• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Food prices soar as incomes stand still

Yeah, and?




Common courtesy does not require to come to the defense of every person who ever has their feelings hurt, particularly when they are perfectly capable of defending themselves.

And I find it pretty hypocritical of you to complain about judging people based on how much money they have given the multitude of posts you have written that judge poor people based on how much money they don't have.







Suddenly your blather about not judging people based on how much money they have is shown to be a load of crap

I wish I could like this post twice.
 
The point being that while some are getting poorer, the people at the top are getting richer, and even have people like you and others defending them

I admire successful people. Our success in life is determined by the effort we put into it. If money is your goal in life then you work hard, educate yourself, and search for opportunities. If your happiness lies in music, mechanics, or travel, then go for that. It seems there are no people more jealous of the success of others than leftists.
 
I admire successful people. Our success in life is determined by the effort we put into it. If money is your goal in life then you work hard, educate yourself, and search for opportunities. If your happiness lies in music, mechanics, or travel, then go for that. It seems there are no people more jealous of the success of others than leftists.
Unfortunately the opportunities in many of the areas you recommend that would allow for success are not available to all. Not only do we have income inequality, but more importantly due to income inequality we have opportunity inequality. If we had the latter I'd agree with you, but we don't and haven't for a decade or more.
 
Unfortunately the opportunities in many of the areas you recommend that would allow for success are not available to all. Not only do we have income inequality, but more importantly due to income inequality we have opportunity inequality. If we had the latter I'd agree with you, but we don't and haven't for a decade or more.

Of course there is income equality.Can you seriously expect otherwise? Some people are more ambitious as well as smarter. There are plenty of opportunities everywhere, just as there always has been. That you don't see them does not mean they don't exist..
 
Of course there is income equality.Can you seriously expect otherwise? Some people are more ambitious as well as smarter. There are plenty of opportunities everywhere, just as there always has been. That you don't see them does not mean they don't exist..
And like every other extreme conservative you repeat the mantra without addressing the issue that was brought up. You know as well as I do that the inequality is no longer in the realm of reasonable. If you think it is, well you're part of the problem, whether it means you've been indoctrinated to vote against your own interests or whether you're part of the elite class, I have no idea, but I can see you're part of the problem.
 
And like every other extreme conservative you repeat the mantra without addressing the issue that was brought up. You know as well as I do that the inequality is no longer in the realm of reasonable. If you think it is, well you're part of the problem, whether it means you've been indoctrinated to vote against your own interests or whether you're part of the elite class, I have no idea, but I can see you're part of the problem.

Wow, now there is a throw back argument...."If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem..."

You speak of inequality of opportunity, I would say that just is not so....

According to the annual World Wealth Report from Merill Lynch and Capgemini, the U.S. had 3.1 million millionaires in 2010, up from 2.86 million in 2009. The latest figure tops the pre-crisis peak of three million.

Merrill and Capgemini define millionaires as individuals with $1 million or more in investible assets, not including primary home, collectibles, consumables and consumer durables.

The wealth held by these millionaires also hit a record. North American millionaires had a combined wealth of $11.6 trillion, up from $10.7 trillion in 2009.

The number of Americans with $30 million is still slightly below the pre-crisis peak. In 2010 there were 40,000 North Americans with $30 million or more, up from 36,000 in 2009.

U.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires - The Wealth Report - WSJ

There are more millionaires now than in the 2000s, and more in the 2000s than in the 90s, and more in the 90s than in the 80s....and so on....In fact, at this point there are more millionaires in the United States as a country, than anywhere else in the world as a concentration.

The following is a list of the countries with the most millionaires in U.S. dollars worldwide according to the London-based wealth consultancy WealthInsight.[17]
Rank[17] Country Number of millionaires (2012)
1 United States 5,231,000
2 Japan 2,105,000
3 Germany 1,326,000
4 China 1,280,000
5 United Kingdom 675,000
6 France 555,000
7 Canada 422,000
8 Switzerland 297,000
9 Australia 275,000
10 Italy 259,000
11 India 251,000

Millionaire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You use the emotional argument instead of fact, ie: "reasonableness" is NOT for YOU to decide. It skews the facts....And the fact is that more people in the US live better, and have more materiel assets throughout their lives than anywhere else in the world. We eat better, we live better, and we own more stuff.

