Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Where Republican Leadership Has Gotten Us

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default Where Republican Leadership Has Gotten Us

    This is an interesting graph and it shows just where it's got working class American for supporting Republicans. While the national wealth has exploded since 1980 the average persons share of that wealth has dramatically decreased from 1980 to 1995 where under Clinton it rose again, to dropping off the Cliff under W.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...-to-record-low
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    39,053
    Thanks
    3,463
    Thanked 1,324 Times in 1,188 Posts
    Groans
    1,184
    Groaned 693 Times in 631 Posts

    Default

    Here's the key phase here: "the average persons share of that wealth".

    I've never been employed by a poor man, Moot.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damn Yankee View Post
    Here's the key phase here: "the average persons share of that wealth".

    I've never been employed by a poor man, Moot.
    Beleive it or not, it is not all about you.
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  4. The Following User Groans At Rune For This Awful Post:

    Mr. Groan (06-26-2011)

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    47,970
    Thanks
    4,579
    Thanked 3,084 Times in 2,618 Posts
    Groans
    3,368
    Groaned 2,119 Times in 1,992 Posts

    Default

    mott is such a hack. when the economy went down under bush, it was bush's fault...now that obama is president he gets no blame for this. if you notice the biggest drop happened under obama and a dem controlled congress....but mott the hack blames only republicans

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cancel 2018. 3 For This Post:

    DamnYankee (06-15-2011), Topspin (06-15-2011)

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople View Post
    This is an interesting graph and it shows just where it's got working class American for supporting Republicans. While the national wealth has exploded since 1980 the average persons share of that wealth has dramatically decreased from 1980 to 1995 where under Clinton it rose again, to dropping off the Cliff under W.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...-to-record-low

    Let me attempt once again to explain this to your dumb ass. "The rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer!" OMG... that's exactly what logic dictates, should be happening! You see, people who are rich, generally speaking, are that way because they have the proclivity to make money...they like making money, it's their passion, it's what they do! While poor people, generally speaking, lack this same motivation, thus, they remain poor. When you objectively look at the rich an poor over any given length of time, the rich will always be "getting richer" because that's precisely what rich people do, and poor people will be remaining the same or getting poorer, because that's what poor people tend to do. There is nothing "unfair" about this, it's just how natural inclinations among humans are, some people are more motivated to earn wealth than others, and generally, they become rich and get richer. This is not a "growing inequality" as the article states, it is a perfectly natural and logical occurrence, and it's been happening this way for centuries, and will continue to happen as long as we have humans and some degree of freedom.

    What you wish to do, is to limit our freedoms. Have the government step in and dictate when we've earned too much, and take some of that wealth away so you can redistribute it to the poor. But this doesn't work, you will still have the same perceived "growing inequality" regardless of your redistribution, because people won't change behaviors. The only possible result you could obtain, is to finally burden income producers so much, that they simply throw up their hands and stop earning incomes, then everyone is in poverty. Of course, well all be "the same" and things will be "equal" then, none of us will have a pot to piss in, and that's what will make YOU happiest! Because then, you can sit back and say... look what I did! Now we are all equal and life is completely fair to everyone... no one has more than another, even though no one has anything anymore. But that's FAIR!

  8. The Following User Groans At Dixie - In Memoriam For This Awful Post:

    Topspin (06-15-2011)

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Convington, La
    Posts
    22,763
    Thanks
    2,261
    Thanked 543 Times in 432 Posts
    Groans
    1,642
    Groaned 623 Times in 562 Posts

    Default

    Biggest Opportunity for the riechwingers is the utter total ignorance of dems on economics.

    Gee in capitalism, the owners of the capital are doing better than workers who now compete in a global market. Wholly fuck what a revalation. Now if repukes could actually run into the end zone and spike instead of waving the ball at the 5.
    The stone that the builder refused
    Will always be the head corner stone

  10. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topspin View Post
    Biggest Opportunity for the riechwingers is the utter total ignorance of dems on economics.

    Gee in capitalism, the owners of the capital are doing better than workers who now compete in a global market. Wholly fuck what a revalation. Now if repukes could actually run into the end zone and spike instead of waving the ball at the 5.
    Or if the Dems could just get their shit together and organize themselves then maybe they could charge what the market would bear instead of taking what they can get.

    On one level I don't give a flying fuck. I worked my ass off to get not only a college education but I took a demanding science major and followed that up with grad school so I'm getting my slice of the pie and since my wife also has a college education our household income is well above the US median household income. So education is certainly the key to prosperity (in my opinion if you can learn organic chemistry and/or calculus you got it dicked cause you can learn just about anything if you can learn those two subjects).

    So yea....on the economic side.....you're probably right Topper....whining about the rich being rich aint getting you fucking no where if you're poor.

    On the political side however, it's exasperating how clueless reichwing nuts are. They are fucking oblivious to the real danger that such a graph represents. Here's what their missing. Obviously the graph is showing that the rich are getting fabulously richer and the poor and working classes are staying poor. The middle and professional classes are no longer just treading water. They are losing ground economically as this graph clearly shows. These aren't the poorly educated unskilled huddled unwashed masses were talking about here. This is the most productive segment of our population responsible for creating most of the wealth in this nation and their not getting their fair share of the pie.

    Now what do you think, in the long term, the political consequences of that will be? How much longer can this trend continue before political instability occurs? What this graph is showing is that our nation is headed for trouble, big trouble, unless this trend is reversed. We have all ready gotten to the point where middle class people cannot afford home ownership, a new car or to send their children to college. The real question politically is how much longer will this trend occur before middle and professional classes rise and demand reform?
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Convington, La
    Posts
    22,763
    Thanks
    2,261
    Thanked 543 Times in 432 Posts
    Groans
    1,642
    Groaned 623 Times in 562 Posts

    Default

    thanks for the comedy there were many zingers
    fair share- bhahaha
    professional classes not treading water- child please put the crying towel down that is you if you don't have a million by 50 you didn't want it.
    The stone that the builder refused
    Will always be the head corner stone

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Topspin For This Post:

    Cancel 2018. 3 (06-15-2011)

  13. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Let me attempt once again to explain this to your dumb ass. "The rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer!" OMG... that's exactly what logic dictates, should be happening! You see, people who are rich, generally speaking, are that way because they have the proclivity to make money...they like making money, it's their passion, it's what they do! While poor people, generally speaking, lack this same motivation, thus, they remain poor. When you objectively look at the rich an poor over any given length of time, the rich will always be "getting richer" because that's precisely what rich people do, and poor people will be remaining the same or getting poorer, because that's what poor people tend to do. There is nothing "unfair" about this, it's just how natural inclinations among humans are, some people are more motivated to earn wealth than others, and generally, they become rich and get richer. This is not a "growing inequality" as the article states, it is a perfectly natural and logical occurrence, and it's been happening this way for centuries, and will continue to happen as long as we have humans and some degree of freedom.

    What you wish to do, is to limit our freedoms. Have the government step in and dictate when we've earned too much, and take some of that wealth away so you can redistribute it to the poor. But this doesn't work, you will still have the same perceived "growing inequality" regardless of your redistribution, because people won't change behaviors. The only possible result you could obtain, is to finally burden income producers so much, that they simply throw up their hands and stop earning incomes, then everyone is in poverty. Of course, well all be "the same" and things will be "equal" then, none of us will have a pot to piss in, and that's what will make YOU happiest! Because then, you can sit back and say... look what I did! Now we are all equal and life is completely fair to everyone... no one has more than another, even though no one has anything anymore. But that's FAIR!
    "You see, people who are rich, generally speaking, are that way because they have the proclivity to make money...they like making money, it's their passion, it's what they do! While poor people, generally speaking, lack this same motivation, thus, they remain poor."

    That is a bunch of crap!

    Ponder this: There are many more poor people than rich people, yet, there are far more people from rich families who "become" rich than there are people from poor families. Why do you think when we hear about a person from a poor background who "makes good" we jump up and down and celebrate? Why don't we do the same thing when we hear about a person from a wealthy background who "makes good"? Well, the obvious answer is there are a lot of people from wealthy families who "make good" so there's nothing special about it.

    Look at Shrub and his business failures. Imagine if a poor person had a massive business failure. In most circumstances that would be the end of them. They would have lost whatever money they had and no bank or "friend" would loan them money to start another business. However, people from wealthy families, like Shrub, have access to funds to try again. And again. And again. And if they just can't succeed at anything they are placed in a job because they know someone.

    For example, Michael Brown (FEMA). Hired as General Council for FEMA by his friend, Joe Allbaugh, who just so happened to have run Bush's election campaign in 2000. Small world, huh? Do you think Brown had more passion and motivation than the probable hundreds of more qualified people to fill the position? And then, of course, to become head of the organization and we know the resultant disaster.

    No, Dixie, things are not equal. There are many intelligent, ambitious people who never get a chance to get an education or who don't have the right connections to "make good". It has far more to do with luck and circumstance and who one knows as opposed to motivation and passion.

    When everyone can afford any education they wish, when everyone personally knows Presidents and company CEOs, when everyone has access to family fortunes....then talk about how the poor person lacks motivation and passion.
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to apple0154 For This Post:

    Rune (06-15-2011)

Similar Threads

  1. What GOP leadership thinks of YOU!
    By Taichiliberal in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-27-2011, 05:46 PM
  2. republican leadership
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 10:43 PM
  3. This Is How Brain-Dead the Republican Leadership Is
    By Bonestorm in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-03-2009, 09:34 AM
  4. Leadership: T or F ?
    By Hermes Thoth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-05-2008, 01:48 PM
  5. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-01-2006, 10:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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