• 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!

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

Neomalthusian said:
I do believe it has been intentional. Who knows if the candidates take themselves seriously or not, but Americans don't. Sure the dyed in the wool Republican voters will rally behind whoever the GOP throws at them, but there is no genuine excitement about any of them. And as for '08, I don't need to point to anything more than 1) Romney ducking out early and 2) Palin. It was a throw away. This year will be too, if I'm putting money on it.

We are passive recipients of who the parties and power structures behind them deliver to us. It's not democratic, and nothing's really going to change.
Click to expand...

I am very happy with the the democratic choice, there is no one on the horizon, including third parties, I would prefer.
 
Catawba said:
This is why it is so very poetic that Romney will be the representative of the 1% in the big battle with the 99% coming up in November. If it this had been scripted for a movie, there is no one better they could have chosen than the King of the 1% himself to represent his kind.
Click to expand...

Poetic indeed. Remind me again who enabled this 90% to go to the 1%.
 
Catawba said:
I am very happy with the the democratic choice, there is no one on the horizon, including third parties, I would prefer.
Click to expand...

That's why you're happy with the Democratic choice?

Other than having to hear Bush's incessant bumbling idiocy in front of the microphone, I have a hard time imagining what would really be different were he still President. They support the same policies.
 
Catawba said:
Even though their campaign strategy since 2010 has pissed off hispanics, blacks, women and the working class, I don't believe it has been their intent. I think in their zeal to beat Obama, they have just pushed the moderates away from their party, including possible contenders that might have beaten Obama.
Click to expand...

telling the truth seems to piss off most of those people it seems
 
Dickieboy said:
Poetic indeed. Remind me again who enabled this 90% to go to the 1%.
Click to expand...


Reaganomics (deregulation and supply side economics) began in 1981 under the Reagan Administration, the same failed con that Romney is selling today.

It is poetic the GOP chose Daddy Warbucks to represent the 1% in battle with the 99%. Should make for some epic campaign ads soon! :cool:
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Reaganomics (deregulation and supply side economics) began in 1981 under the Reagan Administration, the same failed con that Romney is selling today.

It is poetic the GOP chose Daddy Warbucks to represent the 1% in battle with the 99%. Should make for some epic campaign ads soon! :cool:
Click to expand...


What is going to make the ads EPIC is the corporate take over (possibly even some slimmed through foreign buck) slough of greenback being chucked at it with the citizens united ruling. I still shake my head at SCOTUS on this ruling and it doesn't much surprise me that the politicians are not doing anything about it, shh because they actually want the money. nod;wink
 
Last edited:
barbarian_style said:
What is going to make the ads EPIC is the corporate take over (possibly even some slimmed through foreign buck) slough of greenback being chucked at it with the citizens united ruling. I still shake my head at SCOTUS on this ruling and it doesn't much surprise me that the politicians are not doing anything about it, shh because they actually want the money. nod;wink
Click to expand...

You make a good point, this will be a first time for unlimited anonymous corporate campaign donations. However, even with that, I don't think they will be able obscure the reality of the last decade of failed supply side economics and deregulation, and its devastating effects on the working class and the economy.
 
Catawba said:
Reaganomics (deregulation and supply side economics) began in 1981 under the Reagan Administration, the same failed con that Romney is selling today.
Click to expand...

Huh? The OP states:

JP Hochbaum said:
“In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% … but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6%, while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality.”
Click to expand...

So let me get you point straight. The author references income growth IN 2010 THE FIRST YEAR OF THE RECOVERY under the current administration and you blame Reaganomics, an administration from 20-25 years ago. And somehow the ramifications of the ‘80’s policies ‘jumped’ the ‘90’s which saw 20% income growth (per OP link). How does that work? I’m going to need a more detailed explanation of this as it appears you are reverting into your customary ‘Reagaonomics/supply side/trickle-down’ mantra is the reason for all that is bad today
 
TurtleDude said:
telling the truth seems to piss off most of those people it seems
Click to expand...


Yeah, like the truth the GOP is going to be highly irrelevant after this election. Truth hurts doesn't it?
 
Catawba said:
Even though their campaign strategy since 2010 has pissed off hispanics, blacks, women and the working class, I don't believe it has been their intent. I think in their zeal to beat Obama, they have just pushed the moderates away from their party, including possible contenders that might have beaten Obama.
Click to expand...

So is Romney not a moderate? He pisses off the fringe on both sides of the aisle and hardcore right-wingers call him a liberal. I don't recall Democrats saying the same thing about their candidate back in 2008.
 
Catawba said:
This is why it is so very poetic that Romney will be the representative of the 1% in the big battle with the 99% coming up in November. If it this had been scripted for a movie, there is no one better they could have chosen than the King of the 1% himself to represent his kind.
Click to expand...

Isn't Obama in the top 1% too?

For me, hearing conservatives drone about morality and gays and contraception and religion, in this day and age, is more damning than their personal wealth. Personal wealth is an expression of freedom, their primitive opposition to social freedom is what's outrageous.
 
Catawba said:
Reaganomics (deregulation and supply side economics) began in 1981 under the Reagan Administration, the same failed con that Romney is selling today.

It is poetic the GOP chose Daddy Warbucks to represent the 1% in battle with the 99%. Should make for some epic campaign ads soon! :cool:
Click to expand...

Romney and Obama are pretty much indistinguishable in their actual actions. They may tell a different story but the one that ends up on paper is pretty much one and the same.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yeah, like the truth the GOP is going to be highly irrelevant after this election. Truth hurts doesn't it?
Click to expand...

I remember the exact same claim in 2008.
 
1Perry said:
I remember the exact same claim in 2008.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was amazed when the R's took back the House.....and I guess keeping the House still makes them irrelevant.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yeah, like the truth the GOP is going to be highly irrelevant after this election. Truth hurts doesn't it?
Click to expand...


You made that same claim in 2008 as I recall

the fact is-after this election I will still be far more prosperous than you are no matter who wins. And you will still by whining about the rich and the GOP no matter who wins. So why are you so excited about an election that won't change anything?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
All these record profits.. Where are these jobs?
Click to expand...

Jobs are nothing more than corporate need for labor. If they are making profits without needing more labor WTF cares? Its like asking a manufacturer of knives that specializes in ceramic blades why they aren't buying more steel
 
1Perry said:
I remember the exact same claim in 2008.
Click to expand...

Me too. I think the same poster made that claim. He seems to think that the dem program of breeding more and more parasites will overwhelm the productive and the industrious
 
TurtleDude said:
Jobs are nothing more than corporate need for labor. If they are making profits without needing more labor WTF cares? Its like asking a manufacturer of knives that specializes in ceramic blades why they aren't buying more steel
Click to expand...

Correct. Some people think the point of business is to employ people.
 
TurtleDude said:
Jobs are nothing more than corporate need for labor. If they are making profits without needing more labor WTF cares?
Click to expand...

And that is suppose to pass for a long term economic plan for a nation of 311 million people!?!?!?!?!

Amazing. Simply amazing.
 
Harshaw said:
Correct. Some people think the point of business is to employ people.
Click to expand...

You confuse the goal of a business with the goal of having a sustainable society for 311 million people.

If you care about such a goal that is.
 
haymarket said:
You confuse the goal of a business with the goal of having a sustainable society for 311 million people.
Click to expand...

No, it would appear that YOU are confused in that way.

The goal of a for-profit business is profit.
 
Harshaw said:
Correct. Some people think the point of business is to employ people.
Click to expand...



Many lefties think that corporations exist to

1) provide the parasites in government with tax dollars

2) provide people with jobs

3) and healthcare or health insurance

Its amazing how clueless so many are
 
haymarket said:
You confuse the goal of a business with the goal of having a sustainable society for 311 million people.

If you care about such a goal that is.
Click to expand...

One of the main strategies of the socialist left is pretending everything they want is for the "benefit of society" or

"the greater good"


or to "promote democracy"


its all horsepoop of course-lefties are just as self centered and greedy as anyone and often more so since they demand OTHERS pay for the stuff they want to take credit for
 
Harshaw said:
No, it would appear that YOU are confused in that way.

The goal of a for-profit business is profit.
Click to expand...

Your response in now way shape or from makes any sense with my post in front of it.

I stated very clearly that while profit without jobs may indeed be a goal of business it could NOT be the goal of a sustainable society for 311 million people.

Your reply attacking me made no sense at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom