Page 109 of 129 FirstFirst ... 95999107108109110111119 ... LastLast
Results 1,081 to 1,090 of 1288

Thread: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

  1. #1081
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:35 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,942

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    ....there was nothing Bush proposed that caused the problems we faced...
    That's not entirely accurate. Bush proposed several democrat plans. No child left behind, medicare prescription drugs, Bailout package.

  2. #1082
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by FederalRepublic View Post
    That's not entirely accurate. Bush proposed several democrat plans. No child left behind, medicare prescription drugs, Bailout package.
    nclb......unfunded.......prescription drugs.........debacle.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  3. #1083
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by FederalRepublic View Post
    That's not entirely accurate. Bush proposed several democrat plans. No child left behind, medicare prescription drugs, Bailout package.
    The bailout was in response to a situation and was passed by a Democrat Congress. I didn't support it but it did work now the question is where did the repayment of those bailout funds go?

    Medicare Prescription drug program put the market into play and is a conservative plan to reduce the cost of Medicare. Treasury shows a reduction in the growth in the size of Medicare so something is working there. No Child Left Behind hurts the unions.

  4. #1084
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    nclb......unfunded.......prescription drugs.........debacle.
    LOL, yep, we need more Medicare spending and govt. involvement, what do the people know about managing their own prescription drug program and shopping for the lowest prices?

  5. #1085
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    98053
    Last Seen
    04-19-15 @ 03:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    264

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    The crisis didn't begin the first day they took office, it took place 11 months later, plenty of time to do the damage. I posted GDP and jobs numbers which of course you ignored. I gave you the 2003-2007 GDP and it does seem that you lack a basic understanding of the way our govt. operates. The Democrat Congress controlled the legislative process thus the budget process. They could have stopped anything Bush did and you seem to blame Bush for the problems therefore tell me why they didn't do anything to stop him? There is a simple answer, there was nothing Bush proposed that caused the problems we faced and the Democrats were more concerned about winning the WH than preventing problems for the country.

    Zip, you got your wish, a leftwing radical President and the results speak for themselves. If we had a pro growth, pro free enterprise, and not a pro big govt. Administration we would have 4-6% economic growth now and a massive cut in the unemployment numbers in the country thus more revenue to the govt. Instead we have 2% economic growth, millions of employees added to the Federal workforce, and trillions added to the debt. That seems to be the liberal definition of success. Why do you support this agenda?

    The cries from the left is give us more time, more time to do what? If you spend trillions to stimulate the economy and you get these kind of results why would you step on the gas and saddle ourselves with more massive debt? We do not have an economy and never will have an economy to pay for thes kind of debt being generated.
    The crisis started months/years BEFORE the Democrats took control of Congress. As the time line shows (you did look at it didn't you?) the unraveling started early in 2007. I believe that, with regard to trying to prevent the meltdown, Congress did everything that Bush asked them to.

    I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say other than you don't think much of people who are not as "conservative" as you. You seem determined to blame all problems on Democrats and claim that all successes are due to actions of Republicans. That, of course, is nonsense. You rail a the massive debt caused by the government trying to stop the loss of jobs. Yet, you have no solution to the problem other than "cut taxes" but the historical data (all of it, not just the cherry-picked data that The Heritage Foundation used) indicates that cutting income taxes is not correlated with job creation. It is much more complicated than that. The taxes that effect jobs most are the rates on investment - things like capital gains taxes and investment tax credits. Those spur wealth consolidation for the purpose of business creation.

    In spite of your claims, Obama is not for raising taxes on everyone. He is just for letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire. The evidence is, the wealthy are not in a recession and, according to the profit reports, large corporations are not in much of a recession either. Those groups are accumulating wealth, not spending it. Having their money sit in banks is not going to stimulate anything because people are not borrowing. If they won't spend it, we need the government to cause some of their money to be put into use. One use is to help reduce the deficit - although government borrowing does not seem to be having the crowding-out effect that it normally does, probably because of the willingness of the Chinese to buy it. The other use of this money is to spend on infrastructure. Regrettably, the last attempt at doing this was a disaster. The government gave lots of money to local governments in order to create jobs but the local governments used that money for other purposes. This means that the federal government may have to use a lot of those dreaded earmarks in order to achieve targeted results and prevent the diversion of funds by local governments as happened last time.