The problem is not in that some people become wealthy, or that the wealthy have more stuff than others. The problem is that the drive to think in ways that produce the drive to attain wealth is being quelled in today's society through the demonetization of those who attain it. It's propaganda furthered on a political platform for the essence of control of a mass population, and the creation of a political elite.

If that is the world you want, and the landscape you want to pass on to future generations then by all means, within your own sphere of influence go ahead, and settle for mediocrity. I still would like to see my children do better than me, and so on....
 
I've managed to eat better and decrease my food budget by actually cooking.

A crock pot is a wonderful thing

Also Dana and I are losing weight
 
Well food and fuel are volatile and fluctuate widely which is why economists use the core index to make decisions. In a given month it may be as high as 4% in others it may have dived 4% but year over year it only accounts to 1% due to volatility of food.

So they say.
 
Yeah, and?

Common courtesy does not require to come to the defense of every person who ever has their feelings hurt, particularly when they are perfectly capable of defending themselves.

Doesn't mean I have to sit back and watch people throw stones either. Maybe one day you will learn that such defenses against your statements are not for the benefit of the rich, but as a counter to your position.

I mean, if you think people shouldn't counter what you say because the rich "can defend themselves" I can only imagine what deep-seated issues you must have with Obama that you feel the need to defend him on these forums...

And I find it pretty hypocritical of you to complain about judging people based on how much money they have given the multitude of posts you have written that judge poor people based on how much money they don't have.

I don't judge the poor people in any of those posts, but nice try.

Suddenly your blather about not judging people based on how much money they have is shown to be a load of crap

*Sigh* And where there was I jnot granting the poor common courtesy, let alone judging them? I am talking about the carnival barker/snake oil salesman ideology of the Democratic party that sells dependency and then writes policy to create more dependency. That has nothing to do with the poor person as a person. I'd like poor people to get jobs, Democrats SAY they want poor people to have jobs and then do everything in their power to kill job creation. Your side really, deep down, hates the poor as much as you hate the rich. It is the incessant nanny state that is the biggest detriment to the poor in this country, giving handouts that in the end are roadblocks to advancement.
 
And like every other extreme conservative you repeat the mantra without addressing the issue that was brought up. You know as well as I do that the inequality is no longer in the realm of reasonable. If you think it is, well you're part of the problem, whether it means you've been indoctrinated to vote against your own interests or whether you're part of the elite class, I have no idea, but I can see you're part of the problem.

What did i say that was extreme??? Please quote it.
 
Doesn't mean I have to sit back and watch people throw stones either. Maybe one day you will learn that such defenses against your statements are not for the benefit of the rich, but as a counter to your position.

I mean, if you think people shouldn't counter what you say because the rich "can defend themselves" I can only imagine what deep-seated issues you must have with Obama that you feel the need to defend him on these forums...

Geez what a pile of hypocrisy you just posted!

No one said you have to sit back. All I did was ask why I should care, a question you still can't provide a good answer to

So go ahead and whine about how those other "bad" people are throwing stones in order to justify why you are so right in getting up and doing the same.


I don't judge the poor people in any of those posts, but nice try.

Yeah, right. There's nothing judgmental about claiming that people who have chosen to not work, for whatever reason, have chosen to "sponge more" :roll:

BTW, with all your accusations about how I've judged the wealthy, you still haven't posted any quote of mine where I say anything judgmental about the wealthy.


*Sigh* And where there was I jnot granting the poor common courtesy, let alone judging them? I am talking about the carnival barker/snake oil salesman ideology of the Democratic party that sells dependency and then writes policy to create more dependency. That has nothing to do with the poor person as a person. I'd like poor people to get jobs, Democrats SAY they want poor people to have jobs and then do everything in their power to kill job creation. Your side really, deep down, hates the poor as much as you hate the rich. It is the incessant nanny state that is the biggest detriment to the poor in this country, giving handouts that in the end are roadblocks to advancement.

Your entire attitude is rife with judgment, but I guess that's only wrong when I judge, even though I haven't made any judgment about the wealthy. It's becoming more and more obvious that your comments about judging are nothing more than an attack you toss around whenever someone disagrees with you and has nothing to do with you actually being opposed to having people make judgments (as demonstrated by your own rampant habit of judging others)
 
So food has went up 6.4%? So I pay $20/mo. more now for a family of 3 than I did several years ago...

Meanwhile my wages have went up to easily compensate for this "increase"
 
Geez what a pile of hypocrisy you just posted!

No one said you have to sit back. All I did was ask why I should care, a question you still can't provide a good answer to

So go ahead and whine about how those other "bad" people are throwing stones in order to justify why you are so right in getting up and doing the same.

I'm only throwing stones at those who are here to defend themselves.

Yeah, right. There's nothing judgmental about claiming that people who have chosen to not work, for whatever reason, have chosen to "sponge more" :roll:

BTW, with all your accusations about how I've judged the wealthy, you still haven't posted any quote of mine where I say anything judgmental about the wealthy.

The same applies regardless of the person's income, be they recipient of corporate welfare, individual welfare, or farmers paid to not plant crops. I am faulting you for your incessant reliance on class warfare, my sponge comments are not. The poor who fall into the Democrats trap are making entirely rational decisions based on Democrats phony promises.

Your entire attitude is rife with judgment, but I guess that's only wrong when I judge, even though I haven't made any judgment about the wealthy. It's becoming more and more obvious that your comments about judging are nothing more than an attack you toss around whenever someone disagrees with you and has nothing to do with you actually being opposed to having people make judgments (as demonstrated by your own rampant habit of judging others)

I never said I wasn't judging anyone, I am simply not judging anyone based on income. I am challenging the idiotic Democrat lead policies that have done nothing but create dependency and government bloat wherever it is applied. That isn't to say that the Republican party hasn't also contributed heavily to government bloat over the years, but right now the Democrats defend the 30+% increase in government spending since 2008 as if the world would end without it, and always defending the government bloat on the grounds that the poor couldn't possibly live without it while demonizing anyone with money.

The Democratic party of the 2000s is a disaster to prosperity in America. They like to hold up Bill Clinton as a role model while sprinting hard left from every single Clinton policy of the 1990s with the only real exception being the Clintons fight for single payer in the early 90s. The average business owner in the 1990s could at least expect that the administration was not seeking to punish them for making money, and were on the same page on the need to a stable, long-term consistent economy to allow long term business planning. Democrats today are an unmitigated disaster, wreaking havoc in the economy, inflating the housing market with trillions in government backed loans that killed the healthy risk assessment in the markets to creating uncertainty with every new law and every new short term exemption from said law, and then blaming the businesses trying to stay afloat in the middle of Typhoon Obama for casting off ballast.

You want to know what is wrong with the economy, and why the poor remain poor, look no further than today's Democratic Party and the nearest mirror. Your party of choice has made poverty the rational short term solution while greatly reducing the ability to make long term plans.

Do I care about the poor? You better believe I care about the poor like I care about everyone. I care enough about them to to hope they plug their ears the the Democrats siren song of free money before they dash the future on the rocks. I also do this for people of every level of income. The less everyone relies of the Government for a solution the quicker things get solved.
 
Wow, now there is a throw back argument...."If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem..."

Reminds me of the ol' GW Bush there. heheh

There are more millionaires now than in the 2000s, and more in the 2000s than in the 90s, and more in the 90s than in the 80s....and so on....In fact, at this point there are more millionaires in the United States as a country, than anywhere else in the world as a concentration.

Being a millionaire today means less than being on in the 2000's, or the 90's, or the 80's. My current salary in 1950 would make me a rich rich man. So we have to be able to normalize the data to something, because just saying there are more millionaires now doesn't really mean all that much. The true metric is wealth aggregation and disparity.
 
Reminds me of the ol' GW Bush there. heheh
Why? The expression goes back well before him.

Being a millionaire today means less than being on in the 2000's, or the 90's, or the 80's. My current salary in 1950 would make me a rich rich man. So we have to be able to normalize the data to something, because just saying there are more millionaires now doesn't really mean all that much. The true metric is wealth aggregation and disparity.

When people start relying on food stamps, unemployment insurance and injury claims, while others work to advance their station in life, there will naturally be greater income disparities.

Of course many of these unemployed people may be seeking their muse through painting, dancing, sculpting or otherwise searching for ways to express their long dormant artistic tendencies.
 
When people start relying on food stamps, unemployment insurance and injury claims, while others work to advance their station in life, there will naturally be greater income disparities.

Of course many of these unemployed people may be seeking their muse through painting, dancing, sculpting or otherwise searching for ways to express their long dormant artistic tendencies.

When the system is set up to promote that, you start to see the end of economic mobility as corporate capitalism takes center stage. Wealth piles up more and more in the hands of the super wealthy. As economic mobility dies, you'll need these programs to support the people you no longer allow to freely participate in the market. It goes with the territory. But for the super rich, it's win-win. Teach people to be sedentary and compliant while aggregating wealth beyond compare along with the protection of staying wealthy that little to no economic mobility provides.
 
When the system is set up to promote that, you start to see the end of economic mobility as corporate capitalism takes center stage. Wealth piles up more and more in the hands of the super wealthy. As economic mobility dies, you'll need these programs to support the people you no longer allow to freely participate in the market. It goes with the territory. But for the super rich, it's win-win. Teach people to be sedentary and compliant while aggregating wealth beyond compare along with the protection of staying wealthy that little to no economic mobility provides.

So the answer to that is open up the free markets right?
 
So the answer to that is open up the free markets right?

Free market enables the highest amount of economic mobility and wealth distribution. It's the ideal to strive towards. If we could really restore free market.capitalism, we will have gone a long way in addressing some of our major problems.
 
Then you didn't look very far. Harlem is an area where real estate prices are rising more rapidly than almost anywhere else in the city. There are thousands of apts and brownstones selling for prices in the 7 figure range.
Harlem Real Estate & Harlem Homes For Sale — Trulia.com

This is what I wrote about. Finding some high dollar corner someone carved out doesn't change reality which is what you do for any partisan issue - time and again. To claim Harlem is an affluent area points to your willing to abandon all intellect integrity in blind and truth-denial for your Democratic religion.


picture-uh=3ec64cf8b5766de2f6e48ac4951b7ed3-ps=45ab047a8453be33779b91eb56a3b73-Income-Investment-New-York-NY-10026.jpg
 
And if you drive through run down communities throughout Appalachia, or large swaths of the Rust belt and Bible Belt where people are living in trailer parks and decimated communities with high unemployment, that is your Republican voting block.

I don't think that is accurate.
 
No that is what happens or are you one of those anti-government conspiracy nuts.

I'm neither a nut nor anti government. I just understand that our government is incompetent and corrupt. Perhaps yours is not. I don't have any experience with it.
 
When the system is set up to promote that, you start to see the end of economic mobility as corporate capitalism takes center stage. Wealth piles up more and more in the hands of the super wealthy. As economic mobility dies, you'll need these programs to support the people you no longer allow to freely participate in the market. It goes with the territory. But for the super rich, it's win-win. Teach people to be sedentary and compliant while aggregating wealth beyond compare along with the protection of staying wealthy that little to no economic mobility provides.

Every part of the world in every economic system has "super wealthy."

Be-good regulatory policies shut down virtually every major US industry. Any rational business person would offshore every aspect of their business they possibly can.

Its not like that isn't Obama's policy. The GM loans had a specific usage. They financed new GM factories in China. As the last of industry and capital flees from the USA, those destroying this country rage it isn't happening fast enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom