If The Economy Is So Great Why Can't Most People Miss One Paycheck?

[sparky]

rather interesting responses, and from sorts that've been around....laying blame on the trappings or greed of this generation ......while quoting gub'mit economical stats as validation.

you folks do realize they'll foist any uptick as their successful cure, simutaneously blaming their predecessors for the disease

so much of it's an economic moment in time, their usual deceptive metric.

little consideration seems available for say, 40-50 years juxtaposed to the middle class lifestyle , well being, worth.

which is about my working tenure, and yes i remember when a blue collar could have a stay @ home wife, one income white picket fence suburbia existence

I guess some of you forgot that....

~S~

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It's doing great.

Some people spend well beyond their means, and save nothing. They are unprepared for emergencies.

Doing great for some but for way too many ,,NOT,,,,,,, Trump is making millions Emolument clause means nothing to him or republicans

That's because he's not violating it.

You have to be kidding ? Makes deals with countries and all of a sudden like magic his hotels are filled with people from that country?

Shrug.

It's a nice hotel. They should stay at Motel 6 maybe?

EMOULUMENTS SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL CONTINUE
In a suit wherein the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland was recently determined to have standing to sue United States President Donald J. Trump, President Trump’s motion to dismiss the action was denied.

The suit alleges that President Trump’s ownership of both the Trump Organization LLC and The Trump Organization, Inc. violate both the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses of the United States Constitution. The Foreign Emoluments Clause is set forth in U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8 and the Domestic Emoluments Clause is set forth in U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 7.


Specifically, the suit has been narrowed down to allegations involving the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. (the Hotel), a five-star, luxury hotel located near the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland noted that while both the original and Amended Complaint alleged violations going well beyond those involving the Hotel in the District of Columbia, the court, in its separate opinion regarding standing, found that Plaintiffs had demonstrated the requisite injury-in-fact for standing purposes only with respect to the Hotel and to the activities of the Trump Organization relating to it. Those allegations assert that while President Trump does not actively manage the Hotel, through the Trump Organization, he continues to own and purportedly controls the Hotel as well as the bar and restaurant and the event spaces located within the establishment. Plaintiffs contend that directly or indirectly, President Trump actually or potentially shares in the revenues that the Hotel and its appurtenant restaurant, bar, and event spaces generate in violation of the Emoluments Clauses.

 

[22lcidw]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

Because if the press told the truth......they'd be out of a job.

Yes all those in the press ,some of the smartest people in the room are all liars ,,except for those on FOX coulter and limppaw

They are shills for the progressive socialism arm of the globalists. For them to hate Trump there has to be more then his personality. Maybe they know something behind the scenes. But we hear nothing about it. Only foul mouthed venom. Not anything from all of the hate on him before he ran for President.

 

[skews13]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

Like Bill Maher? Or Barrack Obama? Or Warren Buffet? Or Bill Gates? Or the Clintons? Or me? I am doing just fine, because I dont rely on someone else to take care of me, but have enough income of my own, not to worry about missing a paycheck. Many of my friends, who own their own businesses dont worry about missing a paycheck either. Seems that when you rely on the government to take care of you, you will be fucked every time by that government. The government isnt the answer, the government is the problem....

Did you miss the part about paycheck, or are you really that obtuse?

Most people work for a living as employees and don't own their own business. They don't rely on the government.

Like Maher said, the problem is we can't have a socioeconomic system, that is of the benefit of the few.

Which is why we will be returning to a socioeconomic system that existed between 1947-1980.

Being the successful business owner that you are, this shouldn't be an issue for you right?

 

[Crepitus]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

There are a number of reasons:

But the biggest one is "Money doesn't "trickle down"".

Corporate profits are setting records, the top 1% control more than half of the wealth, and the top 10% are closing in on 90% but wages have been stagnant since Ronnie started this crap even though productivity continues to rise. Meaning we (the average Joes) are working smarter, longer and harder but the proceeds of our labor are feeding corporate profits and the already-rich instead of us.

Then what do they do with the money when they get it? More of it goes to banks in Switzerland and Panama than get reinvested in the economy, and stock by-backs don't benefit the employees they benefit the stockholders.

On the flip side of that increasing a poor or middle class person's income directly benefits the economy (and thus everyone) because it's almost immediately put right back in.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

rather interesting responses,

What I find rather interesting is your assertion that MOST furloughed workers can't manage after missing a single check.

You provided no evidence for such a claim and I surmise you have no evidence for said claim. The whole basis of this thread is based on your own ASSumptions.

For the record I know several people who are among those laid off, including my ex wife. None of them are currently struggling. In fact my ex wife STILL thinks the wall should be built.

Provide evidence for your claim or be ignored as a liar.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

Hogwash. I'm not in the top 10%, and Trump's tax cuts alone have given me an extra $220 in monthly take-home pay. For people who earn between $70K and $110K, the tax cuts have increased their net monthly pay by between $70 and $120 per month, which is not "crumbs" by any stretch.

Under Trump, wages have seen a sizable jump for the first time in years. Last year alone, wages rose by 3.2%. That's a larger raise than the military is getting this year (2.8%).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

Because if the press told the truth......they'd be out of a job.

Yes all those in the press ,some of the smartest people in the room are all liars ,,except for those on FOX coulter and limppaw

Are you filing for bankruptcy if you miss 2 weeks of pay?

 

[skews13]

rather interesting responses, and from sorts that've been around....laying blame on the trappings or greed of this generation ......while quoting gub'mit economical stats as validation.

you folks do realize they'll foist any uptick as their successful cure, simutaneously blaming their predecessors for the disease

so much of it's an economic moment in time, their usual deceptive metric.

little consideration seems available for say, 40-50 years juxtaposed to the middle class lifestyle , well being, worth.

which is about my working tenure, and yes i remember when a blue collar could have a stay @ home wife, one income white picket fence suburbia existence

I guess some of you forgot that....

~S~

The economy worked just fine for the middleclass between 1947-1980.

The voodoo ( George H W Bushs' description )economics of Ronald Reagan destroyed the middleclass in this country, and why now most Americans do not support supply side economics, and are now supportive of pre Reagan era economic tax and regulatory policies.

 

[Ambivalent1]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

Hogwash. I'm not in the top 10%, and Trump's tax cuts alone have given me an extra $220 in monthly take-home pay. For people who earn between $70K and $110K, the tax cuts have increased their net monthly pay by between $70 and $120 per month, which is not "crumbs" by any stretch.

Under Trump, wages have seen a sizable jump for the first time in years. Last year alone, wages rose by 3.2%. That's a larger raise than the military is getting this year (2.8%).

Well, but those are "crumbs" doncha know?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Nope. Easy credit and a desire for more than you could afford destroyed the middle class.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

Let me get this straight: you belong to a party who's theme is to reward failure and penalize success, and then start a topic on why we have more failure?

I would think you'd be delighted by this. Our people are becoming lazier and more irresponsible by the year. Isn't that what the left wants?

Younger people today don't take financial matters seriously. I see it in the store all the time. They buy an item for two bucks, use their debit card to pay for it, and then throw the receipt away instead of taking it home and deducting it from their account. They are too lazy to do that yet alone stop at an ATM machine and withdraw cash from their account instead of using cards all the time. Every time you use one of those cards, you expose yourself to fraud.

My father and I were discussing a similar subject. He laughed and told me he paid less for a monthly mortgage after he built our house than most people today pay for their cell phone or cable television plan. We spend tons of money on conveniences and entertainment today that we never dreamed of years ago. So of course people don't save or invest anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

Like Bill Maher? Or Barrack Obama? Or Warren Buffet? Or Bill Gates? Or the Clintons? Or me? I am doing just fine, because I dont rely on someone else to take care of me, but have enough income of my own, not to worry about missing a paycheck. Many of my friends, who own their own businesses dont worry about missing a paycheck either. Seems that when you rely on the government to take care of you, you will be fucked every time by that government. The government isnt the answer, the government is the problem....

Did you miss the part about paycheck, or are you really that obtuse?

Most people work for a living as employees and don't own their own business. They don't rely on the government.

Like Maher said, the problem is we can't have a socioeconomic system, that is of the benefit of the few.

Which is why we will be returning to a socioeconomic system that existed between 1947-1980.

Being the successful business owner that you are, this shouldn't be an issue for you right?

Which is why we will be returning to a socioeconomic system that existed between 1947-1980.

Excellent! Will the new Cold War start first?
How many countries do we need to nuke?
When we cut welfare spending by 90%, will you be sad?
Operation Wetback 2 starts in 30 minutes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

There are a number of reasons:

But the biggest one is "Money doesn't "trickle down"".

Corporate profits are setting records, the top 1% control more than half of the wealth, and the top 10% are closing in on 90% but wages have been stagnant since Ronnie started this crap even though productivity continues to rise. Meaning we (the average Joes) are working smarter, longer and harder but the proceeds of our labor are feeding corporate profits and the already-rich instead of us.

Then what do they do with the money when they get it? More of it goes to banks in Switzerland and Panama than get reinvested in the economy, and stock by-backs don't benefit the employees they benefit the stockholders.

On the flip side of that increasing a poor or middle class person's income directly benefits the economy (and thus everyone) because it's almost immediately put right back in.

even though productivity continues to rise. Meaning we (the average Joes) are working smarter, longer and harder

Those new, expensive machines we bought for you working out? You're welcome!

 

[Crepitus]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

There are a number of reasons:

But the biggest one is "Money doesn't "trickle down"".

Corporate profits are setting records, the top 1% control more than half of the wealth, and the top 10% are closing in on 90% but wages have been stagnant since Ronnie started this crap even though productivity continues to rise. Meaning we (the average Joes) are working smarter, longer and harder but the proceeds of our labor are feeding corporate profits and the already-rich instead of us.

Then what do they do with the money when they get it? More of it goes to banks in Switzerland and Panama than get reinvested in the economy, and stock by-backs don't benefit the employees they benefit the stockholders.

On the flip side of that increasing a poor or middle class person's income directly benefits the economy (and thus everyone) because it's almost immediately put right back in.

even though productivity continues to rise. Meaning we (the average Joes) are working smarter, longer and harder

Those new, expensive machines we bought for you working out? You're welcome!

Meaningless drivel, try again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

There are a number of reasons:

But the biggest one is "Money doesn't "trickle down"".

Corporate profits are setting records, the top 1% control more than half of the wealth, and the top 10% are closing in on 90% but wages have been stagnant since Ronnie started this crap even though productivity continues to rise. Meaning we (the average Joes) are working smarter, longer and harder but the proceeds of our labor are feeding corporate profits and the already-rich instead of us.

Then what do they do with the money when they get it? More of it goes to banks in Switzerland and Panama than get reinvested in the economy, and stock by-backs don't benefit the employees they benefit the stockholders.

On the flip side of that increasing a poor or middle class person's income directly benefits the economy (and thus everyone) because it's almost immediately put right back in.

even though productivity continues to rise. Meaning we (the average Joes) are working smarter, longer and harder

Those new, expensive machines we bought for you working out? You're welcome!

Meaningless drivel, try again.

An older article from economist Walter E Williams:

There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?

Walter Williams

 

[Ambivalent1]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

There are a number of reasons:

But the biggest one is "Money doesn't "trickle down"".

Corporate profits are setting records, the top 1% control more than half of the wealth, and the top 10% are closing in on 90% but wages have been stagnant since Ronnie started this crap even though productivity continues to rise. Meaning we (the average Joes) are working smarter, longer and harder but the proceeds of our labor are feeding corporate profits and the already-rich instead of us.

Then what do they do with the money when they get it? More of it goes to banks in Switzerland and Panama than get reinvested in the economy, and stock by-backs don't benefit the employees they benefit the stockholders.

On the flip side of that increasing a poor or middle class person's income directly benefits the economy (and thus everyone) because it's almost immediately put right back in.

even though productivity continues to rise. Meaning we (the average Joes) are working smarter, longer and harder

Those new, expensive machines we bought for you working out? You're welcome!

Meaningless drivel, try again.

An older article from economist Walter E Williams:

There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?

Walter Williams

How long do you think it will take one these kids to call Williams an Uncle Tom?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The economy is only doing well if you are in the top 10%. For everybody else, not so much.

There are a number of reasons:

But the biggest one is "Money doesn't "trickle down"".

Corporate profits are setting records, the top 1% control more than half of the wealth, and the top 10% are closing in on 90% but wages have been stagnant since Ronnie started this crap even though productivity continues to rise. Meaning we (the average Joes) are working smarter, longer and harder but the proceeds of our labor are feeding corporate profits and the already-rich instead of us.

Then what do they do with the money when they get it? More of it goes to banks in Switzerland and Panama than get reinvested in the economy, and stock by-backs don't benefit the employees they benefit the stockholders.

On the flip side of that increasing a poor or middle class person's income directly benefits the economy (and thus everyone) because it's almost immediately put right back in.

even though productivity continues to rise. Meaning we (the average Joes) are working smarter, longer and harder

Those new, expensive machines we bought for you working out? You're welcome!

Meaningless drivel, try again.

An older article from economist Walter E Williams:

There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).


But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?

Walter Williams

How long do you think it will take one these kids to call Williams an Uncle Tom?

Oh........I give it about ten minutes. But of course when they do that, it's not racist.

 

[blackhawk]

Because far to many people don't know how to manage money or how to live within there means if you can't or wont do this your going to be in financial peril no matter what the economy is like.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because far to many people don't know how to manage money or how to live within there means if you can't or wont do this your going to be in financial peril no matter what the economy is like.

I don't know if it's that so much or that we conditioned people to believe somebody will always bail them out. We no longer live in a world of working or starving. Somehow, somewhere there is a program for everybody in the event of failure.

So how many younger people do you know today that work a lot of hours or have two jobs? That's what we did years ago. I know or am familiar with very few. One of them is my nephew, but he's in his early 30's still living at home with his mother. He has a Masters degree and is trying to payoff college loans. I think a lot of younger people find themselves in that situation today because we have way more people going to college than years ago, and even then, college was affordable back then.