    Finally, I'd rather spend trillions trying to stimulate the economy than to spend it fighting wars that we have no business fighting. Iraq was a lie. A big fat Republican administration lie. Obama was very generous when he came into office and said that he was not going to spend time investigating the actions of the previous administration. Actually, the Democrats were generous when they came in in 1997 in that they didn't investigate Bush and Iraq. I suspect that, should the Republicans gain control of either house of Congress, they will not be as magnanimous. Democrats didn't go after Bush for lying to us about Iraq and causing the deaths of 10's of thousands of people and thousands of American solders, not to mention the economic cost. Republicans, on the other hand, are willing to investigate when someone may have lied about getting a blow job.

  6. #1086
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    zip98053;1059069533]The crisis started months/years BEFORE the Democrats took control of Congress. As the time line shows (you did look at it didn't you?) the unraveling started early in 2007. I believe that, with regard to trying to prevent the meltdown, Congress did everything that Bush asked them to.
    Yet prior to the Democrats taking total control of the congress we had strong economic growth and job creation. Amazing how in 2007 it started coming unraveled and the Democrats in control of Congress did nothing to prevent it. Why?

    I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say other than you don't think much of people who are not as "conservative" as you. You seem determined to blame all problems on Democrats and claim that all successes are due to actions of Republicans. That, of course, is nonsense. You rail a the massive debt caused by the government trying to stop the loss of jobs. Yet, you have no solution to the problem other than "cut taxes" but the historical data (all of it, not just the cherry-picked data that The Heritage Foundation used) indicates that cutting income taxes is not correlated with job creation. It is much more complicated than that. The taxes that effect jobs most are the rates on investment - things like capital gains taxes and investment tax credits. Those spur wealth consolidation for the purpose of business creation.
    The actions of free enterprise and capitalism always trump those of liberals who want to redistribute wealth. It isn't the government's job to create jobs, that belongs to the private sector. If that is what you learned in school you are part of the problem and not the solution. What you have a problem understanding is that it is the people's money first and that is what determines what they spend or where they invest. Interesting how you seem to buy liberal rhetoric and ignore liberal results.

    In spite of your claims, Obama is not for raising taxes on everyone. He is just for letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire. The evidence is, the wealthy are not in a recession and, according to the profit reports, large corporations are not in much of a recession either. Those groups are accumulating wealth, not spending it. Having their money sit in banks is not going to stimulate anything because people are not borrowing. If they won't spend it, we need the government to cause some of their money to be put into use. One use is to help reduce the deficit - although government borrowing does not seem to be having the crowding-out effect that it normally does, probably because of the willingness of the Chinese to buy it. The other use of this money is to spend on infrastructure. Regrettably, the last attempt at doing this was a disaster. The government gave lots of money to local governments in order to create jobs but the local governments used that money for other purposes. This means that the federal government may have to use a lot of those dreaded earmarks in order to achieve targeted results and prevent the diversion of funds by local governments as happened last time.
    Obama is trying to pick winners and losers and that should be the job of the markets and not the govt. How much more money is going to the Federal govt because of increasing the taxes on the rich? Think about it, think the rich are going to sit back and take tax increases that do nothing but promote additional spending. The rich are going to take their businesses to states that have lower taxes to offset tax increases. Already happening here in TX. Caterpillar has moved plants here out of the high tax state of Illinios. What affect with that have on state revenue? Why do you buy the rhetoric of an administration that has yet to tell the truth. Name for me one economic prediction made by Obama that has been accurate?


    Finally, I'd rather spend trillions trying to stimulate the economy than to spend it fighting wars that we have no business fighting. Iraq was a lie. A big fat Republican administration lie. Obama was very generous when he came into office and said that he was not going to spend time investigating the actions of the previous administration. Actually, the Democrats were generous when they came in in 1997 in that they didn't investigate Bush and Iraq. I suspect that, should the Republicans gain control of either house of Congress, they will not be as magnanimous. Democrats didn't go after Bush for lying to us about Iraq and causing the deaths of 10's of thousands of people and thousands of American solders, not to mention the economic cost. Republicans, on the other hand, are willing to investigate when someone may have lied about getting a blow job.
    Of coruse you would as you buy rhetoric over substance. The wars haven't cost trillions but that is what the left has told you. Why don't you do some research? Why don't you explain why those liberal lies about Iraq are never discussed only Bush so called lies? When was the Iraq Liberation Act passed and signed.

    Democrats didn't investigate Bush because they didn't want their quotes all over the media. They didn't want to see what they knew about Iraq. that is why they didn't investigate Bush and the year was 2007, not 1997. Interesting how it always is about the other party or other individuals lying and never about personal lies which liberals do every day to advance an agenda which has what affect on you?

    I had three family members in Iraq and all three said we did the right thing. What is your personal experience regarding Iraq? You have much bigger problems to worry about than what happened 8 years ago. Your state is a disaster, "your" President has added 4 million to the unemployment roles, 3 trillion to the debt, and failed to get economic growth this year about 2%. He has said jobs were his top priorities but like everything else he has done it is rhetoric that lacks substance. Instead of focusing on ways to create jobs he focused on creating a job destroyer, healthcare reform. yes, I can see why you hate Bush, it keeps you from focusing on Obama and the disaster he is.

  7. #1087
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,426

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    QUOTE Conservative

    Donc, why do you support an Administration that has generated these kind of results?
    I like backing a President that created more private sector jobs in one year, than his predecessor did in eight.


    All I see from you is attacks on the past while ignoring the agenda of this Adminstration.

    Evidently what you call an agenda is what others call fulfilling a campaign promise, such as health-care for 30+million American Citizens that don’t have access to it now.

    Another “agenda” in winger eyes is pulling the nation from the precipice of a full-blown depression, rather than what is now referred to as the great recession. Looks like a pretty good agenda from this side of the chasm.

    What is it that the majority in this country see that you don't?

    What majority would you be referring to?


    Seems that you want to continue to live in the past while ignoring the present and the economic policy that this leftwing President is implementing. Guess that is the only way you can justify your own vote and actions.
    Your right, he should have doubled down on the stimulus spending. Hell, he wouldn’t have been any worse off in the polls if he had. Could be that he might have had a few more jobs he coulda pointed to; maybe that is on his agenda after the election. Maybe he should try a few “signing statements “.



    Here is something to think about

    Here is a chart that shows past presidents and the percentage of each president's cabinet appointees who had previously worked in the private sector - you know, a real life business, not a government or teaching job.

    1) T. Roosevelt 38%
    2) Taft 40%
    3) Wilson 52%
    4) Harding 42%
    5) FDR 50%
    6) Truman 50%
    7) Eisenhower 57%
    8) Kennedy 30%
    9) LBJ 37%
    10)Nixon 53%
    11)Ford 42%
    12)Carter 22%
    13)Reagan 59%
    14)GHWB 51%
    15)Clinton 37%
    16)GWB 55%

    And the Chicken Dinner Winner is:
    OBAMA - 8%

    These are the people who want to tell YOU how to run YOUR life! ONLY ONE IN TWELVE in the Obama Cabinet HAS EVER HAD A JOB in the private sector.
    Hey, why not make this a thread; this would… maybe make a two pager.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  8. #1088
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    I like backing a President that created more private sector jobs in one year, than his predecessor did in eight.
    That is pretty funny, you have a great sense of humor. It appears that like "your" President, you make up numbers to suit your agenda.


    Evidently what you call an agenda is what others call fulfilling a campaign promise, such as health-care for 30+million American Citizens that don’t have access to it now.
    To bad the cost will be in the trillions according to CBO instead of actually cutting costs. You continue to buy the rhetoric, wonder why?

    Another “agenda” in winger eyes is pulling the nation from the precipice of a full-blown depression, rather than what is now referred to as the great recession. Looks like a pretty good agenda from this side of the chasm.
    Again, you buy the rhetoric, isn't it amazing that the so called pending depression ended in June 2009 according to NBER and that was before anything Obama could do was really implemented.



    What majority would you be referring to?
    Obama disapproval poll numbers.

    Your right, he should have doubled down on the stimulus spending. Hell, he wouldn’t have been any worse off in the polls if he had. Could be that he might have had a few more jobs he coulda pointed to; maybe that is on his agenda after the election. Maybe he should try a few “signing statements “.
    Yet on a month to month basis the unemployment numbers are higher each month this year than last year when the recession ended. I am confused as to what exactly Obama did? Apparently you see what the majority in this country don't see as will be evidenced next Tuesday.


    Hey, why not make this a thread; this would… maybe make a two pager

    You have a problem responding to one page let alone two. Still waiting for accurate data as to why you are supporting Obama.

  9. #1089
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by donc View Post
    Why the five links to something to that no one besides yourself clicks on?
    because wapo, lat, cnn, politico and cbs speak with so much more creditability

    LOL!

    This looks like a possible 94 midterm rerun. Clinton was weakened by a few blunders and of course the repugs...
    what makes you think anyone would be interested in your little analyses, what gives you the creditability

    why share personal opinions, where's the self respect in that

    let the links do the talking, their observations are so much less personal

    the unsupported opinions of any forums member are just all the more hot air

    Quote Originally Posted by donc View Post
    What majority would you be referring to?
    Poll: Most Want Obama Fired In 2012 - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

    Quote Originally Posted by donc View Post
    Your right, he should have doubled down on the stimulus spending. Hell, he wouldn’t have been any worse off in the polls if he had.
    Just don't call it a 'stimulus' - Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

    Echo Chamber: The new S-word? - Alexander Trowbridge - POLITICO.com

    you might want to open the last link, the video (after the 15 second commercial you're forced to watch at the beginning) is pretty funny

    take care, y'all

    enjoy tuesday

  10. #1090
    Student
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    98053
    Last Seen
    04-19-15 @ 03:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    264

    Re: Census finds record gap between rich and poor

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Yet prior to the Democrats taking total control of the congress we had strong economic growth and job creation. Amazing how in 2007 it started coming unraveled and the Democrats in control of Congress did nothing to prevent it. Why?
    OK, so the President has nothing to do with setting policy and providing leadership. It is not his job to lead. Everything falls on the actions of Congress. I suppose that all of your dissatisfaction about the last two years is aimed at the Democratically controlled Congress and you attribute none of the wrong doing to Obama. Right?

    I also assume that you will attribute anything good that happened in the Reagan administration to the Democratic House. Right? Or are your rules more selective. Is it a two out of three thing?


    The actions of free enterprise and capitalism always trump those of liberals who want to redistribute wealth. It isn't the government's job to create jobs, that belongs to the private sector. If that is what you learned in school you are part of the problem and not the solution. What you have a problem understanding is that it is the people's money first and that is what determines what they spend or where they invest. Interesting how you seem to buy liberal rhetoric and ignore liberal results.
    OK, if it is not the job of government to create jobs, why are you blaming Obama and the Democrats for job loses? If you mean wealth redistribution, do you mean the kind of redistribution that is the topic of this thread? The fact that the the wealth in this country is increasingly concentrated in the hands fewer and fewer. I would say that if you believe that this something that government should try to address and that the government should not try to fulfill their Constitutional mandate to secure the blessings of liberty to all Americans, then sir, I would say that this makes you a part of the real problem. Also, while regurgitate Fox talking points, its not good form to say that someone else not thinking independently.


    Obama is trying to pick winners and losers and that should be the job of the markets and not the govt. How much more money is going to the Federal govt because of increasing the taxes on the rich? Think about it, think the rich are going to sit back and take tax increases that do nothing but promote additional spending. The rich are going to take their businesses to states that have lower taxes to offset tax increases. Already happening here in TX. Caterpillar has moved plants here out of the high tax state of Illinios. What affect with that have on state revenue? Why do you buy the rhetoric of an administration that has yet to tell the truth. Name for me one economic prediction made by Obama that has been accurate?
    As Yogi said, "predictions are really hard, especially about the future." He did say that stepping in to help GM and Crysler was the right thing to do and, as it turns out, it was. We, the US government, actually has a chance of making a profit on that deal. He did say that we needed to have a stimulus package that cut taxes for 95% of the population. He got the Democratic Congress to pass that and I think that he was right as it had an immediate impact on slowing the decline of the GDP. He said that the other stimulus actions were necessary to stop the economy from shrinking and it stopped shrinking and is starting to grow again. Its getting better but I suspect that you aren't interested in admitting that he did anything right.

    BTW, I'm still trying to figure out what went wrong with the Obama tax cuts. You claim that tax cuts cause job growth. Yet, we had a tax cut, no job growth. Go figure. Maybe its because he's left handed and only tax cut legislation signed by right-handed Presidents cause job growth.


    Of coruse you would as you buy rhetoric over substance. The wars haven't cost trillions but that is what the left has told you. Why don't you do some research? Why don't you explain why those liberal lies about Iraq are never discussed only Bush so called lies? When was the Iraq Liberation Act passed and signed.
    I'm sorry, what liberal lies about Iraq are you talking about? Yes, the Iraq Liberation Act was passed and signed under Clinton in 1998 when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. As we have already established, you lay the blame for actions of the government on the party in control of Congress. That was the method you chose to avoid having to admit that Bush had any culpability in the financial crisis.

    Yep, I was guilty of exaggeration for emphasis in saying that the Iraq war cost trillions. In reality it is only about $900 billion. Mia culpa.

    Democrats didn't investigate Bush because they didn't want their quotes all over the media. They didn't want to see what they knew about Iraq. that is why they didn't investigate Bush and the year was 2007, not 1997. Interesting how it always is about the other party or other individuals lying and never about personal lies which liberals do every day to advance an agenda which has what affect on you?
    Your smugness is laughable.

    I had three family members in Iraq and all three said we did the right thing. What is your personal experience regarding Iraq? You have much bigger problems to worry about than what happened 8 years ago. Your state is a disaster, "your" President has added 4 million to the unemployment roles, 3 trillion to the debt, and failed to get economic growth this year about 2%. He has said jobs were his top priorities but like everything else he has done it is rhetoric that lacks substance. Instead of focusing on ways to create jobs he focused on creating a job destroyer, healthcare reform. yes, I can see why you hate Bush, it keeps you from focusing on Obama and the disaster he is.
    Well, my state isn't a disaster. There are parts that are doing quite nicely and others, where the jobs are mostly unskilled and semi-skilled are not doing so good.

    I didn't go to Iraq and I don't have many close friends who went there. I appreciate the sacrifice that those people made but I don't need to defer to their opinion of whether that was the right thing to do. I served in the military during war and, even though I never had to enter combat, I think that I, like every other American, is still entitled to an opinion on the Iraq war. Saddam was a really bad person who was basically conducting a genocide against the Kurds. However, there are dictators in parts of Africa that are much worse. We aren't doing anything about them. Of course, those other assholes aren't sitting next to the worlds largest proven reserve of petroleum. The justification for us to go into Iraq was a sham. Without the case for WMDs, Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz would never have been able to convince Congress to authorize ground actions in Iraq. I don't know if you have heard the news, but there were no WMDs in Iraq. It was a sham. Now, the major argument by the apologists is "well, Saddam was a bastard." BFD.

    I don't hate Bush and I'm mad as hell at Obama (but not for the reasons that you are). What I do hate is hypocrites who refuse to accept that their "side" is not blameless. I hate it when the self-righteous claim every problem is the fault of the other side and every success is because of their side.

    I don't think that Bush was a very good President but I don't vilify him. I use him only to try to bring attention to the duplicity of your arguments. You seem to find nothing but fault in any action by a Democrat and you castigate liberals and seem to think that Republicans and conservatives are without fault.
    Last edited by zip98053; 10-30-10 at 01:09 AM.

Posting Permissions

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