You are just trying to make me feel better, but it's not working since I know you are lying.
64% can't cover $1,000 emergency
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
You are just trying to make me feel better, but it's not working since I know you are lying.
That's a real sound measure you're using there - "more goods in the average house." You're one of the haves; you probably forgot what it's like to be a have not.
All the talk about "stuff" eclipses the very real issues that heating, food & education bills are bankrupting average families, and that most now have to have 2 parents working full-time just to make ends meet (another fact that's getting left out of the discussion).
Your plastic data doesn't mean shit. Some people have always lived beyond their means.
I lived through that time as an adult, not an eight year old. Your interpretation of bogus government charts doesn't mean shit to me.
Why are you comparing our poor to third world countries? Kind of telling. The OP says we are on our way, not we are, so obviously we are not there yet.
Do you deny trade imbalance, and that the creation of wealth has declined?
bullshit your ignoring the blatant economic fact that the average family has more goods now than they did. And while you wail ignorantly that average salaries don't beat inflation you also ignore mobility. I am a have, and as most know here I was born big time have not.
Do you EVER post anything factual?
This is a debate forum, not an opinion forum.
No one except your fascist rightwing brethren give a fuck ABOUT YOUR STUPID, BIGOTTED OPINION, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I think they would level the playing field far more than you think. Take hedge fund managers right now and their 'lobbying' (aka bribing) politicians not to change THEIR loophole in terms of how their income is taxed. Take Buffet and his commonly used example of his own effective tax rate and that of his secretary. Think of the extra revenue that would generate that could in turn be used to raise the standard deduction or some similar effect.
Yes, productivity has increased. Now... how much is due to TECHNOLOGY and how much is due to the workers? From my industry, I am far more productive today than I was when I first started because when I first started, the internet was in its infancy (AOL was still a big kahuna) and very very slow. Computers then could not handle the systems that I have currently running. Email expanded communication efficiency. Etc...
I don't have a problem saying the top should share more of those gains with the employees, but lets be real about the productivity gains.
That said, I agree completely with your comments on education. So, like health care, we have to address the CAUSE of the rise in costs. What is causing higher education (not to mention k-12) to skyrocket over the last three decades? (I honestly do not know and would love an explanation)
Unfucking real. Never even made half a decent years salary but you have the stupidity to support the side thats wants wages lowered and the gigantic balls to come here and talk about it. Hypocrite.
Don't keep promising to relieve us of your misery if you are never really going to do it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) saying 'some' have is very misleading... IN NO WAY was it prevalent. Not in ANY way close to what we see today. People even just 50 years ago could not get access to credit... let alone the credit levels we see today.
Oh... so because you personally might have experienced better times then, we should throw out government statistics and the economic conditions as a whole?
What is telling is your inability to comprehend what was written. I compared our poor to the poor of other 'first world' countries and to the MIDDLE Income classes of other countries. As I stated, our poor are better off than the vast majority of either category.
Do you understand what CAUSES the trade imbalance? The largest component is OIL. You want to bring that wealth back to the US? So do I. Here is how we do it.....
We need a 'going to the moon' type national initiative.... this one will be to convert transportation in the US from oil based gasoline to nat gas consumption. Make it a 3 or 5 year plan. In that time we do the following:
1) Drill our nat gas sites in the US
2) Owners of gas stations have that time to add nat gas distribution
3) Automakers have that time to retool their lines and escalate production of nat gas vehicles
4) Consumers using older vehicles can in the meantime convert existing vehicles to nat gas using tech already available.... subsidize it for those families making under $50k per year.
Transportation consumes about 70% of our oil consumption. Eliminate the bulk of that, drill nat gas here, increase oil production in the US and we can reach energy independence.
Obviously we can also increase R&D into clean/alt energy to develop the technologies of the next decade and beyond.
Do the above and you are going to eliminate the bulk of our trade deficit, return the money to the US, put US workers back to work, all of which increases domestic spending which will snow ball into the other sectors of the market.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I included that... though that is not necessarily a less risky way as our nat gas supplies look like they far exceed our oil supplies. Plus, nat gas burns cleaner which can lead to improved health conditions.
Alias
Banned
Unfucking real. You think 50k is not a "decent" year's salary, but you have the stupidity to support higher taxes while half the nation's workers pay absolutely no federal income taxes, which I have paid my entire life into SSI and Medicare since 1965. You're worse than a hypocrite. You're an ignorant indoctrinated drone who parrots what he's told.
I'm all for natural gas obviously. That said they have about the same current adoption rate as electric cars.
the oil is there and we could wipe out the trade defecit and create millions of high paying jobs with technology that is already 100% adopted.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes... hence my comment that it has to be a 'going to the moon' type national initiative to make it work. I agree with you on the viability of oil as well.... I just think we will get more people on board if we go with the cleaner technology. Plus, the nat gas tech is already in existence... building out the infrastructure for its distribution, drilling for oil, drilling for nat gas, retooling the auto's, converting existing vehicles.... ALL of those create jobs. Plus, as stated, with cleaner burn from nat gas it should have positive affects on overall health and thus potentially help to stem rising health care costs. (help... not fix)
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yeah, I seriously doubt it is even as high as 1%. We should do everything we can to gain energy independence. Including drilling oil, because even if we do the conversion of transportation to nat gas (as much as we can), we are still going to need oil.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Nat gas isn't to practical. Its reduced in power from gasoline (up to 1/3 for a comparable motor) and mileage is reduced, meaning you would need to use more. Plus we'd end up getting all our nat gas from Russia (they have the largest reserves and are the largest supplier).
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Top, this is Captain Billy. Married. With job. More pussy than anyone else (though most is of poor quality). And no, we don't have more nat gas than Russia. We have reserves for about 100 years. Long time yeah, but Russia has more and can extract it cheaper.