
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I deal in personal experience, dealing with actual people, and human behavior that leads to those numbers you love posting. Without context your charts are meaningless and you ought to know that. Who makes up those numbers? How were the numbers captured, where did the data come from? ....
    If you have other data, I'd love to see it. Really. As it is, I can only go on the evidence available.

    If good jobs are gone what have these people done to secure new good jobs? Did they take their education and experience learned on the jobs they had to better themselves or did they sit on their asses whining and complaining about the govt. not doing enough to hurt those who did take those opportunities and capitalized on them?
    I don't really know how to respond. There are so many straw men in that post I don't know where to start.

    So what should an average employee who does the average work and puts in the average amount of effort pay and who decides what is fair for that person? Let me help you, the market decides except in the liberal world who believe it is the Government's responsibility to tell a private business person what to pay their workers....
    NOWHERE have I argued that the government should tell a business what to pay their workers.

    You may believe you don't want equal outcome but in order to mandate shared responsibility that is what you are going to get or have to demand.
    That makes no sense. Equal outcomes are impossible and would be disastrous for the economy. I'm not a conservative - it doesn't mean I am a communist.

    It scares me when I see people like you who I doubt ever invested a dollar of your own into a business for if you did how would you feel about a govt. entity telling you what you have to pay your employees and what you have to pay the govt. in taxes and regulations? What you want to do is lump all businesses together when the vast majority of those paying at or a little above minimum wage are small businesses not large companies.....
    I don't know who you're responding to but it's not me.

    I'll respond to some of that though. You're imagining some set of "liberal" positions, then assigning them to me based on nothing. I do not lump all businesses together. For one, Walmart IMO represents all that is rotten about our economy. They move into town and drive dozens of those small local businesses out. I spend a dollar in Walmart and a little stays local from the wages, some gets wired to Arkansas, a healthy chunk to shareholders, and the rest to pay wages for goods made in China, because Walmart makes that all but a condition of goods landing on their shelves. So it's a giant vacuum of money out of local communities. As a bonus, Walmart has more employees on public assistance than any other employer - so Tennessee taxpayers pick up a healthy chunk of their benefits. So I go to Walmart when someone drags me there, and do all I can to shop in local stores, those small businesses you're talking about. I know it doesn't do any good, but it's what I can do.

    You just don't realize how foolish you sound or how poorly informed you are. I competed against Wal-Mart and other large businesses. I know what they paid their employees, I employed over 1200 people, hired, fired, and promoted many, and had my own money invested in the business so pardon me if I don't give your posts much credibility.
    It helps me 'sound' foolish when you make up positions I don't hold. You somehow think I don't respect what you do (or did) and you couldn't be more wrong.

    I'll put it this way. When we (our leaders, both parties, Clinton was one) decided to force U.S. manufacturers to compete with low wage, no environmental rules, air so polluted you can't see a quarter mile on clear days, a rigged currency, and sub $1 per hour wages, the country decided to close 10s of thousands of manufacturing plants, lose millions of good paying jobs, and drive down blue collar wages - that was the inevitable and presumably planned outcome.

    All you do as employer is play by the rules of the game. So when an employer closes a plant in Lenoir City near me and moves it to China because it's cheaper and he can get his goods on a Walmart shelf, I have NO beef with that employer at all. When the remaining employers in that town have 500 newly unemployed workers and the market rate goes down for labor, they'd be idiots to not lower wages to the market rate. My problem is the rules just guarantee a bad result for lots of good people willing to work very hard, but who have no good jobs TO take. That's what the numbers show.

    That's it. I have no beef with employers like you playing by the rules of the game set by people in rooms we don't even know exist.

  4. #834
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Reagan raised use taxes, if you don't use the service or product you don't pay the taxes. You don't seem to understand what your taxes fund or what taxes you pay
    He also raised income taxes - many times. And payroll taxes.

  5. #835
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    You're just arguing in circles here.
    No, no I'm not. You're ignoring reality.

    OK, but to demonstrate that living standards hadn't declined that's what you referenced. If not for that purpose, why mention new autos and college? Surely you meant something...
    Living standards haven't declined. They appear to have declined because individuals today tend to take on greater debt for those shiney things and that lowers their apparent net worth.

    You tell me. Or, better, instead of asking me vague questions, make your point.
    My point is that most "the rich people are eating our babies!" types say that policies are making the rich richer and the not rich poorer but can never say exactly how that is being done. It's your claim, prove it.

    The workplace votes for a union. If there is a union in that workplace, not joining is just a decision to enjoy the negotiated pay and benefits, but freeload off others who pay their dues. And if workers don't like working in a union shop, find another job with better pay and benefits. Pretty straightforward. And not un-American for employees who benefit from a union to pay for those benefits.
    If there is a Union in the area, they are operating for the good of all, no? Very philanthropic, right? Here is something you won't get, I'm sure. If there were a need for them....people would join them. If there were a need for them and people just didn't realize it...they would join when it became evident. If there was not a need for them, people would stop joining them.

    Unions did great things in America...but like Gas lamps....their time has passed.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  6. #836
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    He also raised income taxes - many times. And payroll taxes.
    Wrong, Reagan NEVER Raised INCOME TAXES and your comments continue to show you have no idea what taxes you pay and what they were for. Payroll Taxes fund SS and MEDICARE and thus are use taxes as well. Not every American pays into SS and Medicare either thus if they didn't they didn't pay but if you earn income in this country you pay FIT. I just don't understand the loyalty you and others have to taxes
    Last edited by Conservative; 01-24-15 at 09:30 AM.

  7. #837
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    If you have other data, I'd love to see it. Really. As it is, I can only go on the evidence available.



    I don't really know how to respond. There are so many straw men in that post I don't know where to start.



    NOWHERE have I argued that the government should tell a business what to pay their workers.



    That makes no sense. Equal outcomes are impossible and would be disastrous for the economy. I'm not a conservative - it doesn't mean I am a communist.



    I don't know who you're responding to but it's not me.

    I'll respond to some of that though. You're imagining some set of "liberal" positions, then assigning them to me based on nothing. I do not lump all businesses together. For one, Walmart IMO represents all that is rotten about our economy. They move into town and drive dozens of those small local businesses out. I spend a dollar in Walmart and a little stays local from the wages, some gets wired to Arkansas, a healthy chunk to shareholders, and the rest to pay wages for goods made in China, because Walmart makes that all but a condition of goods landing on their shelves. So it's a giant vacuum of money out of local communities. As a bonus, Walmart has more employees on public assistance than any other employer - so Tennessee taxpayers pick up a healthy chunk of their benefits. So I go to Walmart when someone drags me there, and do all I can to shop in local stores, those small businesses you're talking about. I know it doesn't do any good, but it's what I can do.



    It helps me 'sound' foolish when you make up positions I don't hold. You somehow think I don't respect what you do (or did) and you couldn't be more wrong.

    I'll put it this way. When we (our leaders, both parties, Clinton was one) decided to force U.S. manufacturers to compete with low wage, no environmental rules, air so polluted you can't see a quarter mile on clear days, a rigged currency, and sub $1 per hour wages, the country decided to close 10s of thousands of manufacturing plants, lose millions of good paying jobs, and drive down blue collar wages - that was the inevitable and presumably planned outcome.

    All you do as employer is play by the rules of the game. So when an employer closes a plant in Lenoir City near me and moves it to China because it's cheaper and he can get his goods on a Walmart shelf, I have NO beef with that employer at all. When the remaining employers in that town have 500 newly unemployed workers and the market rate goes down for labor, they'd be idiots to not lower wages to the market rate. My problem is the rules just guarantee a bad result for lots of good people willing to work very hard, but who have no good jobs TO take. That's what the numbers show.

    That's it. I have no beef with employers like you playing by the rules of the game set by people in rooms we don't even know exist.
    Every one of your posts seems to be about people either not making enough money, income equality, wealth being controlled by very few and yet not once have I seen a solution from you. If you see this as a problem then the question is what would you do about it??

    There isn't a business in the world that is in business to provide you with a living. Their job is to make a profit and if they cannot compete their survival instincts by their owners is going to kick in and they are going to cut costs. You are not guaranteed and income but you are guaranteed an opportunity. Sometimes that opportunity is outside your home town and you have to take it. I moved 7 times in my life to follow the opportunities available. Some do not want to do that, that is their choice and with choice comes consequences.

    Now what are your solutions??

  8. #838
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Didn't we used to have laws against usury? Whatever happened to them?
    Yeah, I remember those too. Something about not being able to breech 29.99 APR, but I don't know how the hell these places get past them. All I know is I have a friend who's wife used to work at one of these places, and it is heartbreaking the stories she tells about people that come in there and take out a $500. advance, then every week or two bring in $575. and come back the next day and take out that same $500. repeating the cycle never paying the loan off. Some of these people are elderly that once snared, never get out. It's sad. And these places if you take a look around, are situated, and saturated in the poor districts of every city and town...These people that own these places deserve a special place in hell.

    You're right about the predatory lenders and mortgages. What happened was that houses were sold to perfectly willing buyers who couldn't afford those houses using "creative loans". Lots of buyers as well as lenders made money on the deal until the bottom fell out of the market. Rates were no higher than for any other mortgages.
    The part that I will ding the banks on is that the had people sitting in front of them that they knew damned well couldn't afford the houses they were buying, or the 2nd, and 3rd mortgages they were taking out, and did it anyway because they thought they'd just be able to push it back on the government, and get their money. Plus the incentives for the people working within the mortgage loan business was significant in the form of commissions, and to be truthful they simply didn't care, nor did they use any common sense when talking people into these loans....That's on them. But it doesn't give anyone the right to lie about income to get in the house, and then just walk away from it when they couldn't afford it.

    What should have happened is laws passed to ensure that buyers had enough skin in the game to lose if the houses were foreclosed, and to have a reasonable assurance that people weren't buying houses that they couldn't afford, that dreaded but necessary word: Government regulation. That didn't happen, and so the whole house of cards eventually fell.
    My contention is that we had that, but it wasn't followed. And this is where it gets partisan. There was a point when demo's were in charge that hearings were held, and regulators, as well as Repubs were raising holy hell about what was happening within the industry, and Demo's either ignored, or brushed off warnings....



    This IMHO, puts demo's just as culpable as those bank, and mortgage people that pushed the people for commissions.

    As far as "skin in the game" I will say this...We aren't doing this now either...Fannie and Freedie announced that they were going to open a program offering 3% down mortgages...Same thing all over again. But I will say this. 5 years ago I bought my house here in SC..I did it with NOTHING down. I have VA backing so, I didn't need to put a penny down according to the rules, but two things I did to ensure I could swing it, first I didn't buy more house than we could afford, and I immediately put the mortgage payment on auto pay through my bank tied to my wife's paycheck...So she gets paid on the 1st, and 15th, and the mortgage payment is automatically paid on the very same days...We never give the payment a second thought, and it's exactly on time for over 5 years now. Too many buy too much house, then play games with the mortgage payment.

    Too many people have NO idea how to budget, or the real effect of missing payments, or paying slow...See, I think that there ought to be mandatory budgeting classes say at the Community College before you can buy a house, and then one thing I haven't seen that should be there if someone was accounting savvy, or budgeting savvy, to start up a service not to charge those with budgeting problems, but to have a place for these people starting to sink, to go and put all their bills, and income on the table, and have a place to teach them how to work through it...Right now there are places like that claim that is what they do, but many times they are paid by the creditors, and are really nothing more than 3rd party collectors.

    We always say in this country that 'education is the key', yet when it comes to actually putting our money where our mouth is on that we shrug it off, and blame the person suffering...Anyway, those are my thoughts this morning.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #839
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Wrong, Reagan NEVER Raised INCOME TAXES and your comments continue to show you have no idea what taxes you pay and what they were for. Payroll Taxes fund SS and MEDICARE and thus are use taxes as well. Not every American pays into SS and Medicare either thus if they didn't they didn't pay but if you earn income in this country you pay FIT. I just don't understand the loyalty you and others have to taxes
    Yes, he did. Here's one of them - in 1982. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Also in California! Reagan's Forgotten Tax Record | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games

    The top income tax rate was raised from 7 percent to 10 percent, the sales tax rate went from 3 percent to 5 percent, the cigarette tax was increased from 3 cents to 10 cents per pack, the alcohol tax was raised from $1.50 to $2 per gallon, the bank and corporate tax rate went up from 5.5 percent to 7 percent, and the inheritance tax rose from a range of 2 percent to 10 percent to a range of 3 percent to 15 percent.
    Bottom line is Reagan preferred lower taxes and lower spending, but wasn't a fiscal idiot and so raised taxes in the face of budget deficits.

  10. #840
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,770

    Re: The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Living standards haven't declined. They appear to have declined because individuals today tend to take on greater debt for those shiney things and that lowers their apparent net worth.
    Do you have any evidence? In the face of stagnant wages, increased debt is how people prevented declines in living standards. Only problem is that's not sustainable.

    My point is that most "the rich people are eating our babies!" types say that policies are making the rich richer and the not rich poorer but can never say exactly how that is being done. It's your claim, prove it.
    And I give you policies, you ask me who supported those policies, and now deny that I provided answers how. It's very strange.

    If there is a Union in the area, they are operating for the good of all, no? Very philanthropic, right? Here is something you won't get, I'm sure. If there were a need for them....people would join them. If there were a need for them and people just didn't realize it...they would join when it became evident. If there was not a need for them, people would stop joining them.
    One way to kill unions is right to work laws which encourage freeloading and make unions almost impossible to sustain. That is the purpose of those laws and they work. In Tennessee last year, workers tried to unionize the VW plant. Our Senators and state threatened the union with retaliation if they succeeded. If you want to acknowledge the massive alignment of governments and the wealthy against unions, and still claim they're not necessary, or even harmful to jobs, etc. that's fine. But the powerful interests don't hide this hostility and proudly claim credit for the effectiveness of union busting legislation.

    Unions did great things in America...but like Gas lamps....their time has passed.
    Perhaps, but their decline has followed declines in blue collar wages, benefits, job security, etc. Not surprising. One worker against Walmart loses. A union against Walmart has a better chance. Which is why Walmart will abandon a store before allowing it to unionize.

Page 84 of 98 FirstFirst ... 3474828384858694 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •