Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,827
- 1,790
Sometimes I wish the president had the dictatorial power over the economy that some seem to think he has.
That would be when the president in power agreed with you, right?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sometimes I wish the president had the dictatorial power over the economy that some seem to think he has.
Sometimes I wish the president had the dictatorial power over the economy that some seem to think he has.
That would be when the president in power agreed with you, right?
The Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010
And it's way worse than all of that; because that does not account for inflation. That means that families are dipping into their savings AND having their remaining savings devalued so that Obama can have his party and buy votes for his party to continue. This article should convince even the most hardcore leftists that he needs to be booted. And any "independent" voting for him is not an f'ing independent. You vote for this clown and you may as well calll it official that you are are brain dead idiot.
Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.
Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.
No.
Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.
But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.
Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.
Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.
No.
Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.
But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.
When has that ever happened?
LMAO you mean when the REPUBLICANS got into office and balanced the budget and cut welfare?????? You do know it was the opposite of redistribution of wealth right????? Are you so ignorant of history????I am going to guess you were a baby when this happened.No.
Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.
But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.
When has that ever happened?
A long time ago, in the 1990s.
Although, I think the 1950s is a better example.
LMAO you mean when the REPUBLICANS got into office and balanced the budget and cut welfare?????? You do know it was the opposite of redistribution of wealth right????? Are you so ignorant of history????I am going to guess you were a baby when this happened.When has that ever happened?
A long time ago, in the 1990s.
Although, I think the 1950s is a better example.
LMAO you mean when the REPUBLICANS got into office and balanced the budget and cut welfare?????? You do know it was the opposite of redistribution of wealth right????? Are you so ignorant of history????I am going to guess you were a baby when this happened.A long time ago, in the 1990s.
Although, I think the 1950s is a better example.
Do you mean the 90s or the 50s? I mean, either way you're wrong, but I just want to know which decade to focus on when educating you.
LMAO you mean when the REPUBLICANS got into office and balanced the budget and cut welfare?????? You do know it was the opposite of redistribution of wealth right????? Are you so ignorant of history????I am going to guess you were a baby when this happened.
Do you mean the 90s or the 50s? I mean, either way you're wrong, but I just want to know which decade to focus on when educating you.
You would do better to educate yourself cause right now I am shocked you can dress yourself.
I think I'll blame the Republicans in Congress for their obstructionism and failure to compromise.
Do you mean the 90s or the 50s? I mean, either way you're wrong, but I just want to know which decade to focus on when educating you.
You would do better to educate yourself cause right now I am shocked you can dress yourself.
Look at the top tax rates for both decades. You can include the 60s too. The top rates were either high, or had recently been increased substantially. In all three decades, there was a clear, dramatic increase in the average salary of the American worker.
Welfare has nothing to do with this discussion.
No you dummy spending does.You would do better to educate yourself cause right now I am shocked you can dress yourself.
Look at the top tax rates for both decades. You can include the 60s too. The top rates were either high, or had recently been increased substantially. In all three decades, there was a clear, dramatic increase in the average salary of the American worker.
Welfare has nothing to do with this discussion.
Here:
LMAO you mean when the REPUBLICANS got into office and balanced the budget and cut welfare?????? You do know it was the opposite of redistribution of wealth right????? Are you so ignorant of history????I am going to guess you were a baby when this happened.When has that ever happened?
A long time ago, in the 1990s.
Although, I think the 1950s is a better example.
No you dummy spending does.Look at the top tax rates for both decades. You can include the 60s too. The top rates were either high, or had recently been increased substantially. In all three decades, there was a clear, dramatic increase in the average salary of the American worker.
Welfare has nothing to do with this discussion.
Here:
Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.
No.
Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.
But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.
No blaming Bush here.....This is all on Obama's watch..
Family Net Worth Drops to Level of Early
Isn't reducing the net worth of individuals right in line with thinking that redistribution of wealth is the goal. Look at how it's already worked. If you want individual net worth reduced to where it was in the 70s or 60s, reelect obama.
No.
Redistributing wealth does not lower all wealth. In fact, when correctly done, all wealth can go up.
But again, this was not caused by Obama, as you would know if you read.
wow!
Show me how redistributing wealth can cause all wealth to go up